For The Trees

Who is our economy FOR, anyway?

---

About the Authors:
Dave Johnson
John Emerson
Richard Reich
Thomas Leavitt

---

 

---

On His Watch

Holding Bush Accountable for 9/11.

--- Posted at 8/31/2004 07:24:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Old Smear By The Same Crowd

Two years ago I wrote about what happened to Jimmy Carter's presidency:

"looking back now, it is much easier to see than it was at the time. Carter was being attacked in a new way, by the newly-formed web of right-wing organizations ..."

Well someone else has seen this, too. Go see Ledeen Involved in Smear Politics as Far Back as 1980. Look at the players in this smear: Ledeen, Arnaud de Borchgrave, Accuracy in Media... And the date -- just before the election...

--- Posted at 8/31/2004 05:52:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

New Evidence of Recent Torture in Iraq

Through Digby, this: TNS: American Lawyer Finds New Evidence of Recent Torture in Iraq

--- Posted at 8/31/2004 04:57:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Boycott?

Hardball with Media on AWOL: Publish Story Now or Face Massive Boycotts. Spread the word.

--- Posted at 8/31/2004 04:49:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Defenders of Wildlife Cartoon Blog

Defenders of Wildlife's new weblog Defender Bear has a cartoon for US! I'll write more on this later, after the convention, so that it gets more exposure.

--- Posted at 8/31/2004 04:41:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

So, Has the Smear Worked?

Larry Kudlow: Swift surge for Bush:

"Clearly, the Swift boat veterans are having a major impact on this presidential race. In truth, not one of the political pundits saw this coming. Perhaps John Kerry should have anticipated it, but judging from his tepid, halting, and per-usual flip-flopping responses, it would appear that he was totally unprepared. And the worst may be yet to come for Kerry: Two other surveys show that the impact of the Swiftees could be even greater than established polling data suggest. The Tradesport.com survey shows Bush opening up an absolutely incredible 58 percent to 42 percent lead over Kerry. Two weeks ago this survey had them locked at 50. Similarly, the Iowa Electronic Market has Bush surging with a 55 percent to 45 percent lead over his opponent. That's also up from a dead heat only a few weeks ago."

This is from a wing nut, but still... The Iowa Electronic Market chart. And, the Electoral College Predictor.

--- Posted at 8/31/2004 04:20:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Strength

Keeping in m ind what I wrote about Americans looking for a leader who will protect them, take a look at the "prepared remarks" of Laura Bush, in Laura Bush Says Husband Leads with 'Strength':

First Lady Laura Bush said on Tuesday that President Bush (news - web sites) had led the United States with "strength and conviction" after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and deserved re-election so he could finish the job of making America safer. As Republicans hoped to show a softer, more compassionate side on the second night of their convention, the first lady said in prepared remarks her husband was leading "the most historic struggle my generation has ever known. The stakes are so high."

I repeat: People are scared and they want leaders who will protect them. Kerry needs to tell the public how he is better at protecting them against terrorists than Bush is. He needs to make a convincing case. That is what the public wants to know. That is the ONLY question today. The Republicans know this.

--- Posted at 8/31/2004 02:29:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Seven Minutes

I just saw Andrew Card (White House Chief of Staff) on CNN, saying that when he told Bush on 9/11 that the country was under attack, he also told him not to scare the kids. He explains that this is why Bush sat there and did nothing for 7 minutes. They have been using this "didn't want to scare the kids" story for a while to explain why Bush froze up when it counted. It must have tested well in the focus groups. (Better than the other stories they tried, anyway...) The country is under attack, but they don't want to scare the kids in the room by responding to the attack that is occurring. Bush doesn't want to stand up and say, "There is something I have to take care of." Right, THAT's the reason he sat there for seven minutes. Seven minutes. Seven minutes is a very long time when you are under attack. If we are attacked by a missile launched from a submarine that missile is going to hit in just a few minutes. Such an attack could very well start with an attack exactly like what happened on 9/11. Or, the 9/11 attack could well have been followed by other kinds of attacks. We could have been mobilizing our forces. But we weren't. Our government literally sat paralyzed for seven minutes. This happened On His Watch. For our own protection it is time for a change. I repeat, People are scared and they want leaders who will protect them. Kerry needs to tell the public how he is better at protecting them against terrorists than Bush is. He needs to make a convincing case. That is what the public wants to know. That is the ONLY question today. The Republicans know this.

--- Posted at 8/31/2004 02:16:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

When the Chips Were Down ...

... George Bush threw up. (Play the movie...) The point is that even the smallest comparison of what Bush and Kerry were doing in their youth tells us Bush has NO BUSINESS being in the White House. He is in WAAAYYY over his head! Think about the pure audacity of Bush running a smear on Kerry's war record, considering his own background! But, look at it another way for just a minute. With all the smears and lies and dirty tricks, Bush and the Republicans are demonstrating that they are willing to do what it takes to get what they want. ("You got some shit I want, I TAKE it." Movie - DSL or cable recommended.) People on "our side" don't respect this, but people on the other side do. Digby has been running with a "Triumph of the Will" theme, talking about how they respond with a fight. I don't think the Republicans are making a mistake running with this theme at this time. If you think about it, roughly half of the public is convinced that we are in a war to the finish, Christians against Muslims, and that the Muslims will stop at nothing to kill all of us. The Right is spreading this, and a lot of people believe it. (More on this shortly.) So people are afraid and WANT leadership that will stop at nothing - nothing - to destroy their opponents. Sure, we could try educating the public between now and the election. We could try that... I think what is happening with this Swift Boat smear is a metaphor for this larger battle. The Republicans are fighting like there is no tomorrow (because a lot of them are going to jail if honest oversight is restored to our government...), and a good part of the public wants fighters. So their ruthless unprincipled stomping of Kerry tells the public that they are the ones to do the job against the Muslims. When the smear first appeared, I wrote,

And now a big Kerry smear arrives. What response has Kerry prepared? . . . we all knew it was coming. This is what Bush Sr. did to Dukakis. This is what Bush did to Gore. The Big Smear. This is what Republicans do. [. . .] To me, this goes beyond the campaign. This goes beyond protecting their own political careers. This goes to protecting us. What is the criticism of Bush for 9/11? That all the signs were there that we were going to be attacked, and they ignored it. Does Kerry have a devastating response ready for The Big Smear? To me this is the same question as: Is Kerry ready to be president?

Josh Marshall also wrote about this, calling it the "bitch slap" tactic of demonstrating toughness.

"Consider for a moment what the big game is here. This is a battle between two candidates to demonstrate toughness on national security. Toughness is a unitary quality, really -- a personal, characterological quality rather than one rooted in policy or divisible in any real way. So both sides are trying to prove to undecided voters either that they're tougher than the other guy or at least tough enough for the job. In a post-9/11 environment, obviously, this question of strength, toughness or resolve is particularly salient. That, of course, is why so much of this debate is about war and military service in the first place. One way -- perhaps the best way -- to demonstrate someone's lack of toughness or strength is to attack them and show they are either unwilling or unable to defend themselves -- thus the rough slang I used above. And that I think is a big part of what is happening here. Someone who can't or won't defend themselves certainly isn't someone you can depend upon to defend you. Demonstrating Kerry's unwillingness to defend himself (if Bush can do that) is a far more tangible sign of what he's made of than wartime experiences of thirty years ago."

How did you feel when Lieberman said it was OK to go ahead and count illegal absentee ballots in Florida? Did you feel like your party leadership standing up and fighting for you? No, you felt like Democrats were the party of wimpy appeasers. So seriously, after that would you want Joe Lieberman leading the fight to protect your family if they were in danger from a terrorist attack? Of course, the other side of asking for a "ruthless leader" is that when you get people like Bush and his cronies in power there is no reason to believe they are going to fight for you -- these guys would just as quick take everything you have and leave you naked in the cold. Look what the Bush administration and Enron did to California just after the election. And look how they gutted your retirement by handing out the Social Security surplus as tax cuts to their rich buddies. I was VERY HAPPY with Kerry when he finally (after waiting two weeks) responded to the smear. But even then I wrote,

I hope they keep this up, and make the Republican tactic of smearing the issue in the campaign. Take it back to Bush, talk about the history of Republicans smearing opponents, and make THAT a big issue in this campaign. That makes it hard for them to try another smear, and gets them on the defensive about this on an issue they really can't defend. It's what they DO! So make them pay for it.

Well, they started running a very effective ad, telling Bush "Shame on you!" for the smear. BUT THEN THEY TOOK IT OFF THE AIR because they THOUGHT that John McCain might not approve -- the same John McCain who is campaigning for Bush right now. The same McCain who said this weekend that he didn't see what else beside the smear could be causing Kerry's drop in the polls. So I am not sure what to think today. Today it seems like the Kerry team has backed off from fighting back, doesn't have it in them to see this through, SEEMINGLY DOESN'T SEE THE LARGER ISSUE IN PLAY HERE. Is the Kerry campaign ready for the fight to come? It's going to get a LOT worse than just this Swift Boat smear. But Kerry is running against a fraud, a man who received a memo warning of a coming attack and went on vacation, who sat reading "My Pet Goat" for SEVEN MINUTES, after being told the country was under attack. Thinking purely in terms of being protected from terrorists, I do not want the Pet Goat man in office. I do not want to trust my life to the man who CREATED the terrorist threat that Iraq is now, but wasn't before. But to get that man out of office we need a campaign team that is willing and able to explain these points to the public. People are sc ared and they want leaders who will protect them. Kerry needs to tell the public how he is better at protecting them against terrorists than Bush is. He needs to make a convincing case. That is what the public wants to know. That is the ONLY question today. The Republicans know this. Update - Charles Pierce over at Altercation today:

If this campaign is lost, it was lost on the day on which John Kerry was persuaded to "denounce" a MoveOn ad concerning C-Plus Augustus's blithe attitude toward his sworn military duty. What in God's name did Kerry hope to gain by this? Did he expect to shame the Bush people out of the Swift Boat hoax? Did he expect to get credit for taking the high-road on the campaign-reform issue by a press corps that has treated this pack of obvious lies mainly as an effective campaign tactic? That decision more than any other enabled the R's to shift the debate onto "shadowy" 527 organizations and off the Bush family tradition of outsourcing the really nasty stuff to the hired help. No surrender, my aunt Fannie. And now Kerry can't go back.

Maybe he was afraid that Rush Limbaugh would say something bad about him if he didn't.

--- Posted at 8/31/2004 01:35:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Welcome to La La Land

So that effete little prince who cross-dresses as a cowboy and loves to don macho uniforms sometimes sporting medals he doesn't seem to have earned is planning to run for his second term on the basis of what happened in New York on 9/11, is he? And he's so lacking in decency and good taste that he dares to present this here, in New York City? All this simpering sentimentality over 9/11! This guy really knows how to tug at the heartstrings, doesn't he? This whole damned (and I mean damned in the religious sense of the word) convention is nothing more than a slick -- very pretty, very slick -- lie. What did Bush have to do with 9/11 except to allow it to happen because he was too arrogant and ignorant to pay attention to Clinton's warnings about al Qaeda? The 9/11 Commission seems to have been able to find plenty of indications that something major was about to happen. Even strong indications that whatever was about to happen would involve hijacked planes. To not have enough airport security to prevent four -- count em, four -- planes from being hijacked at the same time, and then to not even notice that four planes had been hijacked until they began to crash into buildings -- and then, once aware that something was amiss, not be able to figure out what to do about it, has to mean that those responsible for protecting public safety were not only asleep but in a deep coma. And what has he done since then for this city besides showing up three days later for a photo-op? His immediate REAL response was to betray us by not allowing the REAL reports on air quality at the WTC site to be released, thus poisoning all who worked there and everyone who lived near there. How many of the workers at the site, who could have been protected by at least wearing a mask, are now sick, probably damaged for life? Yeah, now he calls them heros. I guess they just weren't heroic enough or important enough to protect their safety by telling them the truth. The police and firemen who sacrificed so much that day certainly aren't being rewarded like heros -- they've been working without a contract for two years. Or, in the Bush every-man-for-himself ideology, they should have figured out for themselves that the air was poisonous and not believed the reports that the air was safe? Oh, there's a long list of sins against the city, a history of utter contempt for the city and its suffering, the most recent being that remark about the "unseemly scramble for money" by city officials afterwards. Only a bunch of psychopaths could act like this and then come to this wounded city to claim credit for how noble their response has been. Their response? Establishing the huge, incredibly expensive, meaningless "Homeland Security" department, taking away the workers' rights to do it, which seems mainly tell us to buy lots of duct tape, to issue dubious terrorist alerts based on a color scale -- and, of course, the amazing decision to attack Iraq while ignoring the real terrorist danger. Yeah, McCaine has to tow the party line if he wants to advance his political career. I can understand that. I can understand Giuliani, too. I've always known that he's a man of overriding political ambition. If anyone in the Republican party has a right to talk about 9/11 he does. He went to the site immediately, at great personal risk, and the city owes him a lot for the calm way he handled the aftermath. At least the officials in NYC had been aware ever since the first attack on the WTC that something was going to happen, had planned for this, and had held disaster drills for years. I know this, and know this began long before Giuliani was on the scene, because I worked for city government. But he deserves full credit for steering the city through impossible times. Even so, shame on both these men for pandering to Bush! Then, of course, there's Pataki. A notably weak governor who can't ever get a state budget passed on time, to the point where last year the Assembly rebelled and overrode his veto. He will introduce Bush for his acceptance speech, He also has his political ambitions and knows how to pander. A perfect courtier for the effete little prince. We'll see how long it takes Bush to turn on him. Bush has a charming habit of doing that to his "friends." What's weird about Pataki is that he seems to actually believe the lies and the garbage about why we're at war in Iraq and that it has something to do with 9/11. He's said that he wants to include a piece of that statue of Saddam that was famously pulled down, thus "liberating" the Iraqis, in the foundation of what gets built at the WTC site. Yes, they're all still insisting that the war in Iraq is part of the "war on terror" to the point where it becomes impossible to tell which they're talking about. In spite of the fact that it's perfectly clear that Iraq had no connection to al Qaeda. Wrong religious sect for one thing -- al Qaeda had ties with Iran, and maybe Bush didn't know the difference between the two countries? Well, a large portion of the country still believes there was a tie between Iraq and al Qaeda, and that if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, they would have gotten hold of them. Of the people. By the people. For the people. We've managed to govern ourselves by this principle for a very long time. Either the State exists for the people, or the people exist to serve the State. These are two extremely different points of view. If you believe the state exists to serve the people, you believe that people are capable of intelligent choice. That's why we've had free public education in this country. If you believe that the state is superior to the people, then you believe that an elite must subdue and control the "masses" because the "masses" are a churlish mob. Thus, if you're a member of the elite, it's not only OK but a duty to deceive the "masses," lie to them, it's for their own good. And who are those inferior masses? That's us, folks, you and me and everyone we know, unless we happen to be members of that elite governing group. We're those churlish brutes, and that's how we'll be treated. We're expendable. That's why there's so much security around Madison Square Garden. To protect the elite from us churlish brutes. That's why the Republicans are lusting for violent demonstrations to prove we're the churlish brutes. That's why there will be so many arrests justified or not, every incident reported by the media, true or not, instigated by the police or not. Don't say I didn't warn you. There are those who understand this all too well. There were those who understood in ancient Rome, in Germany, in Russia, in every country throughout history that lost its liberty or its chance for liberty. That's why that army of people in Sunday's demonstration was chanting: This is what Democracy looks like. Well, folks, which is it going to be? Do we lose our Republic and allow ourselves to be conned into Empire?

--- Posted at 8/31/2004 09:12:00 AM by Meryl Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

The Uniter

President Bush will give a live interview on Rush Limbaugh'a radio show today at 1:45 PM ET. Update - He AGAIN repeated that he had to go to war because Saddam refused to disarm (I again ask, DISARM WHAT?!!), and because of all the connections between Iraq and terrorists. It's obvious why they are keeping Bush away from any press people that might ask serious questions -- this guy is in WAAAY over his head. Certainly there aren't going to be any press conferences between now and the election.

--- Posted at 8/31/2004 08:55:00 AM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Courage

The focus-group tested talking point word for yesterday was "Courage." Republicans everywhere were using the word. Remember when the word was "bold?"

Gotta give those right wingers credit for sticking to their talking points. A week or so back a focus group must have said that X% of target demographic Y responds favorably to the word "bold." So now everything is "bold."

The Courage Factor BUSH’S COURAGE LAUDED AT CONVENTION GOP salutes Bush's courage Jeers for Moore as Bush courage hailed In Search of Courage 9/11 Courage at Forefront of Republican National Convention

--- Posted at 8/31/2004 08:43:00 AM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Lobbyist Received $40 Million for Swift Boat Smear

A Swift Shift in Stories:

"Four days ago, retired naval Rear Adm. William L. Schachte Jr. seconded accusations made by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth seeking to discredit Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry's record in Vietnam. But since then, Democrats have discovered that Schachte is also a long-standing supporter of President Bush and a lobbyist whose client FastShip Inc. recently won a $40 million grant from the federal government." [emphasis added]

And, of course, the so-called "journalist" that the Bush campaign arranged for Schachte to talk to? Who else? They just lie! Sometimes they lie for money.

--- Posted at 8/31/2004 08:16:00 AM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

I lied: a bleg

OK, I lied. I swore off blogging a week or so ago, and I really tried to quit, but I'm obsessive. Dave predicted this. So anyway, I'm trying to figure out how to keep on going at least until the election. In order to do that I'll have to put a quick patch on the various deficits that impelled me to quit. One of them is an obsolescent, parasite-ridden, software-defective computer showing signs of impending hardware death. I need to replace it more or less immediately, or the question of blogging will become moot. Another is just money to live on. I have a part time job for the rest of the month, but no prospects after that, and if I have to work and jobhunt both that will cramp me a lot. I have a small steady income, but it doesn't really support me, so I always need a little more. Unfortunately I've been falling behind for months as I madly blogged along, and the day of reckoning has arrived. And finally, I've been asking myself whether I haven't really been taking my political writing too seriously as my finances deteriorated. I really don't have much of an idea whether my writing means much of anything to anyone else. During my first year I was happy to just vent, but during the second year I've been hoping for it to become more than that. So I could use a vote of confidence. So anyway, if you feel like it, chip in here: the tarsier (little bugeyed animal) is the paypal button. I realize that the campaign season is the worst time for almost everyone here, but in a way I suppose that this is also a referendum about the validity of the internet as a political tool. Thanks, John Emerson / Zizka emersonj at easystreet dot com

--- Posted at 8/31/2004 06:20:00 AM by John Emerson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

What Did I Tell You?

What did I say earlier about Republicans and accusations? Here's what Maryland's Republican Governor accuses Democrats of:

"Gov. Bob Ehrlich told Maryland delegates at the Republican National Convention Monday that the Democratic Party is 'racist' in its appeal to black voters."

Well, many Americans are black, and they are mostly Democrats. (Gosh, I wonder why?) See, in his statement, the Republican Governor of Maryland ASSUMES that political parties are controlled by white people, who tell black people what to do... Do I need to go on?

--- Posted at 8/30/2004 10:01:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Black Eyed Peas

One thing I didn't mention from the Deomcratic Convention was that the Black Eyed Peas came out and did a tune, Let's Get It Started, and it was just great. I thought it was better than the one on the radio. Thanks to C-Span you can judge for yourself. Play this stream and in the Play menu "seek to" 43:50.

--- Posted at 8/30/2004 07:37:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Steve Has Questions About Donnie's New Direction

Steve Gilliard's News Blog : Donnie McClurkin, closet case at the RNC

--- Posted at 8/30/2004 06:51:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

S.F. Chronicle exemplifies shift of center in American political spectrum

I was astounded to open up today's Chronicle, and see it declare "GOP speakers lean a bit left" on the interior bridge heading today's lead article, "GOP strives to pitch a bigger tent". The only response I could come up with was gale force laughter... the kind of pained laughter that is spontaneously evoked by tragic absurdity. Rudolph Giuliani, John McCain, and Arnold Schwartzenegger "lean a bit left"?!? Not on any planet I'm aquainted with. Eugene Debs, Norman Thomas and Henry Wallace must be turning in their graves! I can't think of a better example of this blog's lead premise, that the "center" of American politics has been dragged right (far to the right) as the result of a meticulously organized media-oriented propaganda campaign bought and paid for by the ultra-right. --Thomas Leavitt

--- Posted at 8/30/2004 05:19:00 PM by Thomas Leavitt

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Accusing Others

The Republicans have more than a little problem with their party being WAAAY over on the fringe. So, being Republicans, how are they going to address this? Regular readers of Seeing the Forest know the answer. From this NY Times story:

". . . the party seeks to pivot to the center and seize on street demonstrations to portray Democrats as extremist."

For those new to Seeing the Forest -- Here is how you inoculate yourself against an expected accusation for something you're doing: You accuse your opponent of it first. Has your candidate been flip-flopping? Accuse Kerry of flip-flopping. Does your candidate have a problem with his service record? Accuse Kerry of having a problem with his service record. Has your candidate been making shit up? Accuse Kerry of lying. Is your candidate a political extremist? Accuse Kerry of being out of the mainstream. Etc. When you know to look for it, you see it in everything they do. It even becomes a good way to figure out what is going on when the news is confusing you. Just look for what they are accusing others of doing, and it's a good bet that they're up to their necks in whatever that is. UPDATE - Well, well, well. All this time I've been talking about looking at what Republicans accuse others of, to learn what they themselves are up to. So get this: They have been accusing Kerry of claiming service medals that he did not earn. So, with our new "Republicans accusation" rule in mind, think about the implications of their accusation. Then take a look at this, and this and this. There are photos of Bush wearing medalsribbons he never recieved.

--- Posted at 8/30/2004 11:44:00 AM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Al the Communist Troll speaks

For about a week I've been stalking Al the Troll, whose natural habitat is the Kevin Drum and Matt Yglesias comments. (Link). I've been trying to get an an explanation for this anti-capitalist, demagogic smear of George Soros, the Democratic moneybags: "Soros earned his money Yeah - he earned it by bankrupting proverty-stricken countries. Soros takes from the extreme poor and gives to himself. Sounds like every limosine liberal I've ever heard of. Posted by: Al on August 23, 2004 at 8:48 PM PERMALINK (On Kevin Drum's site.) Al has finally responded (here and here): "Hey, Zizka.My apologies for not getting back to you on this topic earlier -- real life has largely decreased the amount of time I have for reading and commenting -- especially my ability to engage in extended blog comments conversations -- for the past couple of weeks. I've been able to put in a couple of comments here and there, but nothing real extended. So, as to your question: I'm certainly not anti-international finance. Hell, that's part of my real-life job. But I expect that most people in the industry engage in transactions for economic, rather than political, reasons. And with Soros, I don't think that's the case. You just need to look at his shorting of the US dollar to know that. So, did Soros attack the Thai Bhat and Malaysian ringgit for political reasons? I suspect that the answer is yes. Can I prove that? Of course not; I just think it is how he operates. And I think it is unarguable that the Asian crisis put a lot of people in poverty. So, bottom line, did Soros put a lot of people in poverty for purposes of his political positions, all the while enriching himself? Yeah, I think so. Al Email Homepage 08.30.04 - 4:59 am # To which I responded: Jesus, Al, that's loony. He became a billionaire for non-economic reasons? He made himself rich for non-economic reasons? If he made money on the transaction, it was economic. "I suspect that the answer is yes. Can I prove that? Of course not; I just think it is how he operates." Al, that's how YOU operate. You're making it up. You admit you have no evidence on the specific case, but deduce it from Soros' general operating principle, but you have no evidence of that either. You're making a serious accusation on the basis of a hunch. The collapse of the Thai bhat was widely agreed to be the result of real weaknesses in the Thai economy and serious problems such as cronyism and graft in its economic structure. Soros may have precipitated this, but it couldn't have happened if the weaknesses weren't there -- Soros would have gambled and lost in that case. Sooner or later something like that would have happened, but to you, the answer is "Soros did it". In any case, Soros made his fortune on the poor third-world British. The later episode was secondary. You were just cherry-picking some reason -- any reason -- to dump on Soros because you disagree with him politically. You have to do this in order to neutralize the creepy Republican billionaires and near-billionaires: Scaife, the Koches, and Moon. Accusing Democrats of what they themselves do is a primary Republican tactic -- "inoculation". Soros really played a major role in bringing down Communism and and is an estimable guy in his own right. When compared to Moon and Scaife, especially, he's night-and-day superior. Nobody playing at a high level is pristine and Soros is not perfect, but his adversaries are a motley lot, including anti-semitic demagogues, retread-Communist dictators, LaRouchies, Republicans, and Al. zizka Email Homepage 08.30.04 - 7:07 am # I think we can continue to call him Al the Communist.

--- Posted at 8/30/2004 07:23:00 AM by John Emerson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Not Your Mother's Convention 2

CBS News said this morning that the demonstration yesterday was the biggest ever at any American political convention. I assume that includes 1968. Eventually I'll get around to explaining the title for this blog, but this will be more or less straight reporting. What I'm interested in is the mood, the general tone, the feelings and passions behind what's happening. So I'll start with Saturday. It was one of those hazy, hot, humid NYC August days when it's like breathing under water, early enough so that there were still plenty of people from the woman's march in City Hall Park, late enough to start thinking about Ring Out down by the WTC site. I was on my way to the deli. Next to me on the street was a guy on a bike staring hard at the sky. I looked up, too. Looming out of the haze, really low, was the NYPD blimp, a gaudy Fuji blimp they've rented for the convention and fitted out with the latest Si Fi technology. It made the hair on the back of my neck stand up. What was it doing HERE? There was nothing going on in the West Village. It was sinister and creepy. I'd have been less creeped out if it had been a UFO. When I compared notes with him, the guy on the bike said he felt the same way. He pulled his camera out of his pocket and photographed it. I didn't take mine out of my purse and photograph it. It's an image that will stay with me forever, but the thought of photographing THEM while it was photographing US photographing THEM was just too Si Fi, too surreal, for me to play the game. Sunday morning I had to go to the drugstore. I wasn't planning to go straight to the demonstration from there, but it took so long to fill my prescription that I went over to 7th Ave. afterwards without going home for my camera. The Village was in its usual late August where's the party mood, people coming out of the churches I passed, groups of potential demonstrators heading towards Seventh Ave. with everyone in a good mood. The humidity had dropped a little, and there was a breeze. There was the constant drone of many helicopters, and the silent presence of that Fuji blimp. Not too bad a day, at least near the river. I didn't have to go far up 7th Ave. to reach the demonstrators because the crowd was so huge. Since I broke my leg and have a pin in it, I can't walk as far as the march was going, and I knew from past experience that when you're in a march all you see is the group you're with as the crowd pushes you along. I wanted to observe this, so I went home to watch it on C-SPAN. I'm glad I did. There's no way to observe all of a demonstration of this size, except by helicopter or from a blimp. MSNBC was occasionally giving reports from Union Square, where the march was to end. NY1 was doing an unexpectedly terrible job of reporting, spending more time interviewing two officials about security than on the march itself. The other channels were essentially ignoring it. The demonstrators started passing Madison Square Garden at noon, and this continued until 4:30 PM. I don't know whether everyone got up there, or whether the police decided that was enough and cut it off. This was one truly massive river of people, every possible age, race, and ethnic group, at first rather heavily white, largely baby boomers and older. The oldest woman interviewed was 77 and had managed to get there from New Jersey, but at least one person there was 90. The crowd rather quickly became more mixed, with occasional drums, trumpets, and even bands playing mostly music from Latin America. It was as things were getting a bit hedonistic that the Dragon Float was set on fire; the police handled this, I thought, pretty professionally. They had to get the crowd to move away; this was dangerous. It was also damned annoying since all it accomplished was to disrupt the march. You'll hear a lot on the news about the angry demonstration. Of course there was anger, but the mood went far, far beyond anger. One sign said, "They Stole Our Anguish." Meaning the city's anguish and pain since 9/11. The vast majority of the signs were variations on "Bush Lies." Yeah, they've caught on to this. The mood was more anti-Bush than anti-war. Although there were plenty of anti-war signs and banners, Bush is being blamed for a lot more going wrong than the war. Unfortunately, the mood was vastly more one of desperation about getting rid of Bush no matter how than pro-Kerry. There were very few pro-Kerry signs. Warning for today: There were a lot of arrests, no reliable figures yet, maybe around 200, maybe as many as 400. Many of these had nothing to do with the demonstration itself. A lot of them were people on bicycles. Police Commissioner Kelly has a thing about bicycles. He said on TV that activists often come in on bicycles. That may be true, but this is a city where people routinely ride bikes! Be very careful riding your bike around town for the next few days. Also, if you're doing the tourist thing and want to take photos of landmarks, no matter who you are, Democrat or Republican, don't do that. If there are any police around and you want to take pictures, ask them first if it's OK. If you don't, you might be in for a big shock. Nobody wants to be arrested for being a terrorist spy. I hate Kelly, for reasons that date back to his previous appointment as police commissioner. He's a total cynic who controls crime by moving it around the city, and I might write about this later because he's doing this to us again. I do not hate those noble souls who serve in the New York police department who are doing their duty in spite of the fact they haven't had a contract for two years now. Someone -- unfortunately I forget who so I can't give credit -- researched the instructions Kelly has given to the police department about what to watch out for during the convention. Much of the information about what demonstrators are likely to do is an outright lie; much of it exaggeration. Anything anyone ever did anywhere in the world is included, regardless of whether anyone in this country ever did it. How are the police supposed to sort this out under the pressure of dealing with crowd control? So be careful if you're in the city this week, no matter why you're here.

--- Posted at 8/30/2004 06:08:00 AM by Meryl Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

What you won't see

Who better than Kevin Phillips for the cable networks after Zell Miller's speech? Yeah, sure.

--- Posted at 8/30/2004 04:11:00 AM by richard

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Tracing a Smear Artist

Some of you know that I've been writing for some time about hearing planted stories -- anonymous callers to talk shows, letters-to-editors, forwarded e-mail letters, etc. - saying Kerry cuts in front of lines and says "Do you know who I am?" I've been saying this obviously is part of a coordinated smear campaign. Well, I think the following adds some weight to what I have been suspecting. Take a look at John Kerry: Uppity Rich Guy with a Superiority Complex:

"In Boston, where the junior senator from Massachussets [sic] lives when he's not skipping Senate votes, John Kerry stories are commonplace. Most of these stories involve Kerry pulling rank on a "little guy," cutting to the front of the line, expecting special treatment, or demanding something for free. When confronted about his behavior, Kerry defiantly asks, "Do you know who I am?" Evidently, Kerry believes that once the "little people" understand how important he is, they will simply back down and shut up."

Read the whole thing. It's just wonderful propaganda -- the stuff that comes out of the Right's think tanks and gets repeated through their editorial writers, talk-show hosts, cable TV pundits, etc. You've seen every line from this piece used in one form or another lately. (There must be a template provided by the Right's think tanks, sent to their writers, all of it tested in focus groups...) It says the writer, George C. Landrith, is "is an adjunct professor at the George Mason School of Law". Check out the funding and the other funding. To show you how this kind of stuff is spread far and wide, here's a Landrith piece, circulated by Heritage Foundation's TownHall (see Heritage funding here), reprinted at the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance,

"As dubious as Kerry's claims of foreign endorsements may be, there is at least one foreign leader who hopes for a Kerry-Edwards win in November. However, even the two Johns are smart enough not to brag about having this foreign leader's support. Of whom am I speaking? Osama bin Laden."

If you want to hear some more of this sort of slime at your organization's upcoming event, you can hire a right-wing subsidized speaker. Here's Landrith's info at the Young America's Foundation's (check their funding here) "Conservative Speakers Program," where it also says he is "President, Frontiers of Freedom." ("A TownHall.com member organization," they boast.) While at their webite you can take their poll, "If Osama Bin Laden were a U.S. citizen, who do you think he would support in the upcoming presidential election?" And here is THEIR funding. Here's more info on them. Frontiers is described as "a conservative group that maintains that human activities are not responsible for global warming" in the (reprinted) NY Times article "Exxon Backs Groups That Question Global Warming." Here's Landrith info at ExxonSecrets.org. Here is his bio, at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. And here is their funding. OK, it's late and I'm tired so I'm going to stop and make my point. Did you notice anything in common in those funding sources I pointed to for the organizations above? I just wanted to show how the Right's smear machine, funded by a small core group of funders, employs people like this, (so many), setting them up in think tanks or other jobs, paying them (very well) to crank this stuff out, citing their stuff at their OTHER think tanks and organizations to give them an aura of credibility, and then spreading this awful, smelly stuff around through every channel through which people receive information, poisoning the national debate, always pushing, pushing, pushing the public further and further to the right. There are billions of dollars at work behind this stuff. Here's an interesting thing about this -- most if not all of those think tanks and other organizations I pointed to are tax deductible charitable organizations - which is another way of saying government subsidized - that are forbidden from engaging in partisan activities, all of them are engaged full time in working to get Bush a second term, all of them are funded by the same crowd, and none of this spending counts toward the election-spending totals you read about in the papers. And the Bush administration is now pumping more millions into this network through various schemes including the "faith-based funding" initiative, or direct contracts or other subsidies. This is The Apparat. This is the Right's network of advocacy think tanks and communications organizations at work, and this is what they do. ----- Just for fun, from a Moonie thing, a story with another form of the same smear,

"The talk about Hillary Rodham Clinton [. . .] There was that business about her primping while the troops stood waiting in the chow line for a half-hour and then cutting in front of them to scoop up her Thanksgiving dinner. Then she smeared and attacked their commander in chief and told them no one at home supported the war."

All those damn rich liberal elitists, cutting in front of regular people like us... That line must have focus-group tested as well as "only served four months in Vietnam."

--- Posted at 8/29/2004 10:21:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

The Moonies object to big money in politics: "They Just Lie, Chapter 25"

According to Mark Twain, there used to be a Christian sect called the Lying Baptists. They weren't as much fun as it seems -- they were just less absolute than the other Baptists, and were willing to lie to save the lives of innocent children (for example.) But we now seem to have a batch of Christians (and Moonies) who are completely brazen and shameless, and who are willing to lie all the time. Look at this interview with the godly Dennis Hastert from the Moonie Washington Times (complete text): Washington, DC, Aug. 29 (UPI) -- House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., had harsh words Sunday for Hungarian-born billionaire George Soros, a major financial backer of anti-Bush 527 groups. "You know, I don't know where George Soros gets his money," Hastert said on Fox News Sunday. "I don't know where -- if it comes overseas or from drug groups or where it comes from." A number of Soros-backed groups, operating as part of the Open Society network, have been advocates for the legalization of what, in the United States, are illegal narcotics. "The fact is we don't know where (Soros') money comes from," Hastert said. "Before, transparency -- and what we're talking about in transparency in election reform is you know where the money comes from. You get a $25 check or a $2,500 check or $25,000 check, put it up on the Internet. You know where it comes from, and there it is," Hasert [sic] said. Link: Washington Times What's wrong with this garbled mess? First of all, Hastert is following the standard RNC script interpreting the Swift Boat Veterans controversy -- which is in actuality a slanderous and dishonest character assassination perpetrated by allies of President Bush -- as just a problem with soft money and specifically the new 527's (which the Democrats have used more effectively than the Republicans so far). He's not the only one doing this. Next, Hastert is slandering Soros, suggesting that he's been involved in the drug trade: "You know, I don't know where George Soros gets his money," Hastert said on Fox News Sunday. "I don't know where -- if it comes overseas or from drug groups or where it comes from". (He will be able to back down by saying that he admitted that he didn't know where Soros' money came from -- and perhaps even claim that he meant the same legal drug manufacturers who have given so heavily to Bush). Of course, we do know where Soros' money comes from, and it is indeed from "overseas": his money comes from international currency trading -- a legitimate business which Soros has revolutionized, and which all good free-traders should support (though possibly there should be reforms, as Soros himself has suggested.) But international currency trading is one of the Jewy-Jew types of businesses, and we can be sure that Hastert's audience understands this. Republicans still have a strong nativist streak, and their present philo-Semitism is limited to a calculated attempt to lure the seven-headed dragon out of the sea in order to bring on Armageddon, the end of the world, and the Rapture. (The Israelis are just dragon-bait, in case they don't know that yet). In this short interview, Hastert also confuses the meaning of disclosure. Disclosure doesn't have anything to do with the question of where Soros' money came from. It has to do with whether Soros' political donations are disclosed. And finally, perhaps the biggest sinister foreign moneybags in American politics is the Rev. Moon -- the publisher of the Washington Times where this interview appeared! Moon has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to conservative and Republican causes over recent decades. He is a convicted felon who has literally declared himself to be the Second Coming of Christ (Moon's unsuccessful "little brother"). And while nobody knows exactly where Moon's money comes from (he's much more mysterious than Soros), the best bet is that it comes from brainwashed cult members and bamboozled Japanese widows. Moon has kinky ideas about marriage and seems to think that homosexuals should be exterminated, and his various foreign entanglements include the sale of missile-armed submarines to North Korea. But Soros is the sinister one -- not Moon! In short, not only do they Republicans not care at all about big money in politics, they don't care at all about mentally deranged foreign-born billionaire cult leaders taking over the American political process. Soros is actually an estimable guy who played a significant role in the fall of Communism, but you won't find out about that from the Republicans. They just lie. All the time. My earlier piece on Soros and his enemies Salon, 2004: Moon declares himself the Messiah, and is crowned in the halls of Congress / Salon, 2003 / Gorenfeld Moon page / Rotten Moon page / ZMag Moon page / Perkel Moon page / Moon and Bush the First / Moon's daughter-in law testifies BONUS: The Koch brothers.

The secretive Koch brothers of Wichita, Kansas have given hundreds of millions to conservative and libertarian causes. Their special interest are low taxes and deregulation, and they have a special hatred for environmental laws. Their oil company is the second largest privately-held company in the U.S., and since it is privately held it can be managed in virtual secrecy. Their father, who founded the family business, was also a founding member of the John Birch Society (which claimed that President Eisenhower was a Communist), but the brothers have found it possible to work more within the system.

2004 Koch story / Koch family feud (1998) / Consortium News Koch story (1999) / Media Transparency (beneficiaries of Koch money) / Wikipedia Koch story / Public Integrity Koch story

--- Posted at 8/29/2004 04:45:00 PM by John Emerson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Israel, Iran, Spies and No One Upset

Just a few quick words, before we head out to the Palo Alto Art Fair. (Bloggers with lives, on summer Sundays.) A month ago a story hit the press just before the Democratic convention, and became The Story, and no one talked about anything else. It turned out the story was a hoax, a smear, calculated to hurt the Democrats and useful to further the Republican story that Clinton was responsible for 9/11 (even though, or more to the point BECAUSE 9/11 happened On Bush's Watch.) I'm talking about the Sandy Berger story. Like a carefully prepared scientific study, we now have a second case that we can compare. A major story has broken (see John's post below) that has much more "meat" to it, and that is much more serious. Spies for another country penetrating our government at the highest levels, and steering American policy into war with countries that are not America's enemies. Serious stuff. So how does the press coverage compare? And how outraged are America's self-proclaimed "patriots" now that the shoe is on the other foot?

--- Posted at 8/29/2004 11:01:00 AM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Fomenting a new war -- with Iran

Probably everyone has seen this somewhere else, but the two links below are must-reads. Apparently the Franklin espionage case isn't really about espionage. It's about a behind-the-scenes attempt by Bush people in the White House and the Defense Department, Likud people in Israel, the semi-fascist Italian military intelligence group SISMI, and the serial liar Manuchar Ghorbanifar to provoke an American war against Iran in 2005. Some of these people also were involved in the production of the forged "Nigerien uranium" documents. Some of them also were sponsors of Ahmad Chalabi, who ironically now has betrayed the U.S. and fled to Iran. (Or is he now an American double agent there.....?) Like the Iran-Contra period (which had some of the same personnel) , this is a time when tinfoil-hat jokes are not funny. Sometimes you REALLY DO have conspiracies. I think that this also gives us an answer for dovish Kerry skeptics. Kerry isn't very dovish, but I can't imagine him initiating a war against Iran on the lines now being planned by the Bush administration. Juan Cole Josh Micah Marshall, Laura Rozen, and Paul Glastris Links to Jaynes on Israel-Iran ********* Just as a bonus, here's Chapter 28: George Bush from Walsh's Iran-Contra report. George H. W. Bush was a major player in Iran-Contra. His cooperation with the investigation was minimal and grudging, and he witheld important material from the commission (notably his diary). Bush's non-cooperation began while he was Vice-President and continued all through his Presidency. In Walsh's words, "The criminal investigation of Bush was regrettably incomplete." Here's the chapter's conclusion: "Had a final Bush interview occurred, the questioning regarding the non-production of Bush's diary would have focused on the decision of Bush and or Gray not to disclose the existence of the diary initially in April 1987, in response to OIC's document request, and to delay its ultimate production until December 1992. The questioning would have addressed Bush's familiarity with the 1987 OIC and congressional document requests, and his knowledge of the production of the Reagan diary in 1987. It would have sought an explanation of his previously described July 20, 1987, diary note condemning Shultz for producing Charles Hill's daily notes of Shultz's thoughts, discussions and activities. It also would have covered Bush's diary entry of November 25, 1986, regarding a telephone call he had with North following his firing, and the substance of information he obtained from North and relayed to President Reagan regarding the fact that Israeli officials were extremely upset about the day's events." While George H. W. was not the fuckup that George W. has been, he still was a dark force. He got a fair amount of flak for being a weenie East Coast patrician, but he didn't deserve it at all. He was more like a cool, well-dressed mobster. ********* Second bonus: last year there was a scandal no one heard about (funny how selctive the media are!) Katerina Leung, a long-time Republican activist with high-level ties in the party, was accused of being a double agent for China. She had been an FBI informant for years and had also been sexually involved with two of her FBI handlers. She will be coming to trial this fall -- one of the FBI agents involved (who, incidentally, had also been involved in investigating Clinton and Johnny Chung) has already pled guilty and has agreed to cooperate with the prosecutors. And it's tiresome to have to keep asking this: but what would the media and the rightwing attack bots be saying if Leung had been an important Democrat? Those people don't care at all about this country. The rightwingers only want to destroy liberalism, and the media only want their paychecks. Summary / Original story / Implicated FBI agent resigns (2003) / FBI agent pleads guilty (2004) / Status of Case (2004) / Early Trial (2004)

--- Posted at 8/29/2004 09:21:00 AM by John Emerson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Default Kerry image: dour and unsmiling?

Is it just me, or have others noticed that the default image of Kerry in the media is dour and serious... vs. "Bright Smile" Bush? This has been subsciously bugging me for a while, but a spread the other day in the SF Chronicle finally caused me to consciously recognize the phenomenon: on the left page was Mr. Bush, with a huge shit-eating grin on his face, bright, sunny, optimistic, and on the right page was Kerry, with a dour, intent look on his face. Thoughts? Could this simply be a product of each campaign's particular "spin" on the state of the union? --Thomas Leavitt

--- Posted at 8/28/2004 08:40:00 PM by Thomas Leavitt

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

This year's sports post

I've actually been a sports fan most of my life, though I don't see much cosmic or political significance in it. I've followed the Olympics, with sadly diminishing interest, ever since 1956. (Since track was the only sport I was any good at all in, that makes sense). Starting in 1968 or so, murder and political boycotts took a lot of the bloom off the games, and once that kind of thing stopped happening, American network TV took over with uninformed coverage and stupid human-interest stories. (I still occasionally think about the dream Filbert Bayi / John Walker 1500-m. matchup that the African boycott squelched.) And Portland here is a big enough town to send some people to get medals now and then, but small enough that you might have met them. Years ago I met Rick Sanders, a two-time wrestling silver medalist, as well as one of the coaches of this year's fencing gold medalist, Mariel Zagunis. (A coworker knows her father). So it's sort of a hometown thing for me too. Today I saw a nicely-written story that reminded me why I used to care. Morocco's Hicham El Guerrouj came up from a 1500-m. gold to to defeat Ethiopia’s Kenenisa Bekele (coming down from the 10,000-m. gold) in the 5,000 meters. Kenya's 19-year-old Elind Kipchoge, who challenged but couldn't hold on, got the bronze. El Guerrouj has been a champion and record-setter for many years, but until this year had been unlucky in the Olympics. Three good performances and several little dramas all right there. -- But all that was really just a way for me to get to the neocon Max Boot's wretched Olympic article, which was as stupid as you could possible have hoped. The Olympics is apparently now on the list of international institutions that people who call themselves conservatives have to pee on, along with the U.N., NATO, and French wines and cheeses. Boot is a real man who only likes football -- and real Americans only watch American sports. As a freemarketer and a patriot Boot is required to make it clear that the nationalism and the commercialism don't bother him, but as a macho man he has to say that he can't stand the foofoo human interest stories the networks have smeared onto the sports. For Boot the Cold War was the only thing that ever gave the Olympics any interest (e.g., the over-hyped hockey victory in 1980), and he even says that if al-Qaeda ever enters a team he might become interested again. Along with David Brooks, Boot is on the short list of conservatives who supposedly don't completely suck, but don't ask me why for either one of them. I think it's just because it would scare people to realize that there really isn't anyone at all on that list.

--- Posted at 8/28/2004 06:51:00 PM by John Emerson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Businesslike Voting

Voting is more businesslike than romantic. Every four years, you get to choose between two (and only two) Presidential candidates. One way or another, one of them will become President. Voting and campaigning are your ways to help decide which one it will be. It's not like romance, when you decide whether you're really in love or not. You can't choose to be single, because you're going to have a President no matter what you do. You can't wait for someone else to come along, because these choices are made from a two-person menu every four years. And finally, you almost never will find a candidate worth falling in love with. On a scale of one to ten (with five "sort of OK") you're going to find a lot more ones and twos (very bad leaders) than you are nines and tens (very good ones) -- in other words, it's not a normal bell curve, but instead a curve which is fat on the bottom and gets thinner the higher up you go (like the graph for any other form of competitive accomplishment). It's really the way of the world; being good is a tremendous, difficult accomplishment, whereas being bad is easy and can just be from laziness, ignorance, bad luck, carelessness, etc. (And the best guys in the world, the Lincolns, if you look at them closely, are imperfect). So anyway, it's rare to have a perfect candidate you really admire, and it's common to have a horrible candidate who scares you. If you have the horrible candidate, it's pretty much your duty to vote for the sort-of-OK candidate, since in our system you only get the two meaningful choices. Deliberately not voting is OK if the election is inconsequential or the candidates about the same. And it's OK if you have given up on the US and are planning to emigrate. It's just barely OK if one candidate isn't too bad and you want to "send a message" to the other party (the mistake I made in 2000). Note:: voting for a third-party candidate is the effective equivalent of not voting, though it does send a more intelligible message to the party you're boycotting. Voting isn't like marriage. It's a routine thing you do every four years.Your own personal involvement in a candidate you don't especially like is really nothing at all. You don't need True Love. You really don't want to die of a broken heart when The Only One never shows up. So does this mean that I'm lukewarm about Kerry? Not really. It would be impossible for me to like any candidate as much as I dislike Bush. This is partly because Bush is as bad as he is, and it's partly because it's really not reasonable to hope to be in love with candidate for President. (This post is based on a comment I made in Dan's thread below.)

--- Posted at 8/28/2004 03:03:00 PM by John Emerson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Republican Grownups spotted in Oregon

Brad DeLong has written a series been begging the "Republican Grownups" to abandon George W. Bush, who is a disaster even by traditional Republican standards. By and large I have pooh-poohed that idea (for example, in the comments here.) My guess is that if most of the "Good Germans" ended up supporting Hitler in 1932 -- and they did -- most of the "Republican Grownups" will a fortiori end up supporting Bush this year.* In our weakness and in hopes of getting support somewhere or another, we Democrats sometimes tend to give more credit to people than they really deserve -- "undecided voters" are another dubious group which we really, really hope will come around for us. But occasionally some of them do show up. Here in Oregon, while no major Republican leader supports Kerry so far, two members of the eminent Atiyeh family, a former member of the Republican State Central Committee, and the former mayor of the sixth largest city in the state (Hillsboro) have all come out in Kerry's support. For most of them it is the first time that they have ever voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate. *Before invoking Godwin's Law, figure out how "a fortiori" functions in this sentence.

--- Posted at 8/28/2004 02:23:00 PM by John Emerson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Anyone seen Al?

One of my more shameful hobbies is debating trolls on liberal comment lines. One of the most persistent and most annoying of these is someone who calls himself "Al" (claiming that that is his real name.) He argues stubbornly, never concedes a point, brazenly denies or ignores inconvenient facts, and heaps scorn on his enemies. He purports to be a conservative Republican, but I've found evidence that he might be something entirely different. On Kevin Drum's site, I asked people what the objections were to George Soros -- a successful self-made businessman who had a hand in the fall of Communism. "Al" responded as follows: "Soros earned his money Yeah - he earned it by bankrupting proverty-stricken countries.Soros takes from the extreme poor and gives to himself. Sounds like every limosine liberal I've ever heard of. Posted by: Al on August 23, 2004 at 8:48 PM PERMALINK " Now, that isn't a conservative Republican answer. To free-marketers, international finance and currency trading are normal business activities. People who talk about shadowy bloodsucking speculators are normally leftists, semi-fascist nationalists, Muslim fanatics, LaRouchies, and so on. (There are, in fact, serious criticisms to be made of the way international finance is organized, and Soros has acknowledged some of these criticisms. But they aren't conservative criticisms, and Al wasn't talking about that anyway. He was just trying to figure out a way to discredit Soros.) So I'm wondering whether Al isn't really a desperate leftist or LaRouchie whose real views slipped out in the heat of the moment. There's a lot of speculation that blog trolls are paid operatives anyway (if they're not bots), and a demoralized Communist hard up for cash might well put his sophisticated debating skills to work for the Republican dollar. Al's style is dump and run, and as soon as things started getting sticky he signed off: "No point, really in feeding Al any more. Yeah, 'cause Al's going home for the night. Posted by: Al on August 23, 2004 at 9:48 PM PERMALINK" I haven't been able to pin him down since. Anyone seen Al?

--- Posted at 8/28/2004 10:42:00 AM by John Emerson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Not Your Mother's Convention

As I begin to write this, police cars are dashing downtown along the highway. Well, the New York March and Rally for Women's Lives should be starting to gather in City Hall Park before marching across the Brooklyn Bridge, and we can't allow that, can we? My next-door neighbor and her daughter are planning to go, so I hope they're safe. I'm lame, so long marches aren't for me right now. There's a lot planned for today. There's the Books Not Bombs Youth Convergence at St. Mark's Church in the East Village, the woman's march, a Green Party Festival in St. Vartan's Park at E. 35th St. and 2nd Ave -- which should be far enough from Madison Square Garden that they shouldn't have any trouble, the Middle East Peace Coalition demonstration in Union Square (the Farmer's Market should be open today, too, so I might get to both if it doesn't get too disgustingly hot.) The Stone Walk is supposed to arrive in Manhattan. They're walking here from Boston pulling a 1400 lb. granite memorial honoring the "Unknown Civilians Killed in War" which should be in NY through Sept. 11. Ring Out will be ringing bells at Ground Zero late this afternoon, The Imagine Festival of Arts, Issues, and Ideas starts today at various locations, The Fourth World War film screening is at the Anthology Film Archives this evening, there's a Women Against War concert at Riverside Church this evening, and a Clamor Magazine Party in Brooklyn. Today and tomorrow seem to have the most activities planned. This is a city of 8 million people. That's probably not all that's going on, just all I'm aware of. That's not much for a city of this size, even on a quiet weekend at the end of August. Local neighborhood papers like The Village Voice that regularly post what's going on usually have much longer lists than this. Normally there are street fairs, art fairs, festivals, concerts, outdoor concerts, parades, lectures, church functions, you name it, dozens of them, and nobody minds this at all. There's a race planned in Central Park tomorrow, that's going to cause at least some street closings and bus rerouting, and that's so normal it's getting no attention even though it will cause some "disruption." There are a couple of ball games and the US Open tennis match. Only those activities designed to protest the war or Bush are getting any public or press attention, no matter how benign or tiny they are likely to be. Geez! Four military helicopters just flew down the Hudson. They do seem to be taking this march across the Brooklyn Bridge seriously! I'm on the West Side, so I can't see what's converging down the East Side. I should point out that various groups often march across the Brooklyn Bridge to support various causes, and these events receive little notice. There's also a sweet little sailboat drifting by, and a yellow Water Taxi docking at the pier across the street. Life goes on, regardless. Then there's the Security Orgy, not only around Madison Square Garden, but, it turns out, all over the city, including the boroughs. (A line of big police SUV type vehicles just headed south down the highway. Something's going on down there -- I'm just assuming it's the March.) This is the biggest convergence of security forces, Federal, state, and local, probably ever. Considering that the Convention is only going to be in the Garden all day Monday, and then only in the evenings until it ends, this is incredible overkill. Even 9/11 didn't get a response like this. Streets close around the Garden, open again, close again. Buses are rerouted, re-rerouted, and nobody knows where to catch them to go home. The subways will or will not run, there will be schedule changes, and they will be stopped for searches. More and more kinds of barriers, metal, concrete, what-have-you, are hauled in and set up. There are check points, so bring plenty of ID. Businesses in the area are giving people notes to show that they are going to work. (Now the TV News trucks are heading south. Maybe I'll even find out on the news what's going on downtown.) People are already complaining that it's taking them an extra hour to get to work. It's insane to have the Convention in the middle of midtown. Homeland Security is using this as a proving ground for all sorts of weird, Si Fi type security and spy devices. This is the Brave New World in action, folks. Be careful. The Republicans want arrests so they can blame the Democrats for disrupting the city, so that's what they're gonna have. There were a few yesterday, most notably Act Up, the group of AIDS activists who have been staging demonstrations for years, who stripped beside the Garden to demonstrate "the naked truth" about the Bush AIDS policies. The police were very moderate and let them have their say for 15 min. before arresting them. Not so moderate last night. I'm hearing that there were 250, 250+, or 264 arrests, some in the area of the Garden, but mostly in the East Village. The target was a group called "Critical Mass" that rides their bikes into Manhattan once a month to protest for environmentally friendly transportation. They've been doing this for months without any trouble. Last night, from what I've learned so far, there were utterly indiscriminate arrests. It didn't matter if you were on a bike or not. At least one person there as a "legal observer" was arrested. If you were in the area, you were arrested. Never mind that it was a nice night, and the East Village is where you go on a nice night. So -- the fun has begun. What's a democracy? This has nothing to do with democracy, or rights, or law and order. New York City, while not exactly lawless, is never exactly orderly, either. This has only to do with PR, and press coverage. To some extent, on both sides. (More big police vehicles are going down the highway.) I've saved the really scary story for last. A neighbor came over to talk to me on Friday, very upset. Her college age daughter, who doesn't live at home, had visited her to warn her that she, the mother, might be visited by the FBI, and she shouldn't be upset if this happened. Her daughter, a small (she wears a size 2) very pretty blond, is an artist, a photographer, and had been photographing the Brooklyn Bridge. Now, the Brooklyn Bridge is an American icon. Artists have been painting it since it was built. Some of the paintings are very famous. There are thousands of published photographs of it. It is famous in song and story -- and poetry. If you go to the Smithsonian, you can see samples of the actual cable used to build it. Very impressive. The engineering plans and history of how it was built are on display and published in books. Any terrorist who wanted to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge would only have to look up the volumes of, by now, public domain information about it to find any information that could possibly be needed. But, for God's sake, don't get caught photographing it now! She was grabbed by two policemen who called for backup, and six more arrived. Dressed in her tight little shirt and shorts, she couldn't possibly have looked like a mad terrorist suicide bomber concealing a bomb in her clothing. It takes eight armed men to subdue a tiny blond woman? Eight seems to be the magic number now -- the girl who belongs to the American Friends Service Committee (that's the Quakers, the original non-violent group so this was really nuts) was "visited" and grilled about whether she was planning violence during the convention was also grilled by eight men. They held my friend's daughter for several hours, demanding that she tell them why she was photographing the bridge. She tried to reason with them. She explained about art, the effects of light and atmosphere; that didn't work. They wanted to know WHY she was photographing the bridge. She tried another approach. "Don't you have photographs of your mother? Don't you want to be able to remember how she looks right now? She'll grow old, and she'll change. The neighborhood around the Bridge will change, and I want to be able to remember how it looks right now." They didn't buy that, either. They wanted to know WHY she was photographing the bridge, with strong hints about WHO she was photographing it for. She finally said, "Are you arresting me?" They said, they could keep her until at least 3 AM without arresting her. They finally let her go, but it's clear that they're watching her. She was approached again when she was photographing an unused canal -- a rancid stretch of water of no use to anyone. This is paranoia and sadistic power let loose and running rampant. Our Brave New World. UPDATE: So far as I can find out, nothing was happening this morning. The woman's march was fine and everyone had a great time. I haven't heard of any disasters at the Holland Tunnel, which is south of where I live. Various kinds of police vehicles have been dashing by, sirens blaring, all day. Doesn't seem to mean much, except their general state of hysteria.

--- Posted at 8/28/2004 07:03:00 AM by Meryl Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

What's next?

You've probably seen the video bite with Bush rousing his screened shills in New Mexico:

THE PRESIDENT: [...] No telling what he'll promise in October. (Laughter.) The problem is, he hasn't said how he's going to pay for it. Well, he said one thing, he said he's going to tax the rich. You've heard that before, haven't you?

AUDIENCE: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Guess what? The rich dodge and you pay.

AUDIENCE: Yes.

The rich dodge, huh? And then "we" pay! Gosh, how unjust. Putting aside your simultaneous rage and amusement at this fuck-you-what-are-you-gonna-do-about-it remark, what's going on here? What populist kool-aid are we supposed to believe W's been sipping? You're probably ahead of me by now. This is a big smelly piece of chum. Kerry's supposed to bite it. It's the sneak preview introduction of the next Kerry attack campaign. They obviously have some really juicy stuff ready about this. I wonder what? We'll find out the moment the Swift Boat Liars smear reaches its point of diminshing returns.

--- Posted at 8/27/2004 09:18:00 PM by richard

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Randian of the Day



--- Posted at 8/27/2004 08:58:00 PM by richard

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

The undecided voter

Following Arianna's lead, Tom Tomorrow dissects the undecided voter. (via goddess Avedon)

--- Posted at 8/27/2004 08:40:00 PM by richard

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

The Flip-Flopper Accusation

I want to say a few words about the Bush campaign's accusation that Kerry is a "flip-flopper." A number of bloggers and others have pointed to the many instances of Bush flip-flopping, and how Kerry is actually very consistent in his positions, and saying this shows that the charge is bogus and Bush is a hypocrite. This misses the point. The point is that they accuse Kerry of being a flip-flopper because Bush is. Think about it. Going into the election, Bush strategists had to look at where Bush's weakest points are. Obviously Bush's repeatedly saying one thing and doing another was going to be an issue in the campaign. So how to fight that? Accuse Kerry of it before he can say it about Bush! And look how well it works: the campaign focused on whether Kerry is a flip-flopper or not rather than on Bush's obvious inconsistencies.

--- Posted at 8/27/2004 01:45:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

The Big Lie Lives On

Thom Hartmann, What Would Machiavelli Do? The Big Lie Lives On:

"History tells us that, over the short term, the Big Lie usually works. Over the long term, though, the damage it does - both to those who use it, and to the society on which it is inflicted - is incalculable."

As always, a great piece from Thom.

--- Posted at 8/27/2004 01:44:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Bush Says Kerry Telling the Truth. What Did Bush Say?

President Bush said that Senator Kerry is telling the truth about his military record, and in response his supporters redouble their promotion of claims that Kerry is lying. In spite of his statement Bush does not ask them to stop. What does this mean? I think that Bush's statement and the "Conservative Movement's" reaction to it tells an important story about what is happening in America. Bush: Kerry didn't lie about Vietnam record:

"President Bush said Thursday that he did not believe Sen. John Kerry lied about his war record, but he declined to condemn the TV commercial paid for by a veterans group alleging Kerry came by his war medals dishonestly."

Bush declared that Kerry is telling the truth. Yet the so-called "conservatives" did not take this to mean they are to stop questioning Kerry's Vietnam record and get back to discussing the important issues facing our country. Instead, they increase their promotion of the story that Kerry lied. If you take a tour of the right-wing news this morning, or listen to talk radio, you see that the Republicans have redoubled their promotion of claims that Kerry is NOT telling the truth. Everywhere you turn Bush's supporters are doing exactly the opposite of what Bush's words would have one think he said. Bush's supporters have universally done exactly the opposite of what Bush's WORDS appeared to say they should do! Does this mean that Bush is an ineffective leader who can't even get those on his own side to do what he says? No, it seems that Bush's supporters have a different understanding of the meaning of such statements. If you examine the response of the "conservatives" to Bush's words, it appears there is a universal understanding that Bush meant for them to do something entirely different than what he said! It is clear that when Bush said Kerry is telling the truth his supporters heard instructions to go forth and multiply their attacks. There appears to be an unspoken understanding between Bush and his supporters that he will say things that are different from what he means, with the supporters universally accepting and approving of this duplicity. This is a "wink and a nod" situation, in which they hear Bush telling them to go right along with what they were doing, in spite of his words. Bush's supporters understood his statement was only meant to "provide cover" for his role in the smear, while they are to go right on promoting it on their websites, cable TV networks, talk radio, etc. Think about what this says about "conservatives'" understanding of the "conservative movement" and their role in it. This is not an open and honest democratic movement we are talking about. This is the behavior of a conspiracy to subvert the democratic process. Bush's behavior indicates that his agenda is not what is put forward to the public -- and the behavior of the members of the movement indicates that they understand and approve.

--- Posted at 8/27/2004 12:21:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Increasingly obvious

It's become increasingly obvious to me that the Republicans, in control of every organ of government and the media, have assumed a brazen what-are-you-gonna-do-about-it attitude. Looks like someone else noticed exactly the same thing. (Warning - big file to download, high-bandwidth recommended.)

--- Posted at 8/27/2004 12:02:00 PM by richard

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

AWOL Alerts

The latimes reports that Ohio, Wisconsin, & Missouri are trending Bush. As the SBVFT demonstrates, the power of going negative could deliver this election to Bush and the country to disaster. The advantage of Kerry supporters in this election is that going negative about Bush is speaking truth to power. The blogosphere is doing its part. Check out the site of Paul Lukasiak, who believes he has unraveled the story of Bush's attempt to transfer himself to Alabama, and can prove that Bush never made up his missed training days.

--- Posted at 8/27/2004 11:02:00 AM by Camille Roy

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Republican heros

Firming up the Republican base in Miami.

--- Posted at 8/27/2004 02:43:00 AM by richard

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Big Dan's vote is still up for grabs

Since I put in a guest post a few days back, the expected horsemen (Death, famine, the whole gang) have thus far failed to materialize. Neither has it snowed in Hell. Monkeys have not flown out of any butts that I am aware of. Relatively few pigs have flown (well, under their own power). Those were the expected results Dave and I figured would come of letting me post here as a guest. Since fate is obviously game for being tempted, we thought I'd have another run at it. Here goes: Last time around, I voted for George W. Bush. It didn’t take me long to become disillusioned with the man. I am a conservative politically (pro-national defense, prayer in school should not be mandated but should be allowed, etc), and a liberal religiously (pro-social activism, not against homosexuals, let’s feed the poor, etc). When the two conflict, I generally fall on the side of the liberal religionist, to coin a phrase. Bush doesn’t stand for the ideals of what it means to me to be a Christian. Furthermore, his base conservative political views are close, but his “any means necessary” approach is disturbing. The point? I won’t be voting for Bush this time around. However, Bush’s failings are only enough to get me not to vote for him. They aren’t enough to cause me to vote for Kerry. So far, I still don’t know what Kerry stands for. Sure there are the typical Democrat positions (pro-choice, pro-environment, etc), but any Democrat in a nice suit can run on the basic Left platform. I want to know WHO KERRY IS – What does he stand for? He says we’re gonna put people back to work and reform education and whatnot, but even on his home site I don’t see a real plan to make that happen. I don’t, in short, know what his THING is. He concentrated on his war record at the DNC. His "thing" seemed to be that he was a war hero. I don't really feel any compulsion to vote for war heroes on either side of the fence, though. I don’t care about how brave he was three and a half decades ago and, anyway, I really hate war. I want to know who he is today. So here’s your chance to do more than just praise Kerry because he isn’t Bush. Tell me why you are voting FOR Kerry, not AGAINST Bush. Of course, if you are only voting for him because you’d vote for anyone who wasn’t Bush, I guess you have to say that, too… it just doesn’t help me with my choice. As of today, I’m leaning toward not voting for president at all. Discuss. Respectfully Submitted, Big Dan

--- Posted at 8/26/2004 04:39:00 PM by Daniel Champion

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Cabbies Say "Walk the Walk"

RNCWatch: Cabbies Against Bush Offer Free Rides to Airport For GOP Delegates Willing to Go to Iraq to Fight (thanks to Dave Winer)

--- Posted at 8/26/2004 11:37:00 AM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

latimes poll: Bush Edges ahead

Yikes. We have been focusing on rebuttal of absurd charges, while allowing the charges to pollute the air. This is a defensive strategy. We need counter-attack. Why doesn't someone (nice 527! nice 527!) run a series of ads called .... "The Making of A President" and present a biography of Bush: the lies, the political hack attacks, the shady insider dealings, the corporate favoritism, etc. The mainstream press (as well as the rightwing pundits) have claimed that Kerry brought the SBVFT on himself because he emphasized his record of service. This argument can be turned around: Bush has brought upon himself a new examination of his character because a character argument is being used against his opponent. The MoveOn ads I've seen were more like weepies than tough political ads (remember those little kids on the assembly line?). Everybody has got to start thinking offensively here. It is not too late. To do otherwise would be a real strategic failure.

--- Posted at 8/26/2004 10:36:00 AM by Camille Roy

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Security for the Convention

There's nothing to compare with watching paranoia do its thing. Anyone in NYC who farts during the next couple of weeks is going to be in danger of being arrested as a bioterrorist. Think I'm joking? I'm not. I'm suggesting a Group Fart as a demonstration. Here's what I know now about the Big Plan. I watched Ridge, Pataki, and Bloomberg make their announcement from the floor of Madison Square Garden. Security is going to be provided by federal, state and local agencies. On the federal level, he Secret Service, of course; that makes sense because they always protect the president. The FBI wasn't mentioned, but they're certainly around. Homeland Security -- the coast guard, (well, this is a port) and various "classified" agencies -- apparently around 8 of them. On the state level -- the national guard and the state police. Locally, the poor old NYPD, with many of its members in plain clothes, especially on the subways. Plus something very vague about "help" from New Jersey and Connecticut. Who pays for all this? The taxpayers, of course, although Bloomberg made a pitch saying "private contributions" will cover much of the cost of the convention. Everybody made a big pitch about New York being "the safest city in America." Not with all these paranoid nuts around, it isn't. The fun has already begun. Without announcing in advance that this was going to happen, the streets closest to the Madison Square Garden were suddenly closed off yesterday afternoon, creating an amazing traffic mess. Geez! Nobody's even there yet! I was planning to go to Macy's today, but I don't think I'll be able to get there from here. I was also hoping to sneak some photos of the security in the area. They wouldn't arrest a little old lady with a cane for taking pictures, would they? Yeah, they probably would, or at least take my camera away -- especially since it's a tiny digital camera, and I'd be sneaking around. I might try a bus ride to see how and where the busses are being rerouted, and whether they just stop dead at around 23rd St. There was a wonderful photo in the paper today of -- I guess it's the National Guard with machine guns -- standing at attention at the entrance to Victoria's Secret. Good grief! Who's likely to attack Victoria's Secret? Yesterday The Union for Peace and Justice, the group planning to bring at least 250,000 people here to protest, lost its court battle to rally on the Great Lawn in Central Park. The judge said that they waited too long to appeal this to the court system; that they've had since May and waited until a few days before their planned rally, after agreeing to the city's offer to let them march past Madison Square Garden and then down West St. and that it would be too much of a hardship for the city to have to change its plans now. This is at least partly correct; there are many activities planned in the park, including a big race, that would have to be canceled. The entire stupid fight is over whether protecting the grass on the Great Lawn violates their freedom of speech! This is logical? What absolutely nobody is mentioning at all, ever, is that if you go down West Street, over to your right a block or two away, there's a large, beautiful new park with plenty of room -- the Hudson River Park, with plenty of open grass space for a rally. splendid views across the Hudson River, including the Statue of Liberty, the NY Harbor, and Staten Island. It also has new, accessible rest rooms, and if I remember right, the Great Lawn doesn't. The Union for Peace and Justice (why is it that the groups most likely to incite violence seem to always have the word "peace" in their name) says, in a fit of pique about losing the case, that OK, they'll gather at 14th St., march past Madison Sq. Garden, and then the members can go where they want -- presumably up to Central Park -- and the mayor sez anybody's welcome in Central Park, but the city and the group are going to continue negotiating. So -- I either will or will not be able to get out of my apartment (on West St.). Either way, security is already picking up down here in the Village. Walking past the PATH station (subway from New Jersey) on Christopher St., there were so many police yesterday I thought maybe something had happened, but no, it's just "security." No machine guns yet, anyway. The word is that if you want to get out of the city, the time to do it is today. Tomorrow is expected to be a gridlock day because so many people are planning to leave before the convention. The airports are supposed to be just as bad. A lot of businesses have, at their own expense, wired their employees homes so they'll be able to work at home on computers. NY1, the local news channel, has been featuring advice for those who work at home, so there must be a lot of them. They've also been reporting rumors, like "80 leading anarchists are planning to be here." So what? What's 80 anarchists in a city of 8 million furious New Yorkers? The mood in this neighborhood, Greenwich Village, seems to be "A pox on both your houses!" The Village is a traditional bastion of liberal politics, Lincoln spoke at the Cooper Union, Union Square Park has always been a center for radical speeches and demonstrations, since well before WW I. Neighbors gather outside to discuss things, and even when you're not part of a particular discussion, just walking by you can't miss what they're saying, because they want you to hear them. They are furious. Mad as hornets that the convention is here at all because of the simpering hypocrisy about 9/11 and the government's refusal to honor its financial commitments to the city. The Speaker of the House just remarked on the "unseemly scramble for money" after 9/11 by city officials. The hospitals have collectively announced that they are in no way prepared for a major disaster. Having averaged about 9 million each at their own expense to retrofit their emergency rooms to handle bioterrorism or a "dirty bomb" because they knew they had to do it, they've been given 75,000 each by the Feds and need much more. Then there's the amazing overkill of the security preparations, the bloodlust for violence during the convention so the Republicans can blame the Democrats for it, and the juvenile attitude of the idiots planning to come here to incite violence.

--- Posted at 8/26/2004 07:00:00 AM by Meryl Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

"Christmas in Cambodia": the musical

This "Christmas in Cambodia" bullshit is so funny that we need to get it made into musical or a screwball comedy. Mel Brooks (78 years young) is the right guy for the job. Work in the Dead Kennedys song "Holiday in Cambodia" (thanks Yglesias, don't think that you're not appreciated!) Get "They Might Be Giants" and Jello Biafra to write a few sharp new songs. The trolls are losing it over this. They think that this is the killer issue, bigger than Watergate, bigger than the Teapot Dome, bigger than Aaron Burr's treason. They think that they've finally found the magic bullet that will kill Kerry and along with him, liberalism. They're nuts. They're arguing over ten or twenty miles of distance on an unmarked border. They're arguing about a week or two one way or another in a mushy international French-Vietnamese-American holiday season. "On the twelfth day of Christmas my true love sent to me", etc. Who cares? What a bunch of bozos. They're howling at the moon. Pretty soon they're going to start biting themselves. Grab a chair, pop some popcorn, and enjoy the fun.

--- Posted at 8/25/2004 11:40:00 PM by John Emerson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

You've been warned

If it's not one thing it's another. Bush, asteroids, tipping points.

--- Posted at 8/25/2004 07:43:00 PM by richard

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Eli's blog

If you're a center-right Democrat don't bother, but otherwise check out this blog. A rare, genuinely left viewpoint. I love it.

--- Posted at 8/25/2004 07:08:00 PM by richard

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

The Lying CReEP...

As he was forced to reign today, Ben Ginsburg, lawyer for the Swift Boat Liars AND the CReEP (the Committee to Re-Elect the President) had this to say about his activities for both groups: "I was at the nexus of making sure (coordination) didn't happen..." So, lets see if we've got this straight: he was coordinating the non-coordination? yeah, Riiiiiiight....

--- Posted at 8/25/2004 05:52:00 PM by David HM

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

A Lie

The entire right-wing Wurlitzer, right-wing blogosphere and cable TV in general has been all over an old statement by John Kerry that he was in Cambodia over Christmas, calling it a "lie" because he was actually there in January. So how about this? The Left Coaster points out that Bush Lied About His Military Record. And this is not just some mis-statement, this is a flat-out, undeniable lie. The comparison is clear. Where is the outrage?

--- Posted at 8/25/2004 03:45:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Death and the Conservative Guest

Hello, all. Big Dan here, guest blogging thanks to an invite by Dave! Um, so blame him. He gave me pretty much a carte blanche in terms of topic, so I've settled on my cause celebre, the death penalty. Read, enjoy, let me have it when you're done. ________________________ Kelsey Patterson is dead. He died on May 18th of this year. I doubt, however, that most will mourn him. Indeed, even among those of us who did not want him to die, most would readily admit that the world is a better place without him. He was a brutal killer and not one with whom anyone would easily sympathize. But, you see, Kelsey Patterson did not just die – we killed him. More specifically, officers in a Texas prison injected him with lethal chemicals, and quietly he met eternity. There are many more who are in a like fashion scheduled to die. Moreover, the relatively new federal crime bill imposes death as a penalty for 50 more crimes, despite recent court-of-law uncertainty about the cruelty of lethal injection itself. “There is no doubt that Kelsey Patterson shot Louis Oates and Dorothy Harris, and there would appear to be little doubt that mental illness lay behind this tragic crime. He made no attempt to avoid arrest - after shooting the victims, he put down the gun, undressed and was pacing up and down the street in his socks, shouting incomprehensibly, when the police arrived.” The answer to the question of appropriate punishment comes when we know why we punish and why we killed Kelsey Patterson, mental health issues aside. There are three means of criminal punishment available: probation, incarceration and death. And we rely on only four justifications for those punishments: rehabilitation, deterrence, containment and retribution. Let us look at how the death penalty compares to the four justifications. First, one can easily reject rehabilitation as an aim. If there is one thing the death penalty surely does not do, it is rehabilitate the person on whom it is imposed. It simply takes that person’s life. The score is now 0 for 1. The second purpose, deterrence, is trickier. Statistics uniformly show that the condemned on death row did not consider the possibility that they might die for their crimes. In fact, murder rates actually dropped in Canada after the death penalty was repealed and states with the death penalty have higher murder rates than those without (same source). Interestingly, not even police chiefs themselves think the death penalty is an effective deterrent, in fact ranking it lowest among the tools at the government’s disposal: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FactSheet.pdf, bottom of page four. It is also worth noting that one thing we can’t do with those we’ve executed is STUDY them. A better form of deterrence would come in the form of studies done on those found guilty of capital offenses. We could research their motivations, their histories and their methodologies. You can’t do any of that with a corpse. On an individual level only, I will admit that the death penalty is a wonderful deterrent. That is to say, 100 percent of those executed never committed murder again. The issue there becomes how necessary and worthwhile the death penalty is. All current statistics show that it is first of all more expensive to execute a person than imprison them for life, even requiring the added cost of creating federal cost-cutting procedures which certainly won’t help the accused get a fair shake. Secondly, as an individual deterrent, life imprisonment serves just as well as execution. In just 15 years, for instance, Florida spent an estimated $57 million on the death penalty to achieve 18 executions. (Miami Herald, July 10, 1988) Need more cost-related stats? Let me know. I didn’t want to spam the screen with all the links I could provide. Suffice it to say that the death penalty now rates 0-2. Let’s move on to the third purpose, containment. Killing for the purpose of containment (the idea that the death penalty will keep criminals from ever killing again) is problematic because it punishes someone for a crime not yet committed. While killing for a future crime may make great theater, and Tom Cruise may be handsome, in real life, you can’t consider someone guilty because they “might” or “probably will” do something wrong in the future. Since we can keep someone safely behind bars without resorting to the final, irreversible act of killing them, why add the expense of capital crimes costs? 0-3. This leaves only retribution. Revenge. The ultimate payback. Revenge is the area that provides the most difficulty for a reasoned debater. Given simple logic, refuting the death penalty is a no-brainer, since it is, at its heart, based on this logical fallacy: We will teach people that killing is wrong by killing them. However, the compulsion for revenge is at the heart of every execution, and humans find ways to justify what they want. Ever talked yourself into buying a certain car, or eating that fatty meal, or sleeping with a certain member of the opposite sex you knew was bad for you, or killing millions of Jews in the name of racial cleansing? We tend to view our own skewed logic as reasonable when it supports what we want, especially if that is at the core of our being in the way the impulse to exact revenge is. We need to be sensitive to the feelings of the victims' families, to be sure. Family and friends of murdered loved ones invariably say that they want the murderer executed so that they can achieve a sense of closure and move on with their lives. But many people who've seen the murderers of their loved ones executed say that, after the execution, they are left with that same anger, that same emptiness, and that the void that they thought would be filled by the "justice" of the execution was still there. Not surprisingly, killing the murderer doesn’t make you miss your loved ones any less. Entire books and collections of essays have been written by the families of victims making this point. The reason for this is simple: if revenge is a dish best served cold, as the Klingons say, then it is also a dish that never satisfies. In fact, it feeds on itself. Gaining revenge only creates the need for more revenge, more acts of seemingly righteous anger. I remember seeing a mass of what can only be called party-goers at the Ted Bundy execution. A gathering of celebrants danced all night, cheered when the switch was thrown and held signs saying things like “Fry, Bundy, Fry.” These people were not there expressing reasoned opinions on the justice system, they were there celebrating revenge. They were partying. It was remarkably like the scene around the campfire near the end of The Lord of the Flies. It is common animal nature to resent a hurt done to us, and to want to lash out in return. Just as the kids abandoned on the deserted island in William Golding’s novel reverted to their animal natures, so too did the party-goers celebrating Bundy’s death. However, a reasoned justice system requires better logic for its executions than the Texan “he needed killin’” response. Official, state-sanctioned revenge is no less evil than me taking a club to a rival’s head in a fit of passion. Revenge is, simply put, antithetical to our ideas about civilized society. The problem is that “pay back” is politically popular. It reaches to the animal inside us. It gets ratings. It is our country’s dirty little secret. Perhaps instead of banging the cages of the animals inside us, the government would do better to cater to justice for individuals, not the bloodlust of the masses. 0-4. Having laid that groundwork, we can finally move on to what I see as the real issue surrounding the death penalty. The unfair system would be bad enough if it worked correctly. It does not. This product of the Justice System is patently unjust. We won’t ever know if the death penalty would have been a fair punishment, because it has never been utilized fairly. With word count in mind, I’ll hit these next points speaking to the unfairness of the current system quickly. The first and most obvious failure of the system is that, inevitably, innocents die. It is presumptuous and, well, silly to pretend it doesn’t ever happen. Since 1973, 114 people in 25 states have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence. (Latest release: Gordon Steidl, just a few months ago on March 28, 2004) The question then becomes: Is it worth killing a few innocent folks to make sure we get the really bad ones? The answer? Ask the families of those executed. I’m fairly certain they would rather shut down the unfair system than kill their undeserving loved one. Secondly, the death penalty is systemically unfair to certain members of society. For instance, the poor can’t afford to hire the legal team O.J. Simpson did. Listen to the words of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: “People who are well represented at trial do not get the death penalty. . . . I have yet to see a death case among the dozens coming to the Supreme Court on eve-of-execution stay applications in which the defendant was well represented at trial." (Associated Press, April 10, 2001) The ACLU reports that in Illinois alone, at least 33 times, a defendant sentenced to die was represented at trial by an attorney who has been disbarred or suspended. These are sanctions reserved for conduct so incompetent, unethical or criminal that their license is taken away!! Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, states have executed 486 prisoners and have exonerated 75 others. “How can anyone say these are anything but horrible odds,” says famed defense lawyer Barry Scheck. “Divide 75 into 500, it means almost one in six times, we are dead wrong. If you got the wrong results at a hospital one in six times, you’d have no faith in the system,” he says. “You’d demand the hospital be shut down.” Speaking of O.J. lawyers, it is also clear that not everyone can play the race card the way Johnny Cochran did. In fact, race is part of the problem making the system criminally, fatally and irreversibly unfair. The Death Penalty Information Center reported as recently as May 19 of this year that over 80 percent of completed capital cases involve white victims, while national numbers also show that 50 percent or less of all murder victims are white. It’s not a long leap to realize that you’re more likely to fry if you kill a white person. The same study, echoed in research by both Amnesty International and the ACLU, shows that a whopping 42 percent of death row inmates are black. Care to compare that to the percentage of the American population? While you’re there, just so you don’t think I am personally playing the race card only, take a look at the rates of death as punishment among women, juveniles (yes, kids on death row) and those with mental health problems. What we have, at the heart of it, is an unjust system, administered unjustly. A system that will take life must first give justice. --Former ABA President John J. Curtin, Jr., discussing the current movement to reduce the number of appeals, adding to the possibility of innocents executed. I will believe in the death penalty when you will prove to me the infallibility of human beings. --Marquis de Lafayette I think they're a bunch of ignorant, backwoods, redneck clowns bent on vengeance. --Freddie Pitts, who spent nine and a half years on Florida's death row before someone else confessed to the murders he was convicted of committing. Pitts was asked his opinion of state legislators who want to speed up the pace of executions. As one whose husband and mother-in-law have died the victims of murder assassination, I stand firmly and unequivocally opposed to the death penalty for those convicted of capital offenses. An evil deed is not redeemed by an evil deed of retaliation. Justice is never advanced in the taking of a human life. Morality is never upheld by a legalized murder. --Corretta Scott King I have observed that it never does a boy much good to shoot him. --President Lincoln on Roswell McIntyre, sentenced to death for desertion Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. --John Donne Evidence of innocence is irrelevant! -Mary Sue Terry, former Attorney General of Virginia (replying to an appeal to introduce new evidence from a prisoner sentenced to death). Respectfully submitted, Big Dan

--- Posted at 8/25/2004 11:47:00 AM by Daniel Champion

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Letter To Bush

The following letter from nine Senators who are also veterans is being delivered to President Bush today, in Crawford, Texas, where he is (as usual) on vacation:

Dear President Bush: We, the undersigned members of the United State Senate call on you to specifically condemn the recent attack ads and accompanying campaign which dishonor Senator John Kerry’s combat record in the Vietnam War. These false charges represent the worst kind of politics, and we agree with both Senator John McCain and Senator Kerry that a firmly established service record in the United States Military is fully above reproach. As veterans of the armed services, we ask that you recognize this blatant attempt at character assassination, and publicly condemn it. Our outrage over these advertisements and tactics has nothing to do with the tax code or campaign finance reform efforts of this nation. Our pain from seeing these slanderous attacks stems from something much more fundamental, that if one veteran’s record is called into question, the service of all American veterans is questioned. This administration must not tacitly comply with unfounded accusations which have suddenly appeared 35 years after the fact, and serve to denigrate the service of a true American patriot. The veterans serving today should never have to expect this kind of treatment, when the wars of their generation have passed into history. We brothers and sisters in arms expect our Commander-in-Chief to stand up and reject this assault upon John Kerry’s honor, the honor of American veterans and that of the United States Navy. As you yourself have said, there is nothing complicated about supporting our troops. The leader so of this nation should make it clear that the members of our military will not only be supported when they wear the uniform, but also when they return home to the land they fought to defend. Their valor and their wounds, both physical and psychological, make them heroes for as long as they live, a status which should not and must not change simply because they seek to enter public service. We who wore the uniform, served in different branches of the military join together today to defend a fellow veteran from attacks we know to be false, and politically-motivated slander. Such attacks have no place in our democratic process. Mr. President, as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, we believe you owe a special duty to America’s combat veterans when they are under false and scurrilous attacks. We hope you will recognize this duty, and speak out against this group and their efforts to smear the reputation of a man who has served this country nobly. Call on this group to cease and desist. We can return this campaign season to a discussion of the issues on either side, and restore faith in the political system. As Americans, we should expect nothing less. Sincerely, Daniel Inouye Ernest Hollings Tom Harkin Frank Lautenberg Tom Carper Jon Corzine Daniel K. Akaka Jack Reed Bill Nelson

I think it's more likely that Bush will run back to the hidey-hole he was in right after 9/11.

--- Posted at 8/25/2004 10:33:00 AM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Always

The Freeway Blogger. Always.

--- Posted at 8/25/2004 08:09:00 AM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Why they lie

An interesting exchange from last weeks NOW with Bill Moyers:

BRANCACCIO: And normally we would chide the media for not trying to get to the bottom of these ads. What is the truth here? But I'll tell you, in this Swift Boat case, that's a toughy. I mean, people have tried. And the fact is the information from so many years ago is uneven, is sometimes contradictory. It's hard for a newspaper or a broadcast like this to say, all right, here's really what happened.

JAMIESON: THE WASHINGTON POST and NEW YORK TIMES have done a very good job at getting to what we can reasonably get to in the record. What interests me about it is that you have people on both sides who seem to genuinely believe conflicting accounts. And I think there's an explanation for it.

We know that human memory is fallible. And anybody can go back in their own past and say, there are times when I was so sure this is what happened. And then I talked to other people who were there, and they didn't remember it the same way. I don't think that the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth had any idea who Kerry was when Kerry was on those boats.

He wasn't Senator Kerry or President Kerry, he was just one more person on the boats. I think they went back and recalled their memories of Kerry when he came and protested the war. And I think they were very angry. They came back and thought they heard him accusing them of atrocities. I think this is the explanation for why it is that they believe that he must not have earned his medals even though the evidence would suggest that he did. In order to make their own internal story coherent about Vietnam, they have to somehow reconcile what they heard as an attack on them, what they heard as allegation of atrocities that they had committed, which is different actually I believe from what Kerry said.

But, nonetheless, what I believe they heard and the ads suggest what they heard. They had to reconcile that with Kerry the hero who earned the medals. I believe to make their own story consistent for themselves they believed he couldn't have earned those medals. Hence, he was a liar then. He was a liar when he protested the war. He must be unfit to be President. I think this is an exploration in the process about human memory requires us to create a consistent story, particularly about people we intensely dislike.

--- Posted at 8/25/2004 04:02:00 AM by richard

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

527 Lesson

Dionne writes in Wapo today:

If all the stories about what Kerry did in Vietnam are not balanced by serious scrutiny of Bush in the Vietnam years, the media will be capitulating to a right-wing smear campaign. Surely our nation's editors and producers don't want to send a signal that all you have to do to set the media's agenda is spend a half-million bucks on television ads.

Duh! Of COURSE the media will capitulate to a right wing smear campaign. That's a big part of the media's job, here in the USA. That's the bad news. The good news is that Dubya's sleazy past is red meat for a scandal. The SBVFT ruckus means the dirty Bush needs to lap dance for the American public and the Kerry campaign can't set this up -- they'd be caught in the dirtstorm. The Karl Rove playbook would be to orchestrate the sleaze campaign but keep your finger prints off it. The 527 removes the need for any campaign orchestration at all. Just a few big donors, that's all that's needed. Are there any out there who want to tear Dubya a new one? There's just SO much to work with now. For example, this post from juan cole was quite fascinating.

--- Posted at 8/24/2004 09:36:00 PM by Camille Roy

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Republicans for Kerry 2004

Republicans for Kerry 2004

--- Posted at 8/24/2004 09:08:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

The Spite Vote

Digby found this, and I think it just NAILS why a lot of non-rich white males vote Republican and listen to Limbaugh. Just nails it. It's kind of long, but you'll enjoy every line.

--- Posted at 8/24/2004 08:45:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Soros vs. Scaife

The Bush team has very deftly redefined the debate over his discredited Swift Boat Liars as a debate about soft money and 527s, and the media seem to be buying his line of bullshit. One name that comes up a lot in the debate is the sinister billionaire George Soros, who (as fully disclosed) has given a lot of money to Move On, an independent group which supports Kerry the way the Swiftboat Liars support Bush (albeit more honestly). Republicans seem to think that Soros is a villain, and they use his name that way in speeches, but Soros is actually a good guy in a very big way. Like the Republican sugar-daddy Richard Mellon Scaife, he's a billionaire, but the comparison ends there. Soros earned his money, whereas Scaife inherited his, and Soros, unlike Scaife, is mentally stable. So let's compare the two. Scaife's one accomplishment in life has been the Clinton impeachment. He gave millions of dollars to various slanderers and to investigators who ultimately came up with very little that was solid, but his investments in publicity and propaganda succeeded in keeping the fake scandals alive and almost succeeded in toppling Clinton. He apparently (according to David Brock) had an unhealthy interest in Hillary Clinton's supposed lesbian relationships, and one of the few reporters ever to succeed in talking to him left hurriedly after he called her a "Communist cunt" and threatened her. But for all his looniness, Scaife has been a powerful force in American politics for well over a decade. A high proportion of America's most noxious right-wing disinformation is produced on his dime, and most of the important contemporary conservatives of our time are deeply in Scaife's debt. Salon Scaife links / Washington Post on Scaife / Scaife foundations / Scaife bio George Soros grew up very precariously in WWII Hungary (ruled by a Fascist allied with Hitler), and after the war escaped from Communist Hungary to live in London. He studied there under Karl Popper, his hero, but was not able to continue his studies and went into finance. He has been very successful, turning a few hundred thousand dollars into billions. Over the last two decades, starting in Poland well before the Berlin Wall fell, he has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the Open Society Foundation, the purpose of which was to help the ex-Communist world to develop democratic institutions. Soros is anti-Communist, anti-Fascist, and pro-democracy, but he also fears the Christian nationalist free-market fanaticism which dominates the Republican Party. Soros bio / Soros bio / Soros in Fascist Hungary (search "Soros") So his new project is to get George W. Bush out of office. The Republicans think that we should be ashamed of Soros' involvement, but we should be proud instead. Soros is a billionaire, but how can the Republicans possibly complain about that? When he compares the present moment to proto-Fascist Hungary, he isn't just blowing smoke -- he's talking about something he remembers and was lucky to survive. We're in very good company with Soros at our side, and (as you can see below) Soros' Republican critics are in very bad company indeed. Soros' political activities / Soros' Open Society efforts / Open Society Institute site / Defence of Soros (Eric Alterman, The Nation) / Defence of Soros (Matt Welch, Reason) Soros' Enemies: Soros has enemies to be proud of: post-Communist dictators, neo-fascist nationalists, anti-Semites, Likudniks, LaRouchies, and miscellaneous wackos. Here are a few of the dozens of links I have seen. Especially creepy guest attacks Soros on O'Reilly / Long, creepy American attack on Soros / Uzbek attack / Soviet attack and defence /Ukrainian attack / Macedonian / Serbian attack / Muslim anti-Semitic attack (Mahathir) / Likudnik attack I /Likudnik attack II -- weird accusations / Wacko attack I / Wacko attack II / Wacko attack III / Freeper / Ukrainian attack / Anti-semitic attack I / Anti-semitic attack II

--- Posted at 8/24/2004 08:21:00 PM by John Emerson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

O'Neill Was In Cambodia

O'Neill in Cambodia. This is the guy who has been saying that Kerry is a liar for saying he was in Cambodia and that if Kerry WAS there he should have been courtsmarshalled. So, of course, now they found a tape of O'Neill, from before all of this Kerry smear stuff, saying he was in Cambodia. But I'm not pasing this along to refute the Swift Boat liars. I'm passing this along to remind you of the bigger picture: THEY JUST LIE! THAT is all you have to remember when dealing with the Right. THEY JUST LIE! From March:

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 [Kerry] 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.)

In March I said everything you needed to know to be ready for this current smear. "YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT THE CHARGES THEY WILL MAKE TOMORROW AND NEXT WEEK ARE FALSE. OK?" Maybe I could put a tune behind that. What would I name it? How about ... wait for it ... THEY JUST LIE!

--- Posted at 8/24/2004 07:31:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Rules for Being a Republican

At the Daily Weasel

--- Posted at 8/24/2004 07:17:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

See ya after the game

I posted the message below on our comments in response to a well-intended undecided visitor who thought we were acting a little hostile: "One thing you should remember is that we're in approximately the middle of the third quarter, and we're two points ahead of a team that we think won by cheating the last time we played, and we are worried that the referees are siding with the other team. So if we seem a bit touchy, it's because we are. And I think that most of us think that this is the most important election since at least 1980." As Newt Gingrich explained long ago, we're in a war. In the heat of battle sometimes we snap on people a bit more quickly than we should. I snap on people a LOT, and I suppose I'm wrong 5-10% of the time. As Newt Gingrich explained long ago, we're in a war. I try to avoid collateral damage, but now and then I screw up.

--- Posted at 8/24/2004 06:23:00 PM by John Emerson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Daily Summary E-Mailed to You

You can have a daily summary of Seeing the Forest e-mailed to you. In the right-side column, scroll down until you see "Enter your email address below to subscribe to Seeing the Forest!", enter your e-mail address into the text-entry area, and click the "Subscribe" button.

--- Posted at 8/24/2004 04:41:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

"Smearing the President"

On radio and cable TV all the Republicans are repeating today's talking point -- Kerry is "smearing the President." Jeeze.

--- Posted at 8/24/2004 04:38:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Look What I Found

I just came across a site called Exxon Secrets, How ExxonMobil funds the climate change skeptics.

--- Posted at 8/24/2004 01:56:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

The Daily Kerry

Tonight!

When John Kerry decided it was time to do his first national TV interview since the Swift boaters for Bush launched their attack on the senator's Vietnam War record, he did not choose CBS's "60 Minutes," ABC's "Nightline" or "NBC Nightly News."

Kerry picked Comedy Central's "The Daily Show," where he will appear tonight in an extended interview.

Now I bet you feel terrible that you dismissed as fools those TV critics who, back in July, collectively crowned "The Daily Show" the year's best news and information program. I know I do.

--- Posted at 8/24/2004 12:12:00 PM by richard

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Ewww

Unfortunate headline,over at South Knox Bubba

--- Posted at 8/24/2004 09:29:00 AM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

An E-mail

An e-mail I received:

Bill's cuckoo clock stopped keeping time correctly, so he took it to a repair shop. The old shopkeeper asked in a heavy German accent, "Vat sims to be ze problem?" Bill replied, "It doesn't work right. Instead of going tick tock tick tock, it just goes tick tick tick." The old German rummaged behind the counter. He pulled out a flashlight and walked over to the clock. Shining the beam directly on the clock face, he said in menacing tones, "Ve haff vays of making you tock!"

--- Posted at 8/24/2004 09:23:00 AM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Soros, Scaife, and 527's

The Swift Boat Veterans's initial foray was not really well recived, mostly because it was full of lies and because and number of new witnesses (not just the Kerry people) have come forward to denounce it. The Bush administration have has responded by making a generic attack on 527's and "soft money" -- without criticizing the SBV's. This is pure deception -- the Republicans like soft money just fine -- but a lot of the media swallowed it, so many people now believe that Bush has distanced himself from the Swift Boat Liars. P.S. The attacks on Kerry's medals, etc., were just round one, of course. They were only intended to set up the attack on Kerry's post-service opposition to the Vietnam war (which Sen. Dole recently kicked off). This is a legitimate political issue for a change, though we can still expect gutter politics from the Bush team. I also think that this is an issue which could blow up in Bush's face. The people who hate Kerry for his opposition to the Vietnam War are mostly over fifty, and almost all of them are already in Bush's camp. Kerry's anti-war activity is something he can be proud of, and now that the war fever has died down and we can see what a failure Bush's Iraq War is, it seems to me that Kerry can turn this one around too.

--- Posted at 8/24/2004 07:51:00 AM by John Emerson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Update on Protest Plans for the Convention

If you're here for the convention and need a break, check out this show: PEACE SIGNS The Anti-War Movement Illustrated Chisholm Gallery 56 West 22nd Street, 2nd Fl. New York City, NY 10010 Opening Reception August 24th, 7-9 PM August 24 - September 3 An exhibition of more than 40 images, including international poster art from the book "Peace Signs: the Anti-war Movement Illustrated. I'll post more about what's happening later. Meanwhile, however, I promised that I'd say something about the New York City police department. Having already been intimidated by vivid news reports of drills to prepare for breaking heads, we're now being intimidated by news reports featuring an army of police that has already been assigned to the area around Madison Square Garden. This doesn't exactly make the NYC department look particularly benign or helpful. This is not their fault. They have to go where they are assigned -- and do what they are assigned to do. In spite of this, it's quite safe to ask a NYC policeman for help or directions. The department has certainly had its bad moments, but the police here are the best educated, the best trained you'll find anywhere. Right now they are serving in spite of the fact that they haven't had a contract for two years. Neither has the fire department. This is how we treat our heros! Considering their service and sacrifice on 9/11, they deserve a lot better treatment than they are getting. This city got through the period immediately after 9/11 largely because of the calm, professional -- and remarkably helpful -- service of the police department, in spite of their terrible, unnerving losses on that day. There was no panic and no looting. We were living in wartime conditions, especially down here where i live, and we wouldn't have made it through without their help. I lost a good friend on 9/11, an upstairs neighbor, a policeman who, among other services, had served for a year in Special Forces in Bosnia, returned home, and was on the bomb squad, about the most dangerous job available. We were evacuated and the super said don't worry, Danny will take care of us, he'll be back soon, but of course he never came back. We still all miss him and feel a lot less safe without him here. I've never met a sweeter, nicer guy -- but I do know others on the police force who are just as good as he was. So be nice! Instead of deliberately antagonizing the police here, try talking to them. They're not the enemy. They're just people, just like the rest of us. And like the rest of us, they're being used as pawns in this political battle.

--- Posted at 8/24/2004 07:10:00 AM by Meryl Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Best Blog Nominations

The Washington Post is taking nominations for Best Blog, in a number of categories. Click here:

--- Posted at 8/23/2004 08:01:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Headline of the Week!

A great headline over at BuzzFlash: "Senate Republicans Weigh Dismantling CIA. Last Week, They Were Going to Dismantle the IRS. Hey, How About Dismantling the Republican Party. "

--- Posted at 8/23/2004 10:35:00 AM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Not Yet

I left a comment somewhere, about the Swift Boat stuff. I think we're all being a little bit too self-referential here in the blogosphere when we think we're making headway against this smear. This is not how I felt listening to the radio over the weekend. Anyway, here's the comment:

I'm surprised how few on "our side" understand what is happening here. We are still losing this. Tune in your AM radio today and see what I mean. It DOESN'T MATTER what editorial writers say. It DOESN'T MATTER what mainstream press people write. This is not where the people who are Bush's TARGET AUDIENCE are getting their info. Remember, a poll LAST WEEK showed that 50% of the public still believes that Iraq was either behind 9/11 directly, or was a principal partner with al-Quaida. This demonstrates that we are not understanding the channels through which about half of America is getting its information, and the Republicans do.

Half the public thinks Iraq was behind 9/11. (Another poll last week - the same poll? - also showed that half the public believes that Iraq HAD weapons of mass destruction before the war.) This should tell you that half of the public not only is not getting their information from the same sources as you and me, they are not even getting their information on the same PLANET as you and me! Do you think the veterans, who have shown a 24-point swing away from Kerry in the polls in the last couple of weeks, are even hearing ANY of the counter-smear stuff we are all so happy about? Or the swing voters in swing states? Not many. I think the "Democratic Establishment" have failed to address the real problem -- that the Right has spent decades learning how to influence and persuade large segments of the public. I think this happened "under the radar" of the Washington Democrats, and they still do not understand why they have been losing elections. They do not understand how thoroughly much of the public has bought into the Right's ideology. Taking this beyond the current swift-boat smear and into the broader context of the problem the Democrats have been having reaching the public -- when you appeal to people's desire for "fairness," "equality," "Democracy" and "sense of community" you had better first be sure that they understand and WANT these things. I think that the Right has changed the equation. It is no longer a safe assumption that Democracy, community, fairness and equality are basic, common, shared values in America. It is no longer safe to assume these are shared premises upon which you can base your arguments.

--- Posted at 8/23/2004 09:01:00 AM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Meat-Eaters Soak Up the World's Water

Meat-Eaters Soak Up the World's Water:

"Western diets, which depend largely on meat, are already putting great pressures on the environment. Meat-eaters consume the equivalent of about 5,000 liters [1,100 gallons] of water a day compared to the 1,000-2,000 liters used by people on vegetarian diets in developing countries. All that water has to come from somewhere. The consensus emerging among scientists is that it will be almost impossible to feed future generations the typical diet eaten in western Europe and North America without destroying the environment. "

And never forget the cruelty with wchich we raise and kill the animals in our factory farms.

--- Posted at 8/23/2004 08:53:00 AM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

The Republican Party as a Cult

Ideology -- following any ideology -- is, to some extent, a retreat from reality. Have you ever tried to argue with a neo-conservative? It's hopeless. Utterly hopeless. It's possible to argue with Roman Catholics, even about touchy subjects like abortion, and get reasonable explanations. It's possible to argue with even the most devout members of other mainstream religions, to argue with members of the various New Age groups. But don't bother to try arguing, or even discussing, anything with members of the more extreme evangelical groups. It's like talking to the Living Dead. I don't know where the figure "40% of the population" comes from, but this is being used for the number of people in the US who now belong to these groups, and they are assumed to be the Republican base. If this is correct, we're in real trouble, because there's no rational way to get through to them without deprogramming them. What are the characteristics of cult members? Using the members of the extreme evangelical groups as the primary example, above all, a self-justified feeling that everyone else is wrong and they are right. They know the truth, the whole God-given truth, and those who don't believe them are going to Hell or worse. Thus they withdraw as much as possible from the rest of society because society is corrupt and may corrupt them. These are the home schoolers whose children must not be exposed to corrupt society, and they have established their own colleges and universities, so generations of them have no idea how the rest of society functions. These are usually very nice people, extremely helpful because being helpful is usually part of their belief system, kind to their families and friends -- but God help you if you inadvertently trample on any of their beliefs or refuse to be converted. You have shown that you are one of the Damned, worthless, to be despised and exploited. At various times and places spirituality has included, and can still include, such practices as human sacrifice, using the sacrificed as fertilizer, murder, suicide, suicide and mass murder by crashing planes into buildings, cannibalism, animal sacrifice, various forms of physical mutilation including circumcision, castration, burning oneself alive, walking across burning coals, whipping oneself until one bleeds, ritual bloodletting often involving tongue or penis, sleeping on a bed of nails, lust for apocalyptic end times, martyrdom, being joyfully fed to lions, disposing of one’s possessions, becoming a beggar, purposefully living in total isolation under extreme conditions in caves, on top of poles, in cells, in the desert, living with lions or other dangerous wild animals, identification with wild animals or birds, becoming a hermit, not speaking for the rest of one’s life, sitting in one spot for days, extreme self-denial, fasting to the point of death, banning particular foods, sexual abstinence, sexual excess, sexual ecstasy, various forms of intoxication, exorcism of various kinds of demons or spirits of the dead, and the list goes on and on. Make no mistake about it; however crazy these practices may seem to us, many of these practices continue in various societies, including ours, to this day, and vestiges of them continue in even the most civilized spiritual practices, often barely noticed and rarely commented on. Also, make no mistake about the fact that all these practices have been considered to be of extreme spiritual value, many still are – and, within the context in which they were experienced, they probably did have extreme spiritual value. One could argue that religion exists as a means of controlling the irrational -- and, at other times, for making expressing the irrational socially acceptable. So -- what is the relationship between the Republican Party and this particular kind of religious group? Those of us who don't belong to groups of this type, and have little contact with them except to be occasionally baffled, have no idea what's really going on. G.W. Bush himself was converted by such a group and attributes his sobriety to them. What does this mean for foreign policy? I haven't read any of the popular novels about the Rapture, with a macho Christ vengefully punishing the Unbelievers while the Believers blissfully float heavenward, but I do know that one of the main tenets of belief in the End Times is that the Jews must be in Israel. We are still so close to the year 2000 and its irrational expectation of the End Times that apocalyptic visions as the basis for foreign policy are especially dangerous. NYC's democratic ex-Mayor Ed Koch is planning to vote for Bush because he believes that Bush will stand firmly behind Israel. Perhaps he should look into the reasons why Bush is likely to do this and consider the value of a more rational approach to solving the problems of the Middle East than the beliefs of those who are capable of blowing up the world, not just the Middle East, thinking they are bringing about the Rapture. An equally dangerous aspect of the attitude of G.W. Bush and his fellow believers is that they are convinced that they have the TRUTH, and that if they have any doubts they have only to use their direct pipeline to God to get the TRUTH. Anyone who disagrees with anything they believe, no matter how minor or silly, is thus absolutely wrong, an unbeliever, and damned. Thus their total vindictiveness. This attitude allows for no correcting errors, no reality testing. The fact that other members of the administration are not members of evangelical groups makes little difference. Many of them are firm believers in the philosophy of Leo Strauss and thus cynically believe they should encourage and exploit the "believers" because, to them, religion IS the opiate of the people, and the "masses" should be kept sedated so they will be easier to manipulate. And just who are the "masses?" That's us, folks, you and me, and everybody we know who is not a member of that select elite. On the one hand despised as damned if we don't "convert," and on the other hand cynically manipulated.

--- Posted at 8/23/2004 07:47:00 AM by Meryl Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Did the Swiftboat story get turned around?

Granted that TV and talk radio are more important than print, and granted that some of the mud always sticks, tonight's Google News front page Kerry headline group is mostly pro-Kerry / anti-Swiftboat Vets. If the story can be turned around -- "Attempt to Slander Kerry Fails" rather than "Questions Raised about Kerry's Record" -- then Kerry wins. There were a handful of neutral and negative headlines, but here are twelve of the first fifteen stories (about 7:30 PM PDT, August 22nd): Kerry accuser 'has no proof' Eyewitnesses only proof for claim Kerry lied - Vietnam vet Fellow skipper throws Kerry lifeline Bush campaign denies 'smear tactics' Bush campaign aide resigns amid controversy over campaign ads Kerry ad calls on Bush to 'denounce the smear' Vietnam Vet Says Has No Proof for Claim Kerry Lied Vietnam vet rises to defend Kerry Dallas PR maven helps vets make case against Kerry Comrade vouches for Kerry valor in Vietnam Volunteer aide to Bush campaign quits Kerry Challenges Bush to Halt `Smear Campaign' by Vietnam Vets Google News: Kerry Story (P. S. I unconsciously plagiarized the concept of this post from from Digby.)

--- Posted at 8/22/2004 07:26:00 PM by John Emerson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Read About Kerry

Here. (Thanks to Talking Points Memo.)

--- Posted at 8/22/2004 04:54:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Talking Points: Kerry's vs. Bush's Military Service

While I've been "retired" I've spent some time sliming around on comment boards. One winger talking point that's going around is "Why won't Kerry sign a Standard Form 180 to release all his military records?" As it happens, as of Aug 18, Scott McClellan was unable to say whether Bush had signed a Form 180 or not either. Wingers claim (August 20) that Bush's Presidential order to release his records was equivalent to signing a Form 180, but somehow I find that hard to believe. (If it true, however, all Bush has to do is sign a Form 180 and the issue will disappear.) To counterattack, ask about Bush's final DD-214. This is a complete service summary which is given to every serviceman upon discharge. If Bush's is ever found, it will do a lot to lay the AWOL story to rest (if Bush is telling the truth, that is). Most veterans keep their DD214's as a record and memento of their time in service (it is necessary to recieve veteran's benefits) but apparently Bush didn't -- and in any case it hasn't been released to the public. (*But see PPS below*) (Other things to ask for are: any pages from Bush's flight log; records from the Flight Inquiry Board convened after Bush was suspended as a pilot; any evidence of Bush's reclassification into another AFSC after suspension as a pilot; any photos of George Bush in a military uniform after 1972; anything at all from any Alabama unit with Bush's name on it; Any copies of form 44a from the Alabama National Guard certifying attendance; and anything proving service -- not just receipt of pay -- by Bush between May 1972 and May 1973. Thanks to Dr. Morpheus on Kevin Drum's comments). A lot of Kerry's records have been posted, and my winger friends have been unable to tell me what, if anything, is missing. (Some say that it's parts of his medical record). All in all this seems to be a pure fishing expedition, just like the attempt to get records from Kerry's divorce proceedings. And above all, of course, the whole thing is a standard noise distraction meant to discourage voters, confuse people, and divert attention from (among other things) Bush's weak record in the Guards. At worst, Kerry was a bold, above-average naval officer. At best, Bush met the minimum standard in the National Guard. And as for the honorable discharge Bush brags about so much – even with time in the brig (twice) the Beltway Sniper John Allen Muhammed got an honorable discharge. P.S. My winger friend Al came up with a link for the Washington Post FOIA request for Kerry's military records. If you look at the numbers, it seems that the Post is asking mostly for the same records that Kerry has posted. Presumably they think that the Kerry people held something back.

Kos has a piece suggesting that Bush may have not received on of the medals Guardsmen recieve just for showing up, and that he possibly may have worn a medal he never was awarded.

PPS. The part above about the DD 214 isn't as killer as I thought. The other questions remain valid, though, AFAIK). The relevant form for the NG is the ANG form, not the DD214. Bush's is here. (August 22, 5:00 PDT: Blogger garbling fixed, I hope).

--- Posted at 8/22/2004 02:25:00 PM by John Emerson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Creative Plans to Demonstrate

The New York Times doesn't do much with local news, so many of the city's neighborhoods have thriving local papers. I get a llocal weekly newspaper, The Villager which has some good articles about events related to the upcoming convention. This week they have several long articles about upcoming events planned for the coming Republican Convention. One front page article, with the headline: Just two guys who don?t want G.O.P to have a grand old time, is about Shut it Down, already described in another blog here. Describing themselves as "accidental activists",

Gary Boston and Jeff Adler are encourging actors, musicians, servers, retail salespeople and hotel staff from across the city to call in sick on Sept. 1, the day before President Bush's speech accepting the Republican Party?s nomination. Boston and Adler have declared the day a citywide holiday and said participants will help send a clear message to Republicans flooding Manhattan that the current administration?s policies are unacceptable.

The primary message we want to send conventioneers is how far out of the mainstream we think the party has moved them, said Boston, one of the two self-proclaimed "just two guys with a computer."

Another great project, RingOut, reported with the headline: For whom the bells toll: Anyone but Bush, please! Is being planned by a group of nine headed by Christian Herold.

Certain of a deep well of anger among New Yorkers at the Republican decision to come to the city, Herold, 47, formed RingOut this spring. Combining his professional background in sound artistry, and enlisting the help of renowned avant-garde composer Pauline Oliveros, Herold organized the group's two-hour event, which will be divided between a memorial to the victims of the World Trade Center attacks and a performance of a composition by Olivaros entitled "Ringing for Healing." In which at least 3,000 people are expected to ring school, sleigh and cow bells.

One of the more interesting aspects of this event, which they are planning to hold around Ground Zero, is that they are not applying for a permit. If they are blocked from using the sidewalks, they will put the bell-ringers in kayaks on the Hudson. I hope they do that, and kayak past my place!

--- Posted at 8/22/2004 08:06:00 AM by Meryl Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Another Discouraging Poll

Many Still Link Iraq With WMD,

Half believe Iraq was either closely linked with al-Qaida before the war (35 percent) or was directly involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on this country (15 percent).

What is there to say?

--- Posted at 8/21/2004 10:03:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

What The Republicans Are Up To

David Horowitz is one of the main strategists behind Karl Rove's success. He wrote a book, The Art of Political War, that is used as a key strategy document by Republicans across-the-board, state and local. The following is from an article about Karl Rove by Sander Hicks: (alternate source)

"Horowitz wrote The Art of Political War to call on Republicans to create a politics that appealed to the masses: the working families, gays, unions, etc. Karl Rove praised The Art of Political War as indispensible and provided the cover blurb. ("A perfect pocket guide to winning on the political battlefield"-Karl Rove") It is recognized today as the genesis of "Compassionate Conservatism" and is used nation-wide by the Republican Party Chairs in 32 states."

From The War at Home:

"During the 2000 presidential and congressional elections, every Republican member of the U.S. Congress received a free pamphlet, compliments of Congressman Tom DeLay, the party's majority whip. Written by conservative activist David Horowitz, the pamphlet was called The Art of Political War: How Republicans Can Fight to Win. It came with an endorsement on the cover by Karl Rove, the senior advisor to then-candidate George W. Bush. According to Rove, The Art of Political War was "a perfect pocket guide to winning on the political battlefield from an experienced warrior." In addition to DeLay's gift to members of Congress, the Heritage Foundation, one of the leading conservative think tanks in Washington, found Horowitz's advice so impressive that it sent another 2,300 copies to conservative activists around the country." [emphasis added]

Take a look at what Horowitz says, writing about the "romance of the underdog." From this review of Horowitz' work (go to page 2):

"Horowitz argues that it's necessary "to manipulate the public's feelings in support of your agenda, while mobilizing passions of fear and resentment against your opponent." This is best accomplished, he says, by capitalizing on the "romance of the underdog" and painting oneself as a victim."

Keeping in mind that Horowitz' book is considered the "Bible" of Republican strategists, take a look at this news story today:

"Republicans said they would seek to turn any disruptions to their advantage, by portraying protests by even independent activists as Democratic-sanctioned displays of disrespect for a sitting president."

In case you hadn't already noticed, portraying themselves as victims is an important component of the Right's strategy. Again, with current news in mind, let's take a look at some of the other components of Horowitz' recommended strategies. (While reading, understand that Horowitz often says that the things he is writing about are things that "Liberals" do as tactics, which is itself just another tactic of persuasion, to make his right-wing readers feel like victims who must adopt these tactics.) In April, 2000, Horowitz wrote Full-Contact Politics. In it, Horowitz writes,

"3. In political wars, the aggressor usually prevails. [. . .] By striking first, you can define the issues and define your adversary. Definition is the decisive move in all political wars. Other things being equal, whoever winds up on the defensive will generally be on the losing side. 4. Position is defined by fear and hope. The twin emotions of politics are fear and hope. Those who provide people with hope become their friends; those who inspire fear become enemies. Of the two, hope is the better choice. But fear is a powerful and indispensable weapon. If your opponent defines you negatively enough, he will diminish your ability to offer hope. [emphasis added] [. . .] Symbols are so powerful that if you manipulate them cleverly, as liberals do, you can even launch mean-spirited attacks on your opponents and pretend to be compassionate while doing it. 6. Victory lies on the side of the people. This is the bottom line. You must define yourself in ways that the people understand. You must give people hope in your victory, and make them fear the victory of your opponent. You can accomplish both by identifying yourself and your issues with the underdog and the victim, with minorities and the disadvantaged, with the ordinary Janes and Joes."

Please take a moment to read David Horowitz: Beating the Dems by Going on the Attack. I'll be writing about this later. There will be a test. I think it is especially useful to read the full text of each of the articles cited, to gain understanding of what the Republicans are doing in this election. ** Extra Credit: Read what Media Transparency has to say about Horowitz, with a focus on his use of racism. (Update - Edited, and a quote added, shortly after posting)

--- Posted at 8/21/2004 12:17:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Swift Slime

MediaMatters has posted an analysis of the current brouhaha about "Unfit for Command", comparing it to an earlier book on Bush.

In 1999, St. Martin's Press published a book by author James H. Hatfield called "Fortunate Son: George W. Bush and the Making of an American President." The book, which contained allegations that then-candidate George W. Bush had used cocaine in the 1970s, received barely any media coverage -- until Hatfield's own past came into question, at which point Hatfield, not the allegations in his book, became the media's primary discussion topic during the story's short life.

I heard Hatfield interviewed by Amy Goodman on the Pacifica network radio show 'Democracy Now' about six months ago. A transcript is posted here. It was a rather haunting interview, as it was aired after his suicide. He must have been an unstable character, having been convicted of trying to hire someone to kill his boss, and then killing himself after this fact came out in the press. Of course this doesn't reflect on the merit of his allegations about Bush. Personally I think if Bush has committed drug felonies, it needs to be exposed, to expose his hypocrisy, if nothing else. But comparison of "Unfit for Command and "Fortunate Son..." reveals more illuminating similarities than differences. I was shocked to learn that Hatfield was in some sense seduced into this story. He was contacted by others. Sources were open with him who were not open with others. And why is that? Hmmh. It seemed that none other than Karl Rove had picked the messenger, in this case. It appeared that Rove understood that the message would be discredited by the flaws of the messenger. Who better to break it to the American public that brutish Bush was a former cokehead, than someone whose own flaws would make any tale they told impossible to believe. In other words: "Fortunate Son..." was plotted by the Republicans, in order to insulate Bush from his own sleazy past. "Unfit for Command" was also plotted by Republicans, in order to turn Kerry's asset, his war-hero sheen, into sleaze. What have the Democrats plotted? Such cynicism and manipulation the Kerry campaign must prove itself equal to. At this point they are stuck in a sort of dog paddle of name calling and defensiveness. What is the strategy? It is not enough to poke holes in the other guys argument. That just won't cut it in this election, I fear. Kerry has to demolish Bush, period. Morally, politically, intellectually, economically. Right now the Kerry campaign is trying to stay positive. They are not flinging political slime. That means no political slime will stick to Bush. Is that going to defeat Bush? Look at the 'Swift Veterans' campaign, especially at its network of advisors. This was very well planned. They've trotted out spurious charges, in a format that makes them hard to dismiss. When one person makes a statement which is false, or that contradicts his previous statements, it is easy to dismiss that person. When you get a herd, such as that pack of 'Swift Veterans', one's first impulse is to say, Well they couldn't all be lying. That first impulse might be enough to deliver a close election. Of course what really happened is the Texas political sleaze machine worked those Veterans very carefully. They were 'handled' by the masters, who gave the vets a chance to revenge themselves on the anti-war movement. This incident has really shown what kind of machine Kerry is dealing with. I hope plans for a counter-attack are in the works. This kind of insinuation, that is staged more than argued, that corrupts the climate of opinion despite the fact that the claims are false, may require a response which is intended to slime -- to morally obliterate -- Bush.

--- Posted at 8/20/2004 07:48:00 PM by Camille Roy

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Pre-Convention Jitters

Dave has asked me to blog about the Republican Convention. Of course I'm not going to be at the convention, will probably not be allowed anywhere near the convention, so I'll only be able to give you my impressions of the effect the convention is having on the city. Well, that's going to be a story in itself. It already is. Manhattan feels like it is under threat, and with good reason. We're treated to news reports of the police preparing to deal with protesters. They're holding drills. Like they need to. They handle dozens of major events every year, so why all this special preparation? Intimidation, of course. There's just no telling what conditions are going to be like in the city during the convention. They announce something, the public screams, they change it. One choice bit -- there's a huge apartment complex near Pen Station (the Garden is on top of the station -- what a nutty place to put the convention considering the security requirements) called Pen South. It's not a housing project but the city subsidizes it somewhat so a lot of retired people live there -- but so does every other kind of middle-class family; it's not a retirement community. They're not really that close to the station. I never considered it even the same neighborhood. They were given official notice that they should stock up on food and plan to stay inside during the convention! Naturally, being New Yorkers, they immediately took this to the media and are not planning to comply with the instructions. Especially, it turns out, the elderly. There are going to be plenty of those peace sign, cane waving, little old ladies picketing the convention. It sounds like the plan is to cut the city in half, so a lot will depend on where the Dead Zone is and whether I can get transportation, since the subways they're planning to cancel happen to be all the west side lines because they run under the Garden -- and the busses on the west side are going to be routed to Hell and back. As though that isn't enough, I may well be trapped right here, in my apartment or at least on my block, assuming I'll even be able to walk around the block! I've been planning to lay in food, just in case. The demonstrators are being routed -- right here, on the West Side Highway, which of course means out front. If so, there should be an army of police out front, hostile and demanding ID. I go through a minor version of this every year with the Gay Pride March, so I have some idea what to expect, and just stay inside all day, cursing. This should be like that, only 10 times worse. Of course, that would be a blog in itself. I'll have a ring-side seat. Assuming the police show up instead of carrying out their proposed sick-out, they're going to be in a terrible mood. They've been following Bloomberg around threatening him because they haven't had a contract for two years. Neither has the fire dept. I expect lots of cracked heads from the demonstrations. I hope not, but that's the mood. A lot of that will probably be up at Central Park, where they're sure to go because they've been refused a permit. Frankly, I'd rather just get out of here while the damned convention is on. The question of where the protestors will go is in court right now. We'll probably know on Monday whether they'll be allowed to use Central Park or end up in front of my place. I am sure that no groups of demonstrators anyone knows about are planning violence. Everyone is expecting violence. Anyone planning to be here should get a copy of "The People's Guide to the Republican National Convention." Republican, Democrat, demonstrator, or innocent bystander. I've been in situations like this before. How are you going to prove you're a good Republican if the cops pick you up? What if they decide your Convention ID is forged? The Guide is in subway map format, includes a map, and is full of good information and advice. It will easily fit into a purse or pocket. Even if you live here, get a copy. I don't know how to get legal help in a hurry, or where all the free bathrooms are, for example, so I'll keep my copy with me. If you're even thinking of coming here, check out their website. It contains all the information that's in the Guide. Even if you've read through the website, you'll still want to have the Guide with you. The Guide includes a calendar of events. These started today. An amazing number of events are planned, now through the convention, including live music, films, marches, walks, vigils, ferry rides, rallys, many events in parks, many in churches. Plenty of street theater, too. Major subversive events like the planned Reading of the Constitution and the reading of the names of those killed in Iraq. More about events coming up later.

--- Posted at 8/20/2004 05:09:00 PM by Meryl Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

One Volunteered, The Other Smears Him For It

The bigger picture. One went, the other hid. Digby says,

"The sad thing, of course, is that Kerry will never have his reputation back and at a time when Vietnam veterans were finally beginning to receive their due for their service a bunch of self righteous, petty old men stepped in to cast doubts on them all over again. Nice bunch of patriots selling out their brothers toward the end of their lives to protest a man they claim sold them out when they were young. By any means necessary I guess. "

Yep. He also said,

"However, there is an interesting example of how a smear can be fought to a standstill (although with your reputation forever shredded.) That is the method by which Clinton fought the Monica frenzy. He turned it into an attack on Ken Starr. And it largely worked because people instinctively recoil at the idea of nosy creeps like Starr rifling through other people's underwear drawers. There are elements of the same thing here if the Democrats can correctly keep the frame where they want it to be. A man who maneuvered his way out of Vietnam is now ruthlessly tearing down the war record of one who volunteered for combat. That just doesn't sit well --- it breaks the unwritten rules we have about military service. Just as with the Starr counter attack, the rabid GOP base will become even more agitated and wild. But, the majority of the country will likely begin to see through the smokescreen to what is really going on. And it could end up hurting Bush more than Kerry."

But don't forget, it worked against McCain. Finally, Digby says,

"I am e-mailing the following quote to members of the press today. And, I think that all talking heads should have it on a 3x5 card and repeat it everytime they face a swift boat liar or one of their mouthpieces. Everybody needs to be reminded of what the real contrast is here. It's not between Kerry the hero vs Kerry the alleged liar, but rather, the combat volunteer vs the chickenhawk smear artist.

“I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes." George W. Bush on why he joined the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War, 1990.

Read that quote again. Bush, the war supporter. But for him, serving wasn't even one of the options to be considered. Only ways to get out of it. Sounds like the story of his life, doesn't it? How to get around the hard parts.

--- Posted at 8/20/2004 04:45:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Go Read About Big Goverment

Go read about Big Government over at The Stakeholder: The Stakeholder :: A Word on "Big Government".

But of course this pales in comparison to the now-famous memo regarding interrogations claiming the right of the President to "set aside" both domestic law and international treaties. In this memo, the administration's lawyers attempted to essentially sever the bonds holding the executive to the will of the people, arguing that the executive transcended the citizenry. Sovereignty no longer rested with the people, but with the President, who now was uninhibited from expressing his will not only over Americans, but over the entire human race. Perhaps the words "Big Government" are not strong enough.

Stakeholder, by the way, is the blog of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

--- Posted at 8/20/2004 04:17:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Informed and Not Informed

(Trying again, after Blogger ate the great post I had been working on...) In case you were wondering... Poll: Many Still Link Iraq With WMD:

"More than half of Americans, percent, continue to believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or a program to develop them before the United States invaded last year, according to a poll released Friday."

I keep saying, you and I are different. We read blogs, we follow the news, WE ARE INFORMED. We listen to all the evidence and then weigh it, deciding what we think about the sources, and finally all of that leads us to reason out a conclusion. But this is not how most people learn about what is happening in politics. This is why things like Bush's Swift Boat smear are so effective. We look at it and think, "How could anyone fall for something like that?" MOST people get their information through channels that are very different from what you and I would think. The e-mail chain letter, the "joke" with the premise that Kerry is a flip-flopper, a comment by the DJ on the FM station... You and I (like to think that we) get information from many sources, and balance what we learn with what we know about the sources, and weigh the evidence, and we think that logical arguments lead to conclusions. But that is not how it works for most people. The Right understands this, so they study the process. They learn how people DO receive and process information, and use that. The Right, like the marketing industry, has been studying this for 30 years. Books like 'The Tipping Point' or 'Why We Buy' or 'Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion' are excellent sources of info on persuasion. The instant I saw the Swift Boat smear ad I knew it was going to be effective. But I was looking at where and how it was being spread. I think maybe the people at the top of the Kerry campaign were looking at what they saw in the mainstream papers, and the mainline pundits, and thought that having McCain denounce the ad would be enough. I think they were seeing the world through their logical, reasoning eyes. Do you remember some time ago I wrote about a flurry of letters-to-the-editor and talk-show call-ins claiming that Kerry pushes in front of people in lines and says, "Don't you know who I am?" One I heard was on a financial call-in program and out-of-the-blue a caller says she was in a drugstore and Kerry pushed his way into the front of the line... (The second time I wrote about it was here. Can't find the first.) Here is another example, from an e-mail a friend innocently forwarded to several people, including me, the other day:

Q: Why did the chicken cross the road? A: GEORGE W BUSH -- We don't really care why the chicken crossed the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road or not. The chicken is either against us or for us. There is no middle ground here. GEORGE W BUSH -- America is a safer place today because we stopped these chickens in their tracks. Sure, they wanted us to leave - that's because these chickens hate freedom - have you seen their coops?? But we ran 'em out. Smoked 'em out. You might say we fricaseed ?em (if I could pronounce a word that big). And now the'?re crying fowl. But the next time some evildoers think about crossing America's streets, they'll remember our little pullet surprise. JOHN KERRY-- Although I voted to let the chicken cross the road, I am now against allowing the chicken back to the other side, unless our international allies agree to escort it. RALPH NADER -- The chicken's habitat on the other side of the road had been polluted by unchecked industrial greed. The chicken did not reach the unspoiled habitat on the other side of the road because it was crushed by the wheels of a gas-guzzling SUV. RUSH LIMBAUGH -- I don't know why the chicken crossed the road, but I'll bet it was getting a government grant to cross the road, and I'll bet that somebody out there is already forming a support group to help chickens with crossing-the-road syndrome. Can you believe this? How much more of this can real Americans take? Chickens crossing the road paid for by their tax dollars. And when I say tax dollars, I'm talking about your money, money the government took from you to build a road for chickens to cross. MARTHA STEWART -- No one called me to warn me which way that chicken was going. I had a standing order at the Farmer's Market to sell my eggs when the price dropped to a certain level. No little bird gave me any insider information. SIGMUND FREUD -- The fact that you are at all concerned that the chicken crossed the road reveals your underlying sexual insecurity. BILL CLINTON -- I did not cross the road with THAT chicken. AL GORE -- I invented the chicken! COLONEL SANDERS -- Did I miss one?

Innocuous? You tell me.

--- Posted at 8/20/2004 03:05:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Violence at Republican Convention

I'm 100% sure that provocateurs and police will coordinate their activities for maximum prime-time coverage, and that the leaders of previously-unknown violent anarchist groups will mysteriously disappear at the key moment, leaving their hapless followers to battle the police and eventually do hard time. A significant proportion of the violence during the 60's was found afterwards to have been instigated by undercover agents posing as protestors. If it is not supported by the great majority of the population, "direct action" has a polarizing effect which helps the right wing. The right-wingers will produce their own anarchists if none show up naturally. Provocateurs played a role at the 2000 Republican Convention in Philadelphia, where there were many arrests -- arrests which were aggressively prosecuted. Police also have the ability to turn a peaceful demonstration into a violent one by crowding in on demonstrators who have no way of escape. Some of the demonstrators will resist, allowing the police to say that the demonstrators started the whole thing. Anarchists are by definition not Kerry supporters; as far as that goes, they really can't be Nader supporters either. This is an example of a case when the Kerry team should have a media response ready to go instantly at any hint of trouble, and it wouldn't do any harm to put out a preemptive statement disavowing disruptive activities. We can be sure that the Bush team has something ready to go blaming everything on an "anti-war left" defined nebulously enough to seem to include Kerry supporters. Sample anarchist story Philadelphia Convention I Philadelphia Convention II (Based on a comment I left at The Talking Dog. I will now return to my retirement).

--- Posted at 8/20/2004 12:35:00 PM by John Emerson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Overtime Pay Goes Away

New Overtime Rules to Take Effect Monday:

"The Labor Department says as many as 107,000 workers could lose overtime eligibility under its new rules, but about 1.3 million will gain it. The Economic Policy Institute, a liberal Washington think tank, says 6 million will lose, and only a few will get new rights to premium pay for working more than 40 hours a week."

Coming, if Bush wins in November, end of minimum wage and right to join unions, no more vacations. Think I'm kidding?

--- Posted at 8/20/2004 07:43:00 AM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Edwards

Question - Why is the news media completely ignoring Edwards? I have not heard a word about him since the convention. What's he doing? What's he been saying?

--- Posted at 8/20/2004 07:28:00 AM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

washingtonpost.com - Best political blog contest

washingtonpost.com - Best political blog contest, blogs about politics and elections, top bloggers. They are taking nominations (hint, hint).

--- Posted at 8/19/2004 08:47:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Kerry Responds to Smear -- And It's Good!

Kerry finally responded directly to Bush's "Swift Boat Veterans" smear. And he did well. I hope this is just the start of a coordinated response that takes it straight back to Bush, making Republican smears an issue in this campaign. There is a new ad that addresses the smear itself. To see it, go to the Kerry website and watch "Rassmann." The ad is good, addresses one of the main points by saying "Today he still has shrapnel in his leg from his wounds in Vietnam." This is a good approach. The ad itself doesn't get bogged down in detail, it just puts the lie to the heart of the smear that his wounds were not real. If he still has shrapnel in his leg, that makes Bush a liar for smearing his Purple Hearts. Short, simple, forest (big picture) not trees (details). The Kerry website is stressing the response, as well as a strong press release that details the lies, AND the money behind the smear. Definitely worth a read! (This is the right place for details, where those who care can find them.) Today, addressing firefighters in Boston, Kerry said,

"...Over the last week or so, a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been attacking me. Of course, this group isn't interested in the truth -- and they're not telling the truth. They didn't even exist until I won the nomination for president. But here's what you really need to know about them. They're funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Republican contributor out of Texas. They're a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the President won't denounce what they're up to tells you everything you need to know -- he wants them to do his dirty work. Thirty years ago, official Navy reports documented my service in Vietnam and awarded me the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. Thirty years ago, this was the plain truth. It still is. And I still carry the shrapnel in my leg from a wound in Vietnam. As firefighters you risk your lives everyday. You know what it?s like to see the truth in the moment. You're proud of what you've done--and so am I. Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: "Bring it on." I?m not going to let anyone question my commitment to defending America--then, now, or ever. And I'm not going to let anyone attack the sacrifice and courage of the men who saw battle with me. And let me make this commitment today: their lies about my record will not stop me from fighting for jobs, health care, and our security -- the issues that really matter to the American people."

They're doing everything right today. The ad is going to get this in front of the people that matter -- the people the smear campaign was targeted to -- people like this veteran, from a San Jose News story this morning,

"The pro-Kerry talk elicits guffaws from the other end of the bar. "I think a lot of Kerry's Vietnam service was fabricated to build him up," said Frank Martinez, 57, who did two tours of duty there and is still offended the Massachusetts Democrat was a spokesman for Vietnam Veterans Against the War. "Kerry is just like Jane Fonda. I think Bush is qualified to lead the nation again."

Two weeks ago I wrote,

"And now a big Kerry smear arrives. What response has Kerry prepared? To me, this is the question of the election. What does Kerry have ready in response? Did I say that we all knew it was coming. This is what Bush Sr. did to Dukakis. This is what Bush did to Gore. The Big Smear. This is what Republicans do. Since Bush Sr. effectively used these tactics on Dukakis the Democrats must have been preparing a response. Right? Or at least since they did it to Gore. Right? They must have had teams of psychologists, linguists, advertising pros, etc. doing the necessary research on how to most effectively respond to this kind of smear. Right? To me, this goes beyond the campaign. This goes beyond protecting their own political careers. This goes to protecting us. What is the criticism of Bush for 9/11? That all the signs were there that we were going to be attacked, and they ignored it. Does Kerry have a devastating response ready for The Big Smear? To me this is the same question as: Is Kerry ready to be president?"

Well, it looks like the Kerry campaign is starting to respond effectively. The ad talks to the people who are questioning Kerry. The campaign is taking it straight to the source -- BUSH. It is STRONG, and done well. Go see the ad and read the release. You'll feel better, you'll like Kerry a lot more, and you'll feel like he will do the job. You'll feel like this guy will protect us from the Republicans as well as foreign threats -- something I think a lot of us have worried about (remember things like Lieberman in 2000 caving, saying it was OK to count illegal absentee ballots?) I hope they keep this up, and make the Republican tactic of smearing the issue in the campaign. Take it back to Bush, talk about the history of Republicans smearing opponents, and make THAT a big issue in this campaign. That makes it hard for them to try another smear, and gets them on the defensive about this on an issue they really can't defend. It's what they DO! So make them pay for it. Update - Just saw it on CNN. They showed part of Kerry's speech, where he was laying it straight on Bush! It was GOOD, it was STRONG! Reuters headline at My Yahoo: Bush Uses Surrogates for 'Dirty Work,' Kerry Says

"Kerry said a group called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which has attacked the Massachusetts senator's war record via television advertisements, was funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Republican contributor in Texas, Bush's home state. "They're a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the president won't denounce what they're up to tells you everything you need to know: he wants them to do his dirty work," Kerry told a convention of the International Association of Fire Fighters, a politically active union which backs Kerry."

AP headline at My Yahoo: Kerry: Bush Lets Groups Do 'Dirty Work'

"Sen. John Kerry accused President Bush on Thursday of relying on front groups to challenge his record of valor in Vietnam, asserting, "He wants them to do his dirty work." Fighting back, Kerry said if Bush wants to "have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: 'Bring it on.'"

Oh, I'm happy today!

--- Posted at 8/19/2004 08:04:00 AM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Effect of Ad

I just caught a poll reported on MSNBC that says about 30% of independent-swing voters who had been leaning to Kerry change their mind after seeing the "Swift Boat Veterans" ad. It's working -- big time. So I turn to Fox, and guess what - they're repeating the story. And, as I said, it's the ONLY story on any AM radio station you tune to. Meanwhile, new polls show Bush catching up. DUH! When is the Kerry campaign going to figure out that they need to respond?

--- Posted at 8/18/2004 09:03:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Bush Says Kerry Soft On Weather

Bush Says Kerry Soft On Weather:

"Electing Kerry Is Just What Terrible Weather Wants, Says GOP President Bush, while touring hurricane-ravaged Florida today, called John Kerry "soft on weather" and claimed that "bad" bad weather" would be absolutely thrilled to see Kerry in office this November."

--- Posted at 8/17/2004 09:16:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Ads

Bill at LiberalOasis points out that Kerry is "conserving money for the 10-week homestretch after Labor Day" and that groups like MoveOn.org and The Media Fund are running ads in the swing states. I don't live in a swing state so I decided to go to The Media Fund's website to see some of the ads. You can even contribute money to help them put these ads on the air! Also, MoveOn.org is running an ad responding to the Bush smear on Kerry's Vietnam service. Go see it. And, of course, give them some cash to help get this ad on the air.

--- Posted at 8/17/2004 07:28:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Mad As Hell!

Beat the Press by Air America co-founder Sheldon Drobny:

"I want everyone to go to their windows open them and scream out "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" or words to that affect. Since we all cannot do that at the same time, there is an effective way to fight the media and demand news that is useful, informative and somewhat independent. People who are upset with these media giants have to stop watching them until they change. Get your families together and start talking to each other. Read books or listen to CDs and alternative forms of entertainment. Rent or buy videos. Watch the History Channel or the Food Channel. Do anything but do not watch CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, CNN, MSNBC or any of their affiliates. It is a very small sacrifice to save your country. Our fighting men in Iraq have sacrificed their lives, limbs, and families to fight this illegal war that an independent media could have prevented. It is a very small sacrifice, but if you really care and participate, the media giants will have no choice but to change. They will be on their knees begging for the liberals that they demonize so much to start watching again. And the liberal audience is the most lucrative for the networks in spite of how terrible we are treated. That audience is the Jon Stewart, David Letterman group that the networks are so hungry to get. "

Take action!

--- Posted at 8/17/2004 07:17:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Down, Down

Take a look at the chart over at Angry Bear. Update - link fixed.

--- Posted at 8/17/2004 04:07:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

More on the Swift Boat Mess

I seem to have hit a nerve. Of course I'm saying that Kerry was a hero. A double hero. First, during his service under fire. Second, for his outspoken service in VVAW. As we are about to find out once again, it takes genuine guts to openly oppose an oppressive government. At this moment, the FBI is VISITING -- not just investigating but VISITING THE HOMES of those they expect to turn up in NYC to protest the Republican Convention and questioning them. One person I've seen on TV who was "interviewed" by the FBI was a nice old guy whose neighbors were pissed off and turned him in because he has anti-Bush posters in his window! Now, that's like Nazi Germany or the worst days of the Soviet Union. Neighbors turning in neighbors -- and the government acting on it, instead of telling them to mind their own business. Things are getting pretty bad, folks. We're going to need our heroes, and we're going to have to examine our own supply of courage and how willing we are to personally take risks. The Bush crowd has made it very clear that they're a nasty, vindictive bunch. Get out of line, say anything that angers them, and they're going to get you. The shocker is that this isn't just at the higher political levels. It's starting to reach into ordinary people's homes and lives. By now we've pretty much forgotten how much courage it took to join VVAW. Or any of the other groups opposing the draft and the war. I had friends who escaped to Canada after being mauled by police dogs. Some are still there. Yeah, things sometimes really got that bad back then. I saw plenty of heads being cracked, too, and I'm afraid I'm going to see lots more of that during the Convention. At the same time, it is not a sin to be willing to serve your country. There were those who believed then, and those who sincerely believe now, that the government is doing the right thing. This is America, folks, and they have a right to believe that. That's not the problem. The problem is that feelings on both sides are running very high, and those feelings are being exploited in the most cynical ways possible by people like Rove for political gain. This should be a dialog, not overwhelming hatred for each other. That's what has happened to the Swift Boat crowd. Whether they're right or wrong in their feeling that Kerry betrayed them is ultimately beside the point; they do feel that way, and that feeling comes from 30 and more years of emotional pain. I'm not a bleeding-heart liberal saying we have to forgive them. They're acting like a bunch of jackasses and allowing themselves to be exploited. What I'm trying to say is that things are rarely as simple or one-dimensional as they look on the surface and we're ALL being manipulated. To the extent we're aware of this, we can fight back. There's really no reason for well-meaning Americans to be at each other's throats -- we've been manipulated into it. As for the soldiers now fighting in Iraq, that isn't all that one-dimensional, either. We already know they're not going to be treated very well -- by the Bush administration. Yeah, we have a volunteer army. Yeah, some will have enlisted because they're maniacal killers at heart, but these things go on a sliding scale. What about those who enlisted for economic reasons? There just aren't that many good jobs out there, and many have enlisted, during peace time, for the traditional reasons of learning a trade and maybe "seeing the world". And how about the reserves and the National Guard? Nobody expected to be fighting a war in Iraq. The cold war had ended, remember, and we were at peace. Undoubtedly, some even enlisted because of patriotic feelings of being of service to their country. If we dispose of values like honor, patriotism, and service, because that cynical crowd in the Bush administration has turned these into dirty words, what will we have become? We can't let these robbers destroy us.

--- Posted at 8/17/2004 01:41:00 PM by Meryl Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

The Swift Boat Mess

The Kerry campaign has to have known that it was waving a red flag when Kerry's Vietnam war record was made the focus of the campaign. They couldn't possibly have overlooked the bitterness that still exists among veterans because of his leadership role in Vietnam Veterans Against the War, could they? The sad truth is, the vets have a point. Attacking Kerry's war record makes little sense, but they're cynically being led to do that by the corrupt group behind the attack. It was the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and Kerry's role in it, that finally turned public opinion against the war. The result was that the returning vets were treated HORRIBLY, and they blame Kerry for it. To them, Kerry was a traitor to his fellow vets. Yes, they really were treated horribly, and they should have at least been treated with respect. I remember one night, returning by plane from New York to Detroit. There were some crippled veterans, in uniform, on the plane, and they were derided and made fun of by other passengers during the entire flight. One of the vets, in uniform and on crutches, happened to be the son of a neighbor, so we decided to share a cab. It was a rainy night, late. NO cab would stop for us. Crowds from other flights appeared and cabs took them away. I finally moved away from him, got a cab immediately, and forced the driver to take him home. Not funny. I was avidly opposed to the war and took part in every demonstration against it I could. Even so, I knew many of the vets and saw how horribly they were treated -- for years afterward. The war was not their fault, and no wonder they are still bitter. Kerry's message about the war is double-edged. Yes, he was undoubtedly a hero. Yes, the vets consider him a traitor who caused them incredible pain. Both are true. This is a far more complex problem than most of us realize. Yes, it's also true that Kerry's stand against the war was as heroic as his war service. It had a huge impact on public opinion and helped end the war. That's certainly a good thing. Turning against the soldiers who had served their country was a horrible thing to do. They not only had no parades, no welcome when they came home, which all other returning soldiers in our history had received, but were treated with contempt. This was as shocking and damaging to many of them as the war itself. Dismissing them as a bunch of evil, worthless drunks doesn't cut it. It's true that the vets returning from Vietnam had a rougher time than any previous group of soldiers adjusting to civilian life. Vast numbers of them never did adjust. The homeless population is filled with Vietnam vets, even now. Isn't this largely because they were treated so badly instead of being welcomed home and helped to adjust, as all other groups of returning soldiers had been? Of course plenty of them are still bitter. And of course this bitterness is being exploited by the Republican party. Aren't they cynically being made victims once again? The question is, what to do about this now? I can't help wondering whether the Democratic leadership didn't cynically know that stressing Kerry's war record, while ignoring his stand in Vietnem Veterans Against the War, was bait, that the result would be irrational, frothing-at-the-mouth attacks they could ultimately use to their advantage to make the Republicans look as nutty and evil as possible -- thus victiming the vets once again, and submitting them to even more abuse from both sides. Life is never as black/white or as one-dimensional as we like to think it is. Another sad truth is that we're making the same mistakes in Iraq that we made in Vietnam -- setting up a puppet government, turning the mess we've created over to them to handle, while we pull the puppet strings in the background. Just so this time we remember how these troops got to Iraq and don't treat them as badly as the Vietnam vets were treated when they come home.

--- Posted at 8/17/2004 08:30:00 AM by Meryl Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Bad Faith

With the Bush administration, we have a government that runs on a toxic combination of faith and greed. The first covers the amorality and corruption of the latter. Have you heard any the exchanges at Dubya's prayer meetings - Oops, I mean intimate gathering with Christians - Oops I mean voters. "I want to thank you for stepping up," the faithful declare, and our prez chuckles. Oh he is loved by his flock: "Thank you for taking on the immorality of the secularists, the gays, the scientists, Thank you!" No wonder their policies are so incompentent, in such a staggering variety of ways. Faith greases a lot of human endeavor, not just the struggles of the spirit. It's a grease for reason, argument, it motivates the drive to find common ground. Faith turns insight into policy, but it is, fundamentally, faith in reason. This administration has turned its back on that faith. "Harumph," says Laura Bush, "Who knows whether this stem cell science will result in any useful treatments at all!" Yes, who knows - and if you don't believe in science, not knowing the result of the experiment is sufficient reason to cancel it. A corollary to this disdain for reason is the incredible arrogance of one administration official after another in hacking data in order to feed the base & accumulate power. A good example is from the disheartening current series in the WashPo, called "The Fine Print", in which they introduce

the Data Quality Act, a little-known piece of legislation that, under President Bush's Office of Management and Budget, has become a potent tool for companies seeking to beat back regulation.

Using perversion of technical standards to gut policies that are based on technical standards! Over and over at the heart of it all there's just a staggering amount of bad faith: Government as charade. It's as if they don't think they live in a real world. Certainly the lack of planning for post-war Iraq showed an extraordinary disdain for the world outside their talking points. Condi and Dubya have their 'chemistry' - so how could it matter that neither knows a thing about the Middle-East. Pshaw on such quibbles. The Administration hired for the Occupation from a stack of resumes acquired by the Heritage Foundation, with no screening for any other qualification. Of course they dumped the State Department studies on the the post-war challenges, which were put together by many knowledgeable people. The most potent mystery is how our country could have produced such a bunch of idiots and swallowed their lies for so long. Is it the corporate media? Suburban culture? 9-11 Post Traumatic Stress Disorder?

--- Posted at 8/16/2004 10:06:00 PM by Camille Roy

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Shut It Down!

What a great idea!

--- Posted at 8/16/2004 08:36:00 PM by richard

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Arianna

NEWSFLASH: THERE WILL BE NO MODERATES SPEAKING AT THE GOP CONVENTION!

If I read one more article talking about all the "moderate Republicans" who are going to be speaking at the upcoming GOP convention, I'm going to have a seizure. Let's get one thing straight: anyone who is backing George Bush in the 2004 election is, by definition, not a moderate -- no matter how warm and fuzzy their position on abortion and gay rights. Social issues like choice, gay rights, and gun control are not the defining issues of this campaign. The defining issues are: how the war on terror is being prosecuted, the wisdom (to say nothing of sanity and morality) of slashing taxes in a time of war, and the blatant irresponsibility the GOP has shown by saddling our children with a national debt that will reach $12 trillion over the next ten years. Period.

--- Posted at 8/16/2004 06:37:00 PM by richard

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

The Smear

I've been very busy today, but have checked in to right-wing radio and news a bit, only to find that the Kerry smear is the ONLY story. Today they are portraying the Swift Boat Veterans, the organization DOING the smearing, as VICTIMS of smears and unfair attacks. Their regular talking points are that Democrats are trying to shout them down, smear them, etc... Here are some more smear-related stories: Swimming From Cambodia

"John Kerry is desperately trying to slide safely away from the collapse of his "Christmas in Cambodia" fairy tale. Two embarrassing "failures of memory" now permanently scar Senator Kerry's campaign to gain trust and demonstrate strength as he tries to move from war hero to war president. In March, reliable witnesses came forward who placed John Kerry at a November 1971 Kansas City meeting where the Vietnam Veterans Against the War secretly voted on a proposal to kill six pro-war senators. This appeared especially odd because Kerry had told two historians, Gerald Nicosia and Douglas Brinkley, that he was not there and that he had resigned from the organization before the meeting was held. He denied eyewitnesses' accounts as well, even when six witnesses had appeared, several of whom were working for his presidential campaign."

Kerry Made False Cambodia Claim 50 Times

"It won't be all that easy for John Kerry to revise his demonstrably false claim that he spent Christmas 1968 in Cambodia, since he's on the record more than 50 times making the assertion, according to former Vietnam Swift Boat commander John O'Neill."

Christmas in Cambodia?

"Kerry’s Christmas-in-Cambodia claims were first noted in the widely read instapundit.com on Aug. 6. As this is written, on Aug. 13, not a word about them has appeared in The New York Times or The Washington Post, nor have they been discussed much or at all on ABC, CBS or NBC News. This is a vivid contrast with the treatment by these news organizations of the charges -- false charges -- by Michael Moore and Democratic Chairman Terry McAuliffe that George W. Bush was AWOL while in the National Guard."

Kerry's quagmire:

"If Kerry didn't fabricate, he exaggerated. Or misspoke. Or got confused. Or something. But whatever the differences among versions, the story is part of a larger narrative that may matter more than the details. It is a story of naked ambition and grandiosity, the narrative of a self-absorbed man who always needed to be best and first, whether captain of the boat in Vietnam or winner of the debate in school. Who, when accidentally knocked off his snowboard as an adult fumed, "I don't fall down."

Democrat Attacks Help Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Raise Money

"Rather than address the substance of the organization's charges, which are backed by 254 riverboat vets, many of whom served alongside Kerry in Vietnam, Kerry's campaign falls back on the hackneyed claim of a "vast right-wing conspiracy."

And new smears emerge: "Kerry: I Wouldn't Respond to Nuclear Attack"

"John Kerry told Democrats gathered in Boston two weeks ago that he defended his country as a young soldier in Vietnam and he would defend it again as president. But as Michael Dukakis' lieutenant governor, Kerry authored an executive order that said the state of Massachussetts would refuse to take part in any civil defense efforts in response to a nuclear attack on America."

Brothers band together against Kerry

"After three months of combat, Kerry had collected enough film footage for his political campaigns, so he went home. He even shot three different endings to the episode where he chases down a VC guy after test audiences thought Kerry shooting a wounded teenager in the back was too much of a "downer." After filming his last staged exploit, Kerry reportedly told a buddy, "That's a wrap. See you at the convention in about 35 years."

AIM Report: Kerry Subverted Reagan's Pro-Freedom Policies

"While Kerry was trying to defeat aid to the Contras through a smear campaign, Senator Tom Harkin and several liberal House members were raising money for pro-Sandinista and other communist front organizations in the region. One such group, "Medical Aid for El Salvador," provided surgery for a captured communist guerrilla leader whose organization had assassinated U.S. Embassy Marine guards in El Salvador in 1985."

So the question is, when does the Kerry campaign move to stamp these out. Even if he wins, these stories show the intensity of the internal opposition he will face. This is about more than winning this election, these right wing nutcases are fomenting nothing less than civil war.

--- Posted at 8/16/2004 02:30:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Smears

This. Word.

--- Posted at 8/15/2004 08:35:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

troll bait

Today I'll start with a quote from Mighty Reason Man

..why in God's name am I seeing interview clips that involve your spokespeople beginning sentences by stuttering, looking nonplussed, and saying things like "I believe" and "That's not entirely correct"? I don't know, maybe you're hiring your favorite nieces or the neighbor children to be your spokespeople, but whatever it is, it ain't gonna cut it my friends. Anyone who goes in front of a camera with the imprimatur of the campaign and is blindsided by quotes, allegations, or outright lies that I have already heard needs to be fired immediately. There's a lot of dirt gonna be thrown your way in the next few months, and the time to pattycake with this bullshit is over.

...is it ever thus? That the Repubs claim the terrain of family values and morally righteous living, and then come out swinging, using every rhetorical trick as a club. They have managed to make liberals ashamed of liberal values. Ashamed of advocating health insurance for all, of unions, of community support services for needy families, and on and on. I heard David Brooks on the radio the other day and he was the model of civility. His certitude seems to come from his faith in the decency of the people he is representing, those new suburbanites seeking 'safe streets and good schools', those soccer moms in SUV's who see Bush as the man with the swift sword against 'terror'. I grew up in a seed bed of those new suburbanites, in the south side of chicago. In high school I had to do a project in the community and I thought, hey, white flight, that's happening only a mile or two south! So my little band of mates trooped down to those blocks of broken American apartheid and it was amazing... It took six months for all the whites on a block to sell out, once a single black family moved in. The real estate agents whipped the fear up to a frenzy. One neighborhood newspaper reported real estage agents hiring a black family on welfare and dressing them up in 'native garb' (feathers!) to walk slowly around the block, so the homeowners would panic sell. Dirty american secret: the racism at the heart of white flight is deeply implicated in the dominance of the republican party today. One problem with conservatives is that they claim for their own values which don't belong to them. Safe streets, strong families and good schools have been undermined by their anti-social policies. Now the chickens are really coming home to roost! The white middle class is finally learning that it's not welcome at the table of their betters. The fantasies of the 'ownership society' are crumbling under the weight of debt, soaring costs not of expendables like dvd players but essentials like housing, college, health care, and worse of all, most terrible -- the collapsing job market. This is an evil situation. I like to list what makes me hopeful, since it is easy to despair. I am hopeful because one of the late breaks in this presidential race is youth for Kerry. A large margin. The economic & political (not social) conservatism of youth has appalled me. Perhaps these gloomy prospects are opening them up to a change. One more thing. Perhaps it is the Chicagoan in me, though I've lived in California for a long time. I believe that a tough fight is a good thing. You've got to get dirty. You've got to give it all you've got. The wimpy Democrats have had a roll-over mentality. The apologies need to get tossed, to be replaced by challenges, issued one after another. In domestic policy the Repubs have been a party with one primary value: Americans treat Americans like sh*t. These people should never, ever be allowed to walk away from the table with the chips that represent strong values. Furthermore: they need to be shamed. People talk about the issues of economic policy as if it were a parlor argument but in fact increasing social inequality, declining health care coverage & pension benefits -- these should be shoved in their faces as causes of shame. These policies are anti-social. That means they are anti-community & anti-family (duh!). Is it any wonder that there is so much sociopathic rhetoric (& behavior) on the right? They are defending policies that hurt people -- even their own family members. There are a lot of white men who are living from paycheck to paycheck who identify with the Repubs. What to say about that? One way is to point out that they are being disloyal to the welfare of their own families and communities. The mantra: health insurance, pensions, social security. The party that guts the safety net is shafting your kids. The nasty way to argue this is that they've joined the party of 'Kiss the ass of the Ruling class'. I haven't used this line yet. I haven't had to, but I'm keeping it in my pocket. Better not to go there, but best of all, be prepared.

--- Posted at 8/13/2004 11:07:00 PM by Camille Roy

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

This Week's Late Friday Announcement

When the Bush Administration is up to something they don't want a lot of people to know about, they announce it late on a Friday. This week's late Friday announcement: U.S. to Pull 70,000 Troops from Europe, Asia. Guess where they'll be going. This is the last resort before a draft is absolutely necessary.

--- Posted at 8/13/2004 10:55:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

A more sensitive gaffe

OK. I've been listening to Randi Rhodes and reading just about everybody, all defending Kerry's "more sensitive war on terror" gaffe. Sorry, but that's what it is. No matter how many occurences of the word "sensitive" bloggers can google up in quotes of Republicans, I haven't seen one yet that is as flatly stupid as Kerry's "more sensitive war on terror." Do these people even proofread Kerry's speeches before he gives them? Among the target audience of Cheney's attack, who is going to know or care about the rest of the paragraph? Who is going to know or care about bloggers' explications and duelling quotes? Even Randi sounds lame on this subject. This kind of thing wouldn't happen if Kerry were even a little bit mean and angry. Mean and angry people don't say frigging moronic things like a "more sensitive war on terror!" Four years ago, the right-wingers, abetted by their media, lied about Al Gore. They had to actually make stuff up to ridicule Gore. Kerry and his staff seem to be making it a good bit easier for the bastards this time around. Jeeesh.

--- Posted at 8/13/2004 04:08:00 PM by richard

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Oh, It's THAT Day!

I didn't realize what day it was, until I read this.

--- Posted at 8/13/2004 02:56:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Kos: "Who is more decisive in an emergency?"

I don't usually link to Kos (or Atrios) because I assume everyone has already seen it. But go read this, then send it to family and friends around the country, and ask them to do the same. This needs to be passed around and ultimately reach people who listen to Limbaugh...: Daily Kos || Bush or Kerry: Who is more decisive in an emergency?

--- Posted at 8/13/2004 09:57:00 AM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

For Real? Iran Involved in the Fighting

From a site called This Is Rumor Control, here's rumor that Iran is involved in fighting US troops. This would not be a real surprise, since we've been threatening them since the "Axis of Evil" speech, and since keeping us pinned down in Iraq prevents us from being able to invade Iran. Take a look at Intelligence Officials: Iran Battling U.S. In Iraq Thanks to Matt at BOP News for sending me this link.

--- Posted at 8/13/2004 09:47:00 AM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

House Party Correction

In my "Speaker Pelosi" post below I said that the house parties in Congressional Districts are on the 19th. They are on the 29th, not the 19th. Host a house party in your Congressional District and help us get a Democratic Congress! And help me meet my goal of 50 people and $1000 to help elect a Democratic Congress by clicking on this banner:

--- Posted at 8/13/2004 07:27:00 AM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Breslin

Jimmy reviews the Republicans' typically repressive antics in NYC. As an ex-New Yorker who lived next to the park for many years, I promise you the argument against using it for the demonstration is pure bullshit. The Republicans seem to be begging for violence. They are relying, in their brazen way, on the media's certain and exclusive focus on the freakiest elements in the crowds. They're probably safe in that reliance. But it's a dangerous bet -- if even a few of Breslin's "old women with peace signs" do get clobbered on camera, the reaction could make Daley's Chicago '68 thuggery look like a minor political error. Or maybe not. We've become a much more violent country, comforted by repression. And the ability of the right-wing dominated media to warp reality beyond all recognition can never be underestimated. Breslin concludes:

A straight-line march past Madison Square Garden and on to Central Park, where people can congratulate themselves and smile and sing, would be a lovely afternoon, made so meaningful by the size of a crowd whose orderliness, and love, would make the Republicans coming in, these mean whites from low-IQ states, look ill.

It takes a lot for me to miss New York, but "these mean whites from low-IQ states" made me smile, laugh, and recall the effortless arrogance of life at the center of the universe. For the first time in years, I wish I could be there.

--- Posted at 8/13/2004 03:23:00 AM by richard

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Speaker Pelosi

Imagine a Democratic Congress! On the left you see a new banner that looks like this: Clicking this banner takes you to my web page for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). The DCCC is

"the official national Democratic campaign committee charged with recruiting, assisting, funding, and electing Democrats to the U. S. House of Representatives. We provide services ranging from designing and helping execute field operations, to polling, creating radio and television commercials, fundraising, communications, and management consulting."

If we're going to have a Democratic, the DCCC needs help so they can get resources to the candidates that need it most, and where it will do the most good, in the last weeks before the election. So please ckick this banner and go give a bit so they can help elect a Democratic CONGRESS! I am hoping to get 50 people to donate a total of $1000 to help elect a DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS! And think about giving a house party on the 29th. They are hoping to arrange for one house party in each Congressional district. To sign up to host a house party, or just for more information, click here. And go check out the DCCC blog.

--- Posted at 8/12/2004 08:17:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Statement From Kerry Campaign

From the Kerry Campaign:

Statement from Ten Senior Military Officials in Response to Vice President Cheney’s Latest Round of Personal Attacks Ten senior military officials released the following statement today in response to the Vice President’s attacks on John Kerry today: “We are deeply disappointed by the tone and tenor of President Bush and Vice President Cheney’s personal attacks on John Kerry, a decorated combat veteran who served his country with courage and honor. John Kerry is talking about his plan to address the most pressing issues facing our nation – jobs, the economy, health care, the war on terror, the war in Iraq. George Bush and Dick Cheney have chosen take their campaign to the gutter. We call on President Bush and Vice President Cheney to stop the irresponsible personal attacks and tell us where they want to take the country. Tell us how they plan to win the peace in Iraq. Tell us how they plan to get us back on track with the war on terror. Tell us where they plan to lead the country. The American people and our troops deserve better.” Signed by: Admiral William J. Crowe (United States Navy, Retired) Admiral Stansfield Turner (United States Navy, Retired) General Wesley K. Clark (United States Army, Retired) General Merrill “Tony” A. McPeak (United States Air Force, Retired) General Joseph Hoar (United States Marine Corps, Retired) General Johnnie E. Wilson (United States Army, Retired) Vice Admiral Lee F. Gunn (United States Navy, Retired) Lieutenant General Claudia J. Kennedy (United States Army, Retired) Lieutenant General Donald Kerrick (United States Army, Retired) Lieutenant General Edward D. Baca

--- Posted at 8/12/2004 04:07:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

MoveOn PAC: "Real People" swing voter ads

I guess this is understandable, people are more motivated by a negative than a positive, but it is striking to me that of the dozen or so ads I clicked on and listened to, none of the people interviewed said anything about how they'd been inspired or convinced by John Kerry - the ads were all about how dissatisfied and betrayed and otherwise pissed off these folk are at George Bush (and the Republican Party, to a lesser extent). ... but what are these folks going to be saying/thinking in four years? I just don't see how ABBA is a formula for anything more than a one-term Kerry presidency... and then a takeover by a more "moderate" Republican whose behavior will (hopefully) be less repulsive than Dubya's.

--- Posted at 8/12/2004 02:03:00 PM by Thomas Leavitt

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Ted Rall: Democracy is a wonderful thing.



--- Posted at 8/12/2004 01:32:00 PM by Thomas Leavitt

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

People Who Don't Get It

Bush is nominating a political hack to head the CIA, bringing the agency under Party control so it can be used to smear Democrats and solidify power. And the Democrats' response? Democrats Don't Plan to Block Confirmation of C.I.A. Nominee:

"The Democrats said that if they opposed the Goss nomination they expected that the White House would cast them as obstructionists who were delaying prosecution of the war on terror."

I refer to this syndrome as being afraid that Rush Limbaugh is going to say bad things about them.

"They said they had learned that lesson the hard way. In 2002, the Democrats opposed a proposal to eliminate some protections for employees of the Department of Homeland Security. Republicans took that as an opening to portray certain Democrats as opposed to protecting the nation."

Oh, I see. THAT was why the Republicans smeared them. And if they had only voted with Bush, the Republicans WOULDN'T have smeared them? They just don't get it. They think the way to fight The Party's takeover of the country and destruction of our democracy and constitution is to capitulate, let them have their way, and maybe they'll just go away and leave them alone.

--- Posted at 8/12/2004 12:21:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Basic Marketing

Josh a Talking Points Memo writes: "I just saw a preview of a study that finds the Swift Boat ads quite effective among independents in raising doubts about John Kerry's war record." I was wondering what people were thinking, when they said that McCain saying this ad is "dishonorable," etc. would neutralize the effect of this. That is WAY too "inside baseball." These ads are running in swing states, and they are very effective. Anyone who might change their mind in this election is not someone who even knows or cares who John McCain is! Update - Let me try to explain it this way. If Pepsi starts running ads that say Coca Cola is made from juices drained from corpses, how much good do you think it would do to counter that by giving the press a statement from the Vice President of the Tropicana Orange Juice company saying that what Pepsi is doing is dishonorable? Do you think Coke sales will rebound? (Sorry for the graphic image, but it seems to me it is a rough equivalent for the smear they are running.) Why doesn't the Kerry campaign have something ready to counter smears? They should have had something ready in the smear-countering department two years ago, as the necessary first step in launching a campaign against any Republican. This stuff works - that's why they do it! And they do it, over and over and over. At some point one would think that the Democratic leadership would figure out that this is what they do and hire the psychologists and linguists and marketing specialists to come up with ways to effectively counter smears like this.

--- Posted at 8/12/2004 06:47:00 AM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Why Not 'Clyde'?

Should'a been named 'Clyde' instead of 'Charlie'. Think about it.

--- Posted at 8/11/2004 10:14:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Puts

Richard once told me that the way to get really rich in the next few years is to buy puts, and when they expire buy more, and keep this up because one day the chickens are going to come home to roost, and the value of the puts you currently hold will go to the moon. I mentioned that there are also bear funds... Well, there are a lot of signs that it may be the right time for that strategy. The question is, will it wait for the election or not? But it's coming.

--- Posted at 8/11/2004 10:09:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

From the Dept. Of Transparent Political Ploys....

...comes the latest from the FDA commissioner. The The Washington Post is reporting that the FDA commissioner is concerned about terrorists tampering with prescription drugs. And guess where there they seem to be most concerned that the terrorists would be able to make such a hit? Drugs from CANADA, of course. "Acting Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Lester M. Crawford said possible action by terrorists was the most serious of his concerns about the increasing efforts of states and cities to import drugs from Canada to save money..." Good grief.

--- Posted at 8/11/2004 08:08:00 PM by David HM

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

George Bush: ""the really rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway."

That's a direct quote, according to AP: Bush also said high taxes on the rich are a failed strategy because "the really rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway." *this* is the logic our President operates under? We should keep taxes low, because we can't prevent our legislators from writing loopholes into the tax laws?!? I'm sure that "the really rich" would be no less eager to dodge lower taxes. Source: Bush campaign holds rally in Va.; Dems sense weakness

--- Posted at 8/11/2004 06:54:00 PM by Thomas Leavitt

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Oh, Jesus, don't tell my boss

In case you ever are deluded enough to think that things can't get worse, just remember this

Scientists in the United States have found a way of turning lazy monkeys into workaholics using gene therapy.

Usually monkeys work hard only when they know a reward is coming, but the animals given this treatment did their best all the time.

[...]

[The research leader] believes treatments based on this concept could one day benefit people with conditions like depression, where motivation has largely disappeared from their lives.

--- Posted at 8/11/2004 06:48:00 PM by richard

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Mark Morford

I love this stuff:

Hell, it's getting so you can't turn a corner or have a nuanced, humane thought without confronting another hunk of undeniable proof that what these media documents say is true: The Bush administration is quite possibly the most economically destructive, environmentally devastating, ethically corrupt, internationally loathed, deliberately tyrannical, worst-dressed administration in American history.

What, too harsh? Hardly.

When the professors and other intellectuals and the artists and the social workers and the mystics and the truly spiritual among us are appalled and mournful, and the homophobes and the rednecks and the religious zealots are cheering and shooting their guns in the sky, this is how you know.

When America has become a global punch line, a petulant and screeching child in an oversize Texas cowboy hat throwing oily little tantrums on a WMD whim, and the global community can only sit there, stunned and enraged, as every ally withdraws all offers of support and overtures of concern for our well-being, this is how you know.

--- Posted at 8/11/2004 06:36:00 PM by richard

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Destroying Kerry's Legitimacy - And OURS!

This just came in the e-mail, from Heritage Foundation's TownHall. Heritage Foundation is the hub of the Republican Party's network of organizations that spread their ideology to the public.

Dear Fellow Conservative, Time is short, so I'll get straight to the point: on my desk at this very moment is a book with the potential, on its own, to stop John Kerry from becoming President of the United States. My name is Tom Winter, editor-in-chief of HUMAN EVENTS. As you probably know, John Kerry rose to fame as a Vietnam War protester. But in recent years he has flipped that perception, remaking himself as a proud Vietnam veteran and war hero. In UNFIT FOR COMMAND, John O'Neill (who succeeded Kerry as commander of Swift Boat PCF 94 in Vietnam) and co-author Jerry Corsi reveal that Kerry's "war hero" image is one of the most elaborate frauds ever to be foisted on the American public. They also show why Kerry's real record demonstrates that he is grossly unfit to be Commander-in-Chief. Based on detailed interviews with Swift Boat veterans who served in Vietnam with John Kerry, UNFIT FOR COMMAND -- [. . .] -- gives you news-breaking revelations such as:

• The facts about all of Kerry's Purple Hearts, none of which were awarded for serious injuries
• How two of John Kerry's three Purple Hearts resulted from self-inflicted wounds – one of them so small it was treated with a standard bandaid
• Proof that Kerry lied about his "rescue" of a Swift Boat crewman -- the act for which he received a Bronze Star -- which did not, as he falsely claimed, take place under fire
• How Kerry spent much of his time in Vietnam filming himself in scenarios carefully designed to look dangerous
• How Kerry turned the tragic death of a father and a small child in a Vietnamese fishing boat into an act of "heroism" by filing a false report
• The gunner's mate who sat behind and above Kerry for most of his Vietnam stay: why he came to regard Kerry as incompetent and dishonest
• Why Swift Boat personnel, fed-up with his reckless behavior, asked Kerry to go home after he had served just four months in Vietnam
• How John Kerry entered an abandoned Vietnamese village and slaughtered the domestic animals owned by the civilians and burned down their homes with his Zippo lighter

But that's just for starters. UNFIT FOR COMMAND also reveals Kerry's notorious un-American activities as spokesman for Vietnam Veterans Against the War -- and much more that establishes beyond all doubt that Kerry is truly unfit to be President, including:

• War hero? Yes -- to the Communists! Why Kerry's photo was found in the "Heroes of the Vietnamese Resistance" section of a war museum in Communist Vietnam
• Kerry's accusations of war crimes by Americans in Vietnam: how they relied on veteran impersonators who concocted incidents that were exaggerations or pure fabrications
• Kerry's says he confronted superiors with objections to military policies that he felt were inappropriate. Here’s proof that these conversations never took place
• How as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, John Kerry attended a meeting where plans were discussed to assassinate prominent United States Senators who supported the war
• How Kerry met secretly with Communist delegates at the Paris Peace Conference during the Vietnam War, and why some believe he violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice and federal law

UNFIT FOR COMMAND will be a crucial weapon in the battle to prevent a Kerry victory in November. It will go on sale in bookstores next month. [. . .] [editing out sales stuff, including:]

• The latest Democrat gambit to win Florida in the 2004 election: HUMAN EVENTS reports that liberal Sunshine State judges are trying to give the right to vote to as many as 620,000 convicted felons. (We can only conclude Democrats consider felons part of their core constituency!)
• [. . .] Who made it virtually impossible for the FBI to check the backgrounds of Middle Eastern men in U.S. flight schools before 9/11? LIBERALS! The FBI was hamstrung by fear of a politically correct backlash from civil liberties absolutists, ethnic lobbyists and, of course, liberal editorialists and TV newscasters.

[. . .] When patriotic Americans learn the facts in UNFIT FOR COMMAND, they will return this self-serving liar to private life this November. Nothing less than our survival as a nation could hang in the balance. Sincerely,Thomas S. Winter President and Editor in Chief

Get the picture? They are starting a full-court press, starting where they left off on Clinton. The same crowd. The same tactics. They are going after Kerry's legitimacy to be President, and going after it hard. And by extension, they are going after our legitimacy to call ourselves Americans! Every one of us! You think it's just Kerry they feel this way about? I would not be surprised if this kind of stuff incites people to violence. If you believed this kind of stuff, what would you be willing to do to keep Kerry from taking or keeping office? Remember the plane crashing into the White House, not to mention the OKC bombing, at the height of the same kind of stuff being blasted out from the Right's lie factory? And this is August. As the election draws near this kind of talk has to lead to much more serious opposition to Kerry from people who buy into this crap. I mean, they're accusing Kerry of being a Communist agent who plotted to "assassinate prominent United States Senators"! This isn't a joke. There are people who believe this stuff. That's why they do it -- because it works! Then what comes if he wins -- and is allowed to take office? I think this gives you an idea of the nature and intensity of attacks to be expecting from this crowd -- from now on. Will we - and the elected Democrats - be there to help Kerry, or will he be on his own, like Clinton was?

--- Posted at 8/11/2004 05:20:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Well hello!

I am Camille Roy, & quite honored to be here. Like any blogger I'm obsessed. In this universe I'm mostly concerned with politics & the economy (in other universes I write software and fiction). I'm passionate about getting rid of George Bush in November for many reasons, the two most pressing being (1) wages in my field have dropped almost a third since he became president. The numbers of jobs available has declined by a larger margin. Way to go, not. (2) Eer-raq war. Note: not EYE-RACK war. Please. My first language was arabic (iraqi!) (though I don't remember it!) but I certainly remember the country and I never thought Dubya was capable of creating anything other than a horrible mess. Did you know something like 18,000 Americans die every year due to lack of health insurance? How come that doesn't rate as a threat to our security?

--- Posted at 8/11/2004 03:54:00 PM by Camille Roy

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Hilarious

Doctors To Attempt Risky Surgical Separation Of Politicians.

--- Posted at 8/11/2004 10:19:00 AM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Hee'll Be Bock

Think it with a strong Arnold accent, "Hee'll be bock." I suspect we'll hear from John (Zizka) again. Once you start you can't stop, and he has a lot to say.

--- Posted at 8/11/2004 10:07:00 AM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Yow! Republicans

Republicans... Go see for yourself. James Hart for Congress Committee - Preserving Intellectual Capacity. How come there's so many Republicans out there doing things that cause me to post with words like "Jeeze!" and "Yow!" ? And how come the public buys into their stuff? (Thanks to Daily Kos for the link.)

--- Posted at 8/11/2004 09:56:00 AM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Florida harbors terrorist!

Eli's got a scary catch.

[F]ormer Venezuelan President Carlos Andres Perez, ... currently ensconced in (where else?) Miami:

[...] "I am working to get rid of Chavez. We will be able to get rid of him through violent means. They are the only means we have."

What ever happened to the Logan Act? And doesn't Bush tell us that conspiracy ("We will...") to violently overthrow a democratically elected government is terrorism? So isn't the Bush administration now abetting international terrorism? Seriously.

--- Posted at 8/10/2004 08:40:00 PM by richard

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

So long for now

I need to take a break. Blogging has become less rewarding as it has become more obsessive, and I've accumulated a number of deficits in other areas of my life over the last year or two. I probably won't disappear entirely, but I need to establish a bit of separation between myself and the internet. Coincidentally, STF will likely be getting a new member pretty soon: Camille Roy, whose comments I've admired on Brad DeLong's site. Camille is in no sense my replacement, of course, and I originally looked forward to working with her. I will certainly check in to read her stuff (as well as that of the established guys). I've quit twice before and I've always come back, but you never can tell. Until then....

--- Posted at 8/10/2004 08:20:00 PM by John Emerson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Mr. Feely-touchy reaches out to you and me

Apparently Terry Nichols, the Oklahoma City bomber, is prepping for a new career as an inspirational speaker: Speaking publicly for the first time, Oklahoma City bombing conspirator Terry Nichols on Monday asked survivors and families of victims for forgiveness and offered to correspond with them if they felt it would help them cope with the 1995 bombing that killed 168 people. The slight, bespectacled Nichols made his comments at his sentencing to life in prison on a state conviction of 161 charges of first-degree murder, as well as charges of conspiracy and arson. "My heart truly goes out to all the victims, survivors and anyone who has been affected by the Oklahoma City bombing," he said. "Words cannot adequately express the sorrow I have had over the years for the grief that so many have endured and continue to suffer. I am truly sorry for what occurred." Nichols read calmly from a prepared statement as he sat in the witness stand, his ankles and wrists shackled, the word "INMATE" stamped in large black letters on the back of his blue-gray prison suit. He asked for forgiveness and said he had found "a real and personal relationship with God through … Jesus Christ." "I do pray that for many, that this day will be the beginning of their long-awaited healing process," said Nichols, 49. "And I pray that all who hold any hatred, bitterness and unforgiveness toward me, that they will find in their hearts to forgive me, as others have done, for this is the first stage toward true healing." And of course, those of us who refuse to forgive him will be damned to everlasting hellfire, and he will look down on us pityingly as he sits at Jesus' right hand.

--- Posted at 8/10/2004 08:11:00 PM by John Emerson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Digby! Digby! Digby!

I've been thinking about how to word it, that the Republican smear on Kerry is a smear on the military. But Digby (of course) says it far better than I would have, so I'll just point to what he says: Hullabaloo:

"What these people are saying is that the US Navy awarded some of its highest medals for bravery to a coward. The many officers who signed those glowing fitness reports and awarded those citations are either liars or they are incompetent. The word of his shipmates, even the man whose life he saved, are worth nothing. You can't believe military documentary evidence. It was all bullshit, every last piece of it. And because of this it can now be said that all medals awarded for bravery are suspect. A superior military record is no longer a recommendation. Who can ever believe the government on this issue, now? If they were willing to reward the undeserving Kerry, for reasons about which we can only speculate, then obviously the entire system for awarding valor in combat is corrupt."

Yep. The Republicans are saying that every single medal awarded to every single veteran is suspect -- just to get a smear in on Kerry. And, of course, by saying Kerry committed "atrocities" they're spitting on the Vietnam Vets, calling them "baby killers."

--- Posted at 8/10/2004 05:42:00 PM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

The Swift Boat Liars

The Swiftboat Vet smears stink of desperation. Some Vietnam vets have hated Kerry so much and for so long because of his antiwar activities (as well as the fake POW issue) that they think that everyone will agree with them about this. Right today they're pushing the wonkish, trivial "Christmas in Cambodia" thing, which they think is an absolute killer. I think that they're pretty sure to overreach and make fools of themselves, though of course the tedious debunking work still has to be done. 9 of the 10 living vets who served on Kerry's boats support him. His opponents include many of his fellow officers and his commanding officers, plus a large number of other Vietnam vets who never even saw Kerry. (One of the leaders of the group, O'Neill, wasn't even in Vietnam at the same time as Kerry.) The testimony posted on the Swiftvets site is almost entirely about Kerry's antiwar activities (which are misrepresented), rather than about Kerry's time in Vietnam. One anti-Kerry vet, his former commanding officer George Elliott, has changed his story several times and obviously has someone working him -- his last statement was released through the group rather than personally. It would be well worth someone's time to re-interview a lot of the anti-Kerry vets, because some of the pro-Kerry vets have testified to attempts to misrepresent their statements. The financing and organization of the group follows the standard average Republican surrogate pattern, with a Republican PR rep and big money coming from people close to Bush and Rove. Of the two authors of the book, one (O'Neill) was the main Nixon administration anti-Kerry guy, and the other (Corsi) is an anti-Catholic Free Republic bigot. Admiral Hoffman, another of the movers and shakers, is a well-known loose cannon and wild man. One peculiarity of the anti-Kerry testimony is that a lot of people are saying things unofficially thirty years later which contradict what they said officially at the time. No one is perfect, but Kerry got five medals and generally good ratings while he was in the service. (A lot of the anti-Kerry testimony is pretty nitpicky and has the stink of gossip and schoolgirl envy). Besides his crewmen, Kerry is being supported politically by Generals Clark and McPeak, and the Swiftboat-type smears have been denounced by Sen. McCain and General Franks. On the right-wing chatlines you can read some hilarious bitching about these men, and Farrah at Worldnet has re-smeared McCain. At this point I think that the Swiftboat attack will disappear without much trace. It only appeals to people who already hate Kerry. Probably Rove knows that the case is weak, and maybe that was why he released the dirt just now instead of closer to the election. (On the other hand, if Rove is using one of his big guns this early, that would mean that he knows he's in real trouble). The overall goal was probably to whittle away a little of Kerry's post-convention bounce, and secondarily to turn some doves against Kerry with the atrocity stories. And of course, military macho is the only thing Bush has to run on, so the weasels are fighting with special desperation.

Rassmann defends Kerry in the Wall Street Journal:

"This hate-filled ad asserts that I was not under fire; it questions my words and Navy records. This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency, people who don't understand the bond of those who serve in combat."

Extraordinarily thorough response by Eriposte Kerry's official records (scroll to "Fitness Reports" for official evaluations) Media Matters / Kerry Campaign / Disinfopedia / "Snopes" / Factcheck / Conason I / Conason II / Conason III Hoffman and O'Neill (Salon) Discrepancies in the SBV stories McCain denounces anti-Kerry smears. McCain resmeared (2004) Gen. Tommy Franks states that Kerry is qualified to be President. Swiftvets now report that 12 of 19 officers pictured with Kerry oppose him, and only one supports him (the others being dead or neutral) -- this is down from 19 of 23 reported earlier. The original Kerry War crime story (1996) was really quite dubious. Elliot retracts criticism of Kerry / Elliot retracts retraction /Elliot III / Elliott IV / Elliot V Swiftboat vets claim that Michael Kranish and the Globe (involved in the Elliott story) are pro-Kerry. This is not true, as shown here: Slate: Globe is not pro-Kerry I / Slate: Globe is not pro-Kerry II / Kranish is not pro-Kerry . There's a long complicated argument on Drudge and elsewhere claiming that Kranish is working for the Kerry campaign (not true) or that he wrote the introduction for Kerry's official campaign biography (also not true, though he was working at times on an book about Kerry, unconnected to the Kerry organization). Hoffman and O'Neill

--- Posted at 8/10/2004 04:47:00 PM by John Emerson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Someone still ought to give Somerby some money, and Scoobie Davis too.

It's an understatement to say that my suggestion that the Democrats ought to hire Bob Somerby didn't create much excitement. (Probably it's the Zizka cooties.) Hopefully someone else will pick up the issue again at some later date. Two objections were raised to Somerby: first, that his site isn't much fun, and second, that he isn't a team player. The first objection is profoundly stupid. Somerby's site has been around for about six years, and isn't really a "blog" at all. It's an internet research tool. He isn't trying to produce an entertaining mix of politics, trivia, and personal reportage. He's investigating the American media, reporting his results, and providing the rest of us with a searchable archive. The Daily Howler is the best answer to the question, "Are blogs really journalism?" In his case, the answer is yes. There is information available on his site which is not available anywhere else. Somerby is a researcher who creates knowledge. The second, team-player objection points to one of the Democratic Party's biggest weaknesses. Democratic pros tend to be credentialed institutional people from universities, unions, and public administration. Their jobs consist of normalization, following and enforcing procedures, achieving consensus, and various sorts of backscratching and brownnosing activities. Republican pros tend to be small businessmen and semi-criminal elements. Newt Gingrich and Grover Norquist work like con men sizing up a mark or burglars casing the joint. They're not interested in normality and keeping the lid on, but are always looking for an edge. And they do a lot of their work through disavowable semicriminal surrogate groups not formally connected with the Republican Party. I shouldn't have to spell it out, but I'm talking to Democrats, so I will. The advantage is with the Republicans here. They've been winning, and Norquist and Gingrich have been able to destroy their Democratic adversaries. (And sure, Gingrich overreached and got bounced -- but he transformed American politics first. Incidentally, did you know that Norquist is an Islamofascist-symp?) Somerby understands the political media better than anyone else does, and he knows what needs to be done. The Democrats' media approach has been feckless for decades, and Somerby could help fix that. But it does seem unlikely to me, too, that Somerby could fit into any of the existing Democratic media operations, and still less likely that he will ever be asked to head one of them. So it makes sense to me for something like this to happen. A donor sets up the requisite legal entity (a 527 or whatever), puts money into it, phones Somerby, asks him how much money he needs, and writes him the check. Easy.

P.S. Scoobie Davis is another unfunded guy who's been studying the political media for years. He has a good handle on the problem and some solid practical proposals, so they should give him money too.

--- Posted at 8/10/2004 01:45:00 PM by John Emerson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

Mary at The Left Coaster Interviews Paul Krugman

The Left Coaster: Revolutionary Power.

--- Posted at 8/10/2004 09:06:00 AM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

DriveDemocracy.Org - Drive Democracy blog

Drive Democracy blog has been following the players Kerry Swift Boat smear.

--- Posted at 8/10/2004 08:51:00 AM by Dave Johnson

Link to this | | | | e-mail this post

 

---

What?

Kerry: Still Would Have Approved Force for Iraq:

"Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said on Monday he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found. "

OK, what? Update -- (Tuesday) -- Limbaugh was, of course, all over this today, correctly pointing out that Kerry's statement completely undermines all arguments about Bush's credibility on Iraq, and whether invading Iraq was the right thing to do. And, of course, the Bush campaign knows a huge opportunity when it sees one. Bush Goes After Kerry on Iraq War Admission:

"Bush and his aides delighted in the response and said it showe