(Cross-posted at american street)
In the last couple of years I have researched and written about the massive communications “infrastructure” that the Right has built. Many of us bloggers refer to this infrastructure as the "Wurlitzer."
The Right's infrastructure is massively funded. One study, $1 Billion for Conservative Ideas, by David Callahan, showed that in the 1990s the Right's funders pumped more than $1 billion into this ideological indoctrination campaign.
A good description of this infrastructure can be found in my report The Attack on Trial Lawyers and Tort Law. This report is written to trial lawyers and their organizations, discussing how and why they are under attack from the Right. (The real fun of this report is following the footnotes and reading the online sources I used.)
I wrote this report because believe that we can -- and must -- recognize and fight back against the Right's machine, by building a counter-infrastructure or our own. But doing so takes money. Trial lawyers are a major source of funding for moderates and progressives, which is why they are being attacked by the Right. So I did the research and wrote the report, describing what is happening to trial lawyers, and how, and why, appealing to them to begin funding organizations to counter the Right’s machine. The report has been embraced by the American Trial Lawyers Association, and they have passed it along to the state trial lawyer organizations, and several of these have publicized (another example here) and/or sent the report to their members.
I am working on similar reports (if I can find the funding to continue) written for Organized Labor, School Employees, Mainstream Religious Organizations and Philanthropic Foundations, each describing the Right’s attack on their particular interests and making the case for funding a counter-infrastructure to counter the Right. Each of these groups have been major funders of moderate and progressive activities in the past (which is why they are under attack from the Right) and I am hoping that with enough information about the Right's efforts to attack their interests they can be persuaded direct their funding efforts toward a broad counter-attack. If you know of individuals or organizations that would be interested in assisting me with this effort by helping to fund these reports, please contact me.
Also, for your enjoyment and terror, I have collected what I think is the most complete collection of links to online sources of information about the "conservative movement" here. (Please let me know of any significant articles, reports, etc. that might be missing.)
So all of this is my humble attempt to help trigger an organized, funded response to the Right’s decades-long effort to swing the country toward their ideological belief system. It’s a dirty job, but…
It IS Possible to Fight Back
The beneficiaries of the Right’s efforts are the corporations, and the corporations have donated a lot of money to the Right’s efforts.
But the beneficiaries of OUR efforts are THE PEOPLE. And there are a LOT of people! In the last national election Al Gore received 51 million votes. (Actually, 50,999,897, but who’s counting -- especially in Florida.)
Howard Dean is on to something when he talks about raising $200 million from 2 million people, each giving $100. He is really, really on to something. I want to push this idea further. If each committed Progressive donated $100 each year toward fighting the Right, we would raise hundreds of millions of dollars – over the next decade this would add up to billions, far surpassing that $1 billion the Right spent in the 1990s on their organizations.
I think we should introduce a new ethic into Moderate and Progressive thinking. I think we need to see that it is our duty to donate money to help build and continue to fund organizations that will fight back against the Right. I think we can all see the need for this now. I think we can all feel the urgency. I propose a campaign to persuade every single Moderate and Progressive that it is their duty to donate at least $100 each per year to Moderate and Progressive organizations. We can call this effort something like "The Earth is Worth $100," or "The Fight-the-Right Tax is $100 Per Year." Think of it as cheap tithing.
If each Gore voter donated $100 this would raise more than $5 BILLION each year. This is not realistic, but I am demonstrating that even without the traditional funding sources – labor, foundations, etc. – it IS possible to raise the amounts of money necessary to take on the Right.
The site counter for this [american street] website shows that the average daily readership of the american street is 1470 individuals. If each of these readers gave $100 american street would raise $147,000. Yes, if our readers followed the $100 commitment principle, just this weblog alone could raise $147,000, which is almost enough for seed money to launch one organization. With this money an organization could begin hiring and start serious fundraising and PR efforts to reach another 10,000 people donating $100 each, raising $1,000,000 for operations. I'm not saying we should do this today -- I'm showing how the $100 principle would enable even small groups to start building an organization that works to counter the Right’s propaganda.
DailyKOS' hit counter says its average daily readership is 109,610. If each of those readers donated $100 that would raise $10,961,000, sufficient to launch and fund for a year three or four serious organizations. And those 109,000 people are still only a fraction of the number of Moderates and Progressives in the United States. This is serious money we're talking about.
Projecting an aura of defeat is one of the Right’s tactics against us. So many of us believe the fight is hopeless, that the RIght has all the money and it is useless to even try to respond. But never forget that there are more of us than them, and never forget that we are fighting AGAINST war, and FOR the earth, and FOR helping others, and that Progressive ideals of sustainability, and building community, and sharing, and cooperating and nurturing are healthier and stronger than the dark, negative, intolerant, fearful, materialistic, divisive, hateful, jealous and cultish ideology of the Right. We not only CAN win, we MUST win!
So what do YOU think? Is this an idea worth persuing? And if so, how? Are YOU giving at least $100 per year? Is a commitment to give $100 per year to Moderate and Progressive organizations too much to ask to take America back from the nightmare we find ourselves in?
2/09/2004
A Suggestion for Libertarians
I'm a liberal Democrat and all, but I have a bold and original suggestion for libertarians (including libertarian Republicans). Don't get mad until you hear what it is:
Maybe 2004 would be a good year for y'all to vote for the Libertarian candidate.
I realize that most of the time most of you vote for the Republican as the lesser evil. Usually that makes sense, but this year is it even true?
From your point of view, Bush is as about as bad as a Democrat on tariffs, government spending and "little government" issues. He's worse on fiscal responsibility, civil liberties, and privacy rights. And he gave us this godawful war.
Some of you might think you should support Bush during the present state of emergency, but we can be confident that this state of emergency is going last forever. (Who is our enemy, again? For a long time I thought this was The War on Terrorism, but now I'm hearing that it's really The War Against Evil. Somehow I think that either one of those wars will last awhile).
If you want to vote for the Democrat, of course that would be great. But I can see that Kerry, our likely nominee, is not your cup of tea, and granted that he supported both the war and the Patriot Act, I get your point. (Though changing his mind would be a lot easier for him than it would be for Bush).
There's never going to be a better time. If the Libertarians don't make a good showing this year, they never will. They might as well fold up their tents and quit.
P.S. So am I a fiendish operative throwing a monkey wrench into the Bush machine? Or am I just telling you that right at the moment you and I really have something in common?
Your call.
Maybe 2004 would be a good year for y'all to vote for the Libertarian candidate.
I realize that most of the time most of you vote for the Republican as the lesser evil. Usually that makes sense, but this year is it even true?
From your point of view, Bush is as about as bad as a Democrat on tariffs, government spending and "little government" issues. He's worse on fiscal responsibility, civil liberties, and privacy rights. And he gave us this godawful war.
Some of you might think you should support Bush during the present state of emergency, but we can be confident that this state of emergency is going last forever. (Who is our enemy, again? For a long time I thought this was The War on Terrorism, but now I'm hearing that it's really The War Against Evil. Somehow I think that either one of those wars will last awhile).
If you want to vote for the Democrat, of course that would be great. But I can see that Kerry, our likely nominee, is not your cup of tea, and granted that he supported both the war and the Patriot Act, I get your point. (Though changing his mind would be a lot easier for him than it would be for Bush).
There's never going to be a better time. If the Libertarians don't make a good showing this year, they never will. They might as well fold up their tents and quit.
P.S. So am I a fiendish operative throwing a monkey wrench into the Bush machine? Or am I just telling you that right at the moment you and I really have something in common?
Your call.
Nuh-uh
Adam Yoshida's response to Kevin's post is priceless.
Open mouth. Insert foot.
Yoshida's comment on Kevin's comment board was pretty funny too. I like this part:
BTW, I hadn't realized it but Hesiod had talked about this more than a year ago. This document shows that Bush had to sign a document acknowledging he was being re-assigned to this disciplinary guard unit.
So, well well well, the president lied about his draft record just yesterday morning.
I'm impressed. How about you?
Open mouth. Insert foot.
Yoshida's comment on Kevin's comment board was pretty funny too. I like this part:
This is more treasonous nonsense from a pack of liars and scumbags.How's that for a tempered intellectual response?
BTW, I hadn't realized it but Hesiod had talked about this more than a year ago. This document shows that Bush had to sign a document acknowledging he was being re-assigned to this disciplinary guard unit.
So, well well well, the president lied about his draft record just yesterday morning.
I'm impressed. How about you?
2/08/2004
Bush AWOL mystery solved?
Go here. Calpundit may have the goods on the Bush AWOL mystery.
Someone said that the reason Bush was letting the rumors fly is that the truth was worse than the rumor. Looks like they were right.
You heard it here second.
UPDATE:
Diana Moon of Letter From Gotham suggests two questions, the first one for Bush and second one for his war buddies:
"Mister President, can you give us the names of three National Guard Service colleagues who served with you between May 1972 and October 1973?"
and
"Any American who can document that he was in the National Guard between May 1972 and October 1973 and remembers serving with Bush during that period should contact the news departments of CNN, Fox, CBS, NBC, and ABC to verify that Bush wasn't AWOL. That way, we can stop refighting the Vietnam War and focus our attention on current issues."
Sounds like a plan.
Someone said that the reason Bush was letting the rumors fly is that the truth was worse than the rumor. Looks like they were right.
You heard it here second.
UPDATE:
Diana Moon of Letter From Gotham suggests two questions, the first one for Bush and second one for his war buddies:
"Mister President, can you give us the names of three National Guard Service colleagues who served with you between May 1972 and October 1973?"
and
"Any American who can document that he was in the National Guard between May 1972 and October 1973 and remembers serving with Bush during that period should contact the news departments of CNN, Fox, CBS, NBC, and ABC to verify that Bush wasn't AWOL. That way, we can stop refighting the Vietnam War and focus our attention on current issues."
Sounds like a plan.
Totalitarian Unanimity
American unanimity on the Iraqi threat before the second Iraq War can only be described as totalitarian. I remember thinking at the time that Saddam probably did not have a significant WMD capacity and that he was not a major threat to the U.S., but I just didn't think that it was worth saying so. I didn't have any special information, and almost all of the experts (and essentially all of the media) were supporting the Bush line. So mostly I argued for multilateralism and/or containment.
But Ritter wasn't the only expert who disagreed: Hans Blix also did. And even without a sex-crimes charge, he too was marginalized by what amounted to smear campaign -- as indeed were the French, the Germans and most of Old Europe. The unanimity of opinion on the WMD question was a local American phenomenon not to be found elsewhere in the world.
This kind of engineered unanimism is usually only seen in one-party states. Dissenting voices were swamped in a flood of coordinated, on-message repetitions of the Bush Administration's unfounded and false claims about the Iraqi threat. The vast majority of the major media were working for the administration, and only a few people with independent sources of information were in a position to know how weak the administration's case really was.
We obviously need a complete post-mortem. (Here and here are two tidbits from Atrios on how the media worked -- the point of the Pincus story is that it was a good story buried on page seventeen.) There really need to be some mea culpas, some resignations, and multiple apologies to Ritter and Blix. I really don't think that we'll see any of that, but until it happens, we're still really as bad off as we ever were, since the same corrupt media still control the airwaves.
We're really in Nader-Chomsky territory. The Democrats should have listened.
But Ritter wasn't the only expert who disagreed: Hans Blix also did. And even without a sex-crimes charge, he too was marginalized by what amounted to smear campaign -- as indeed were the French, the Germans and most of Old Europe. The unanimity of opinion on the WMD question was a local American phenomenon not to be found elsewhere in the world.
This kind of engineered unanimism is usually only seen in one-party states. Dissenting voices were swamped in a flood of coordinated, on-message repetitions of the Bush Administration's unfounded and false claims about the Iraqi threat. The vast majority of the major media were working for the administration, and only a few people with independent sources of information were in a position to know how weak the administration's case really was.
We obviously need a complete post-mortem. (Here and here are two tidbits from Atrios on how the media worked -- the point of the Pincus story is that it was a good story buried on page seventeen.) There really need to be some mea culpas, some resignations, and multiple apologies to Ritter and Blix. I really don't think that we'll see any of that, but until it happens, we're still really as bad off as we ever were, since the same corrupt media still control the airwaves.
We're really in Nader-Chomsky territory. The Democrats should have listened.
Comments on Meet the Press
Extreme softball. They didn't have to submit the questions in advance because Russert did not ask one question that was a surprise, in order to catch Bush unprepared so the country could see how he responds. Did he ask ANY follow-up questions? For example, on Bush's military record Russert did not follow up and ask why Bush refused to take his medical exam and stopped flying, after the government had spent over $1 million to train him as a pilot. That is a very important question and the public has the right to know the answer. The press has an obligation to ask, and Russert did not.
One thing for sure, the focus groups have found that "not going to trust a madman" is working better than other phrases. He used the word "madman" over and over again.
On the U.N., keep in mind that we're talking about a country that DID NOT HAVE weapons:
On free elections in Iraq -- simple evasion.
This guy is in way over his head.
One thing for sure, the focus groups have found that "not going to trust a madman" is working better than other phrases. He used the word "madman" over and over again.
On the U.N., keep in mind that we're talking about a country that DID NOT HAVE weapons:
"You mentioned "preemption." If I might, I went to the United Nations and said, Here is what we know, you know, at this moment, and you need to act. After all, you are the body that issued resolution after resolution after resolution, and he ignored those resolutions.But these were resolutions saying Iraq should disarm. DISARM WHAT? And of course, no follow up: "Mr. President, you made a terrible mistake and got us into a war. Now there are over 10,000 Iraqi dead, over 500 American dead, the country is flat broke, the military is dangerously overextended and the country has no credibility in the world. Shouldn't there be consequences for mistakes of such magnitude?"
So, in other words, when you say "preemption," it almost sounds like, Well, Mr. President, you decided to move. What I decided to do was to go to the international community and see if we could not disarm Saddam Hussein peacefully through international pressure.
You remember U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 clearly stated show us your arms and destroy them, or your programs and destroy them. And we said, there are serious consequences if you don't. That was a unanimous verdict. In other words, the worlds of the U.N. Security Council said we're unanimous and you're a danger. So, it wasn't just me and the United States. The world thought he was dangerous and needed to be disarmed.
And, of course, he defied the world once again.
In my judgment, when the United States says there will be serious consequences, and if there isn't serious consequences, it creates adverse consequences. People look at us and say, they don't mean what they say, they are not willing to follow through."
On free elections in Iraq -- simple evasion.
Russert: If the Iraqis choose, however, an Islamic extremist regime, would you accept that, and would that be better for the United States than Saddam Hussein?In other words, they won't choose an Islamist government because the people WE have chosen to set up the government aren't Islamists. No follow-up from Russert on what happens if the people of Iraq vote for different leaders than the ones we have set up.
President Bush: They're not going to develop that. And the reason I can say that is because I'm very aware of this basic law they're writing. They're not going to develop that because right here in the Oval Office I sat down with Mr. Pachachi and Chalabi and al Hakim, people from different parts of the country that have made the firm commitment, that they want a constitution eventually written that recognizes minority rights and freedom of religion.
I remember speaking to Mr. al Hakim here, who is a fellow who has lost 63 family members during the Saddam reign. His brother was one of the people that was assassinated early on in this past year. I expected to see a very bitter person. If 63 members of your family had been killed by a group of people, you would be a little bitter. He obviously was concerned, but he I said, you know, I'm a Methodist, what are my chances of success in your country and your vision? And he said, it's going to be a free society where you can worship freely. This is a Shiia fellow.
And my only point to you is these people are committed to a pluralistic society. And it's not going to be easy. The road to democracy is bumpy. It's bumpy particularly because these are folks that have been terrorized, tortured, brutalized by Saddam Hussein.
This guy is in way over his head.
2/07/2004
The Dirty Tricksters Win Again: More on Ritter
The post below made me take a walk through memory lane back to the pre-war anti-war days.
Anyway, here's a link to my post on the story about Ritter back in January of 2003.
If you recall, this whole thing sounded like something Nixon's Dirty Tricksters would do. I had forgotten that Thomas Spargo, the judge in the case, was likely the culprit -- the guy who broke the law in other words.
Here's a bit of the post:
You and I know the answer, don't we?
Anyway, here's a link to my post on the story about Ritter back in January of 2003.
If you recall, this whole thing sounded like something Nixon's Dirty Tricksters would do. I had forgotten that Thomas Spargo, the judge in the case, was likely the culprit -- the guy who broke the law in other words.
Here's a bit of the post:
The timing is, of course, very suspicious. On the eve of a war against Iraq this has all the appearances of an attempt to silence or at least discredit one of the more effective critics of the administration. First of all, the records in this case were sealed and whoever leaked them to the press was quite simply breaking the law. They have also violated Ritter's civil rights as well.Why haven't W and the "law and order" Republicans put someone in jail over this?
Now, also suspiciously, U.S. attorneys William Pericak and Thomas Spina, Jr. have decided the government may pursue federal charges against Ritter based on what they have heard in the press about Ritter's alleged rendezvous attempt. Pericak and Spina have received a copy of Ritter's file in the New York case just today it appears.
Of course, the most curious thing of all is who the judge in Ritter's case in 2001 was -- his judge was a fellow named Thomas J. Spargo. Spargo is not exactly a household name but, if you recall from a couple of years back, he's a well-known Republican lawyer and activist who played a role in the mob demonstration that shut down the vote-counting in Miami during the recount battle of 2000. In fact, I recall it was quite controversial that he took part in this disgraceful demonstration since he was serving as a judge at the same time in New York. Anyway, Spargo is the judge who put the seal on Ritter's record in 2001 and, presumably, was in charge of making sure that none of this information was made public.
You and I know the answer, don't we?
2/06/2004
Whatever Happened to Scott Ritter?
Right now one of the big Rove Administration talking points is that "Everyone thought Saddam had WMD's, not just Bush". This nicely supplements the main point dutifully being trotted around: "This was an intelligence failure, and Bush is going to get to the bottom of it".
However, before the war there was one guy who was quite vocal about his belief that Saddam did not have WMD's: Scott Ritter. And as a former U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq, Ritter was in a position to know what he was talking about. He was right, and almost everyone else was wrong. So where is he these days?
Well, he's not on TV. According to Bob Somerby of The Daily Howler, Ritter has been seen on national broadcast media exactly three times in the last six months -- and one of those times he was slimed by Gloria Borger. (My own Googling research turns up very little more since 2002). Meanwhile, the people who got us into this mess run from talk show to talk show and from interview to interview, explaining endlessly why it wasn't their fault and how they were basically right all along. Rumsfeld or Condoleezzea can make three national TV appearances in one day.
So why is it that we don't we see Ritter? Mostly because he was smeared. In January 2003 there was a leak of a story about a 2001 misdemeanor arrest for attempting (via the internet) to meet a minor for sexual purposes. The legal case was dropped and the records sealed -- but this was enough to permanently discredit Ritter in the eyes of the media. Since then he's been almost invisible: Ritter was disappeared.
The case shouldn't have been in the news in the first place, since court records were sealed, and in any case the sex-scandal story (a misdemeanor with the charges dropped) was never seen again after February 2003. But after the story came out, Ritter (the one guy who apparently knew what was going on in Iraq) got considerable ink in the foreign-language and British press, but almost no attention in the U.S.
We shouldn't be surprised. Sidney Blumenthal and Greg Palast can't get published in the American daily media either, and they aren't even kinky. You don't want to go overboard about this, but the controlled media we have now should bother everyone. What we're seeing goes far beyond the traditional domination of the media by centrist points of view, and approaches the situation to be found in one-party states.
UPDATE:
Moniker pointed out in the comments that many people worldwide doubted Saddam's WMD. That's correct, and I should have made it clear that what I was talking about was an engineered American unanimity. I will write more on this soon.
SECOND UPDATE Col. David Hackworth has proposed that Ritter be nominated to the MWD probe commission. Makes perfect sense, but somehow you doubt that it will happen.
P.S. I never did tell you whether Ritter was guilty or not, did I? The answer is, I don't know, and almost no one else does either. The normal presumption when charges are dropped on a misdemeanor case is that there wasn't much there in the first place. The few facts we have are consistent with a frameup, entrapment, or blackmail, though these are not the only possible explanations. And of course, if it was blackmail, then apparently Ritter did something un-nice -- even if it was also unprosecutable.
The real point is that Ritter was right when almost everyone else was wrong, and that the media have been ignoring him since February 2003.
LINKS: I have parked links to this story here. I have also added links to stories about the movie Ritter made in 2001 (before 9/11) with funding from an Iraqi businessmen. The film has also been used to discredit Ritter, but I think that the case against him is weak.
While checking up on the film story, I did find that Ritter is sort of an oaf, with rather odd mannerisms, and thus not the best spokesman for his case. Or at least, that's how slick media people feel about him.
However, before the war there was one guy who was quite vocal about his belief that Saddam did not have WMD's: Scott Ritter. And as a former U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq, Ritter was in a position to know what he was talking about. He was right, and almost everyone else was wrong. So where is he these days?
Well, he's not on TV. According to Bob Somerby of The Daily Howler, Ritter has been seen on national broadcast media exactly three times in the last six months -- and one of those times he was slimed by Gloria Borger. (My own Googling research turns up very little more since 2002). Meanwhile, the people who got us into this mess run from talk show to talk show and from interview to interview, explaining endlessly why it wasn't their fault and how they were basically right all along. Rumsfeld or Condoleezzea can make three national TV appearances in one day.
So why is it that we don't we see Ritter? Mostly because he was smeared. In January 2003 there was a leak of a story about a 2001 misdemeanor arrest for attempting (via the internet) to meet a minor for sexual purposes. The legal case was dropped and the records sealed -- but this was enough to permanently discredit Ritter in the eyes of the media. Since then he's been almost invisible: Ritter was disappeared.
The case shouldn't have been in the news in the first place, since court records were sealed, and in any case the sex-scandal story (a misdemeanor with the charges dropped) was never seen again after February 2003. But after the story came out, Ritter (the one guy who apparently knew what was going on in Iraq) got considerable ink in the foreign-language and British press, but almost no attention in the U.S.
We shouldn't be surprised. Sidney Blumenthal and Greg Palast can't get published in the American daily media either, and they aren't even kinky. You don't want to go overboard about this, but the controlled media we have now should bother everyone. What we're seeing goes far beyond the traditional domination of the media by centrist points of view, and approaches the situation to be found in one-party states.
UPDATE:
Moniker pointed out in the comments that many people worldwide doubted Saddam's WMD. That's correct, and I should have made it clear that what I was talking about was an engineered American unanimity. I will write more on this soon.
SECOND UPDATE Col. David Hackworth has proposed that Ritter be nominated to the MWD probe commission. Makes perfect sense, but somehow you doubt that it will happen.
P.S. I never did tell you whether Ritter was guilty or not, did I? The answer is, I don't know, and almost no one else does either. The normal presumption when charges are dropped on a misdemeanor case is that there wasn't much there in the first place. The few facts we have are consistent with a frameup, entrapment, or blackmail, though these are not the only possible explanations. And of course, if it was blackmail, then apparently Ritter did something un-nice -- even if it was also unprosecutable.
The real point is that Ritter was right when almost everyone else was wrong, and that the media have been ignoring him since February 2003.
LINKS: I have parked links to this story here. I have also added links to stories about the movie Ritter made in 2001 (before 9/11) with funding from an Iraqi businessmen. The film has also been used to discredit Ritter, but I think that the case against him is weak.
While checking up on the film story, I did find that Ritter is sort of an oaf, with rather odd mannerisms, and thus not the best spokesman for his case. Or at least, that's how slick media people feel about him.
Bush Appoints Silberman
Bush appointed Laurence Silberman to head the "independent" investigation of Iraq intelligence. This might be the one person even less independent than Kissinger.
He first shows up as one of the people from the Reagan campaign who met with the Iranians in the Iran Hostage Crisis:
Later he shows up as one of the main behind-the-scenes Clinton-haters:
He first shows up as one of the people from the Reagan campaign who met with the Iranians in the Iran Hostage Crisis:
"In September 1980, Allen got a call from Robert McFarlane, then an authority on Iran for the Senate Armed Services Committee. McFarlane told Allen that he knew a representative of the Iranian government who might be useful. `McFarlane wanted us to meet him; he was emphatic,' recalls Allen. `And against my better judgment, I agreed.' Allen asked another campaign advisor, Laurence Silberman, to accompany him."Then he's one of the judges who let Ollie North off the hook on a technicality.
Later he shows up as one of the main behind-the-scenes Clinton-haters:
Laurence Silberman, appointed by Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist to sit on the review panel, is known by many as an ally of the Federalist Society and the judge who overturned Oliver North's convictions.This appointment says all we need to know about the "independence" of this commission.
In "Blinded by the Right," David Brock suggests Silberman was a driving force behind the conservative muckraker's "The Real Anita Hill," which trashed the woman who challenged Clarence Thomas, and of the "troopergate" articles that eventually produced Paula Jones.
According to Brock,though he was a sitting federal judge who would rule on matters to which the Clinton administration was party, Larry strongly urged me to go forward. By now, after his almost daily dealings with me as I wrote "The Real Anita Hill," Larry must have known I always deferred to his judgment. He also had keen psychological insight. He wrapped his advice in an appeal to my ego. The trooper story would be much bigger than the Anita Hill book, he predicted. Clinton would be "devastated," and therefore the story could only greatly enhance my reputation. Sitting in his favorite tan leather club chair, scotch in hand, the judge told me he felt sure that if the same story had been written about Ronald Reagan, it would have toppled him from office. Clinton, he surmised, might be toppled as well. Of course, the liberal media might ignore the story to protect Clinton, but in conservative circles, I would be king. When I heard that I was over the fence.Later, as Brock indicates, Silberman ruled on Clinton matters, including whether Clinton's bodyguards could be compelled to testify in the Lewinsky case. He famously asked in an opinion, "Can it be said that the president of the United States has declared war on the United States," when he disagreed with the administration's tactics. His court also backed the leaks to the media from the office of his friend Ken Starr.
[. . .] Brock's account also alleges that Silberman was good at moving dirt behind the scenes, acting as a source, both on and off the record, for "The Real Anita Hill." Brock relates the story of his finishing a chapter alleging Sen. Paul Simon leaked confidential papers on Hill to the press. After Brock drops it through Silberman's mail slot, the judge and his wife call their young cub reporter.
"They were passing the phone to each other, marveling at my 'genius' at the top of their lungs," Brock says. "'You got him. You nailed him. You fucked him. You killed him,' they sang. The state of manic euphoria that gripped the Silbermans that evening is impossible to describe to a normal person."
2/05/2004
The Kerry Smear -- Spotted Again
I have been following a certain kind of smear that appears to be a tactic of the Republicans for the election. Anonymous callers to talk shows, anonymous letter writers, all with stories about how John Kerry is a nasty rich elitist who does thing like push in front of people in lines at supermarkets. I wrote about it here and, especially here. Now in Murdoch's NY Post (Murcoch owns Fox News), there's this (thanks to Atrios):
(Cross-posted at the american street.)
"ONE of the surest ways to get the phones ringing on any Massachusetts talk-radio show is to ask people to call in and tell their John Kerry stories. The phone lines are soon filled, and most of the stories have a common theme: our junior senator pulling rank on one of his constituents, breaking in line, demanding to pay less (or nothing) or ducking out before the bill arrives.It's time to write to your local papers, warning people of this tactic.
The tales often have one other common thread. Most end with Sen. Kerry inquiring of the lesser mortal: "Do you know who I am?"
(Cross-posted at the american street.)
Lies Lies Lies Yeah Part 2,357
From this bombshell UPI story:
Apparently, Libby and Hannah are the sacrificial lambs. But why did the White House lie about Libby's involvement? How did they think they could get away with that? I mean, heck folks, most of the people in that room KNEW for a fact that McClellan was lying. Surely they knew it was bound to come out that Libby was involved sooner or later, right?
However, I've got one eensy teensy (but important) question:
Who told Libby and Hannah that Plame was a CIA operative?
Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
Federal law-enforcement officials said that they have developed hard evidence of possible criminal misconduct by two employees of Vice President Dick Cheney's office related to the unlawful exposure of a CIA officer's identity last year. The investigation, which is continuing, could lead to indictments, a Justice Department official said.From an October 6, 2003 press conference by Scott McClellan:
According to these sources, John Hannah and Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, were the two Cheney employees. "We believe that Hannah was the major player in this," one federal law-enforcement officer said. Calls to the vice president's office were not returned, nor did Hannah and Libby return calls.
Q Scott, the President just expressed his desire to get to the bottom of this CIA leak issue. And he said he wanted to hold accountable whoever was responsible --From an October 10, 2003 press conference by Scott McClellan:
MR. McCLELLAN: Absolutely.
Q -- responsible for this. But can you confirm that the President would fire anyone on his staff found to have leaked classified information?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think I made that very clear last week. The topic came up, and I said that if anyone in this administration was responsible for the leaking of classified information, they would no longer work in this administration. This is a very serious matter. The President made it very clear just a short time ago in the East Room, and he has always said that leaking of classified information is a serious matter. And that's why he wants to get to the bottom of this. And the sooner we get to the bottom of it, the better.
Q Scott, earlier this week you told us that neither Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams nor Lewis Libby disclosed any classified information with regard to the leak. I wondered if you could tell us more specifically whether any of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?Now, explain to me why Scooter and Hannah still have jobs? Didn't the White House say they'd immediately fire any person who was involved in this?
MR. McCLELLAN: Those individuals -- I talked -- I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that's where it stands.
Q So none of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?
MR. McCLELLAN: They assured me that they were not involved in this.
Apparently, Libby and Hannah are the sacrificial lambs. But why did the White House lie about Libby's involvement? How did they think they could get away with that? I mean, heck folks, most of the people in that room KNEW for a fact that McClellan was lying. Surely they knew it was bound to come out that Libby was involved sooner or later, right?
However, I've got one eensy teensy (but important) question:
Who told Libby and Hannah that Plame was a CIA operative?
Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
The New Ad
The new ad is a dating service FOR PROGRESSIVES.
I can see the need for this. I went out with a Libertarian once. Ugh!
I can see the need for this. I went out with a Libertarian once. Ugh!
No One Remembers
Does anyone remember this, from Dec. 7, 2002? Iraq Delivers Arms Declaration to U.N.:
"BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq handed over its long-awaited arms declaration to the United Nations on Saturday, denying it has doomsday weapons, and President Saddam Hussein grudgingly apologized to Kuwait for his 1990 invasion.Of course, TODAY'S excuse is that Saddam didn't know that he didn't have WMD, and that's why Bush thought they did.
[. . .] The declaration will "answer all the questions,'' said Lt. Gen. Hossam Mohammed Amin, its chief author. If the United States "has the minimum level of fairness and braveness,'' it will accept it as the truth, he said.
[. . .]But new teams of U.N. arms inspectors are now crisscrossing Iraq in search of signs of weapons of mass destruction, and the Bush administration says it is sure Baghdad still has such weapons. It has threatened war to enforce Iraqi disarmament.
The huge Iraqi declaration, summarizing largely civilian industrial activity, was an anticlimax, since the Iraqi denial has been repeated endlessly, including by Gen. Amin on Saturday. ``I reiterate here Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction,'' he told reporters."
They're In Charge Now
From Dr. Strangelove:
"I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration , Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids... " -Base Commander RipperThis wingnut was modeled after the John Birch Society wingnuts. Well, people, now those wingnuts run the country.
July 2002
In one of my first Seeing the Forest posts I wrote:
"After this November's election the Democratic Party is going to have to start asking Democrats for money instead of hitting up corporate Republicans as they have been doing. They are used to getting large chunks of cash from corporations and now they have to raise lots of smaller chunks from actual Democrats. I think the changes they will have to make to tailor their message to actual Demcorats is going to make a huge difference in the message of the Democratic Party.And look what has happened! Taking away the corporate money HAS changed the party.
I've been to a few Democratic clubs and other meetings lately and have to say that the mood of the grass roots is nothing like the message that the Democratic Party has been putting out. Grass-roots Democrats are not at all happy with the way House and Senate Democrats have been voting for several years. I think we are likely to see a very strong populist resurgence."
W's Alternate Universe
Because we acted, nations of the Middle East no longer need to fear reckless aggression from a ruthless dictator who had the intent and capability to inflict great harm on his people and people around the world.That's true I guess.
Unfortunately, now the nations of the Middle East need to fear reckless agression from the United States.
And the people of Iraq have learned the United States has the capability to inflict great harm, haven't they?
Dean - Wisconsin Or Out
Dean says he must win Wisconsin or leave the race. He is asking supporters to donate $700,000 by Sunday to pay for ads. I have put "the bat" back up - click on it to give, even $5.
What do I think? I think he's being realistic. I also think he might be pretty sure he has a good chance of winning Wisconsin. If he does that helps propel him into the BIG March 2 primaries including California and New York. And it will be a very interesting time up to the convention, with FOUR candidates blasting Bush on the news every single night. YES!
Last night's Redwood City Meetup was surprising. About 1/3 of the people there were at their first Dean Meetup. I wonder what it was like in the rest of the country?
All I can say is, we'll see.
What do I think? I think he's being realistic. I also think he might be pretty sure he has a good chance of winning Wisconsin. If he does that helps propel him into the BIG March 2 primaries including California and New York. And it will be a very interesting time up to the convention, with FOUR candidates blasting Bush on the news every single night. YES!
Last night's Redwood City Meetup was surprising. About 1/3 of the people there were at their first Dean Meetup. I wonder what it was like in the rest of the country?
All I can say is, we'll see.
Ghostwriting Republican Trash Talk
(Matt Yglesias linked to a query from warblogger Tacitus asking for examples of "Bill Clinton's policy lies". Fun was had by all, especially by his resident trolls. This is a rewritten version of my contribution.)
I believe in the division of labor and comparative advantage. I'm sure that the Republicans have already found every lie Clinton ever told, along with a lot that he didn't tell -- as Reagan said, there's gotta be a pony somewhere in all that shit. As far as I'm concerned, our job is just to shovel away the shit.
Why we're running errands for Tacitus, I don't know. For people who need to believe that there's a decent conservative in the world, apparently he's the man. But from what I've read, he's just as nasty as the others -- he's just painfully trained himself to keep a civil tongue in his head. For the sake of the common good, Tacitus always demands that we meet him half way, but I have never seen him starting off by meeting us half way. He just struts over with a chip on his shoulder to make his demands.
I'm hardly a Clinton loyalist -- he double-crossed my wing of the party up one side and down the other -- but my doubts about Clinton aren't to be shared with Tacitus, who I'm sure enjoyed watching a Democrat do the Republicans' work.
During the Dukakis campaign, the Democrat's response was to stop campaigning for a minute to decide whether Boston Harbor was really that bad. When the Republicans insinuated that Clinton's mother was a whore -- yes, they really did do that -- the Democratic response was to ask if it was strictly true, and to hold a symposium on the role of women in today's world. So now we're ghost-writing trash-talk for Bush's Republican defenders.
Civility in American politics came to an end in the 1994 Congressional campaign, when one of the nastiest guys in American politics became Speaker of the House with the help of a ludicrous and vicious smear. The Republicans have done nothing since then to improve the situation, and they've held on to their gains.
Democrats play fair, and Republicans don't. Democrats are openminded and thoughtful, and Republicans aren't. We have the high moral ground, and they have the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court.
(Unnecessary personal references omitted. There are many fine people who still believe that dialogue with Republicans is possible, though when I visit their sites I wonder why they bother to try.)
Update:
I checked back on the Yglesias thread, and apparently the Tacitus thread was not trolling for "Clinton was just as bad" slime, but was straightforwardly intended.
Someone else has also given me evidence that my judgement of Tacitus (based on fifteen minutes at his site plus his comments here and there) was unfair.
On the other hand, by being an asshole I succeeded in drawing more attention to myself than I otherwise would have gotten. My self-promotion skills are improving, I guess.
I believe in the division of labor and comparative advantage. I'm sure that the Republicans have already found every lie Clinton ever told, along with a lot that he didn't tell -- as Reagan said, there's gotta be a pony somewhere in all that shit. As far as I'm concerned, our job is just to shovel away the shit.
Why we're running errands for Tacitus, I don't know. For people who need to believe that there's a decent conservative in the world, apparently he's the man. But from what I've read, he's just as nasty as the others -- he's just painfully trained himself to keep a civil tongue in his head. For the sake of the common good, Tacitus always demands that we meet him half way, but I have never seen him starting off by meeting us half way. He just struts over with a chip on his shoulder to make his demands.
I'm hardly a Clinton loyalist -- he double-crossed my wing of the party up one side and down the other -- but my doubts about Clinton aren't to be shared with Tacitus, who I'm sure enjoyed watching a Democrat do the Republicans' work.
During the Dukakis campaign, the Democrat's response was to stop campaigning for a minute to decide whether Boston Harbor was really that bad. When the Republicans insinuated that Clinton's mother was a whore -- yes, they really did do that -- the Democratic response was to ask if it was strictly true, and to hold a symposium on the role of women in today's world. So now we're ghost-writing trash-talk for Bush's Republican defenders.
Civility in American politics came to an end in the 1994 Congressional campaign, when one of the nastiest guys in American politics became Speaker of the House with the help of a ludicrous and vicious smear. The Republicans have done nothing since then to improve the situation, and they've held on to their gains.
Democrats play fair, and Republicans don't. Democrats are openminded and thoughtful, and Republicans aren't. We have the high moral ground, and they have the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court.
(Unnecessary personal references omitted. There are many fine people who still believe that dialogue with Republicans is possible, though when I visit their sites I wonder why they bother to try.)
Update:
I checked back on the Yglesias thread, and apparently the Tacitus thread was not trolling for "Clinton was just as bad" slime, but was straightforwardly intended.
Someone else has also given me evidence that my judgement of Tacitus (based on fifteen minutes at his site plus his comments here and there) was unfair.
On the other hand, by being an asshole I succeeded in drawing more attention to myself than I otherwise would have gotten. My self-promotion skills are improving, I guess.
2/04/2004
Why Bush Won't Allow His National Guard Records To Be Released
I suspect the reason Bush won't let his Service Records to be released is they will show he accepted pay for dates he did not show up.
I mean, we already know he never completed training to become a fighter pilot because he stopped flying rather than take a physical after they announced a new policy of drug testing. He already admits there was quite a bit of time he wasn't there. (He claims he made it up.) His "honorable discharge" papers show that he left a year early. So what does he still have to hide? Why won't he allow the records to be released?
I mean, we already know he never completed training to become a fighter pilot because he stopped flying rather than take a physical after they announced a new policy of drug testing. He already admits there was quite a bit of time he wasn't there. (He claims he made it up.) His "honorable discharge" papers show that he left a year early. So what does he still have to hide? Why won't he allow the records to be released?
Best
THIS at Billmon's Whiskey Bar is why I read weblogs, and read the professional pundits less and less often. Oh, wait, newspapers CAN'T do what bloggers do - because bloggers can link to stories, and you can leave comments!
On the deficits:
On the deficits:
""Gulp," says the House Republican Caucus. "You mean you want us to handle it?"Don't worry, their kids will cover the bill.
"Naturally," replies the president. "What other suckers would I have in mind?"
And so the Great Barbecue of 2003 finally reaches its greasy end. The meal has been devoured -- all those rich tax cuts and thick slices of pork, topped off by that enormous ice cream sundae of prescription drug benefits. The check is on the table. The guests are frantically trying to avoid eye contact."
Ask The Simple Question
I wish the press would ask Republicans why they didn't think it was "outrageous and baseless" to call President Clinton a "draft-dodger."
Republicans roared back on Tuesday, accusing Mr. Kerry of "smear tactics" for saying the president should answer questions about his service record.I wish someone would ask Republicans if they also think it was "smear tactics" to accuse President Clinton of ... jeeze, think of all the things they accused him of!
Ralph Reed, the Bush campaign's Southeast regional chairman, went even further. "It's gutter politics," Mr. Reed said in an interview. "We're absolutely convinced that the American people will reject these smear tactics."Did the American people reject the Republicans for their tactics against President Clinton? How did the Republicans fare, after years of the nastiest kind of sleazy attacks on Clinton? Oh yeah, I remember, now they countrol the House, they control the Senate, and they control the White House.
Taxpayer Money Paying For Bush Campaign Ads!
The government will be spending $9.5 million to run blatantly political pro-Republican election ads, in English and Spanish, promoting Bush's Medicare Destruction bill that was passed by a few votes.
From The Progress Report:
Call your Congressional Representative and demand these Bush campaign ads be taken down, and those responsible be sent to jail!
Also, read the whole thing at the Center for American Progress. There is a lot more, including reminding us how the government spent $30 million to mail a letter telling all Americans that Bush had provided "long-term tax relief for all Americans who pay income taxes" and that "you will be receiving a check [so] you need to take no additional steps." Remember how the term "tax relief" works for the Republicans.
And they just get away with this stuff! There is no accountability. Clinton would have gone to jail if he had even thought about doing anything like this. Are we approaching the time when we need to be in the streets demanding an end to this kind of corruption and destruction of our system?
From The Progress Report:
"THE AD'S DISTORTIONS: The new Medicare ads urge citizens to call 1-800-MEDICARE to hear more about the new law. And in 'Big Brother' style, when you call that number you have to actually say out loud 'Medicare improvement' in order to get information. The information you then receive is filled with distortions. The hotline claims the new Medicare 'is the same Medicare you have always counted on' -- failing to disclose that the law includes provisions which try to force more seniors into private HMOs. The hotline claims that seniors will be able to find 'immediate savings between 10% to 15% from a new drug discount card program.' But the cards, which were written into the bill by one of President Bush's closest business associates, actually do not guarantee any savings at all. The hotline also says the new prescription drug program under Medicare 'will provide significant savings for seniors.' But as the Center for Economic and Policy Research notes, 'seniors in the middle income quintile will pay an average of $1,650 a year in out-of-pocket expenses for prescription drugs in 2006 - a figure nearly 60% more than they paid in 2000.'"You have to SAY "Medicare Improvement." This is basic marketing -- repeat the message. Getting rid of Medicare is "improvement." And making you actually SAY it...
Call your Congressional Representative and demand these Bush campaign ads be taken down, and those responsible be sent to jail!
Also, read the whole thing at the Center for American Progress. There is a lot more, including reminding us how the government spent $30 million to mail a letter telling all Americans that Bush had provided "long-term tax relief for all Americans who pay income taxes" and that "you will be receiving a check [so] you need to take no additional steps." Remember how the term "tax relief" works for the Republicans.
And they just get away with this stuff! There is no accountability. Clinton would have gone to jail if he had even thought about doing anything like this. Are we approaching the time when we need to be in the streets demanding an end to this kind of corruption and destruction of our system?
2/03/2004
Is This For Real?
This post: Kerry Beat Dean in New Hampshire by Only 1.5% When Computers Weren't Doing the Counting says that where machines counted the votes, Kerry beat Dean by a big margin, but when the votes were counted by hand he did not. Read the post.
Is this for real, or is someone just making stuff up? Should Dean ask for a hand recount? (These are paper ballots - it was optical scan machines counting them v.s. hand counts.)
Is this for real, or is someone just making stuff up? Should Dean ask for a hand recount? (These are paper ballots - it was optical scan machines counting them v.s. hand counts.)
A Comment I Left At The Dean Blog
Here's a comment I just left at the Dean blog. What do you think?
Update - I guess it resonated. Other people are copying and reposting my message in the comments. (Repetition works.)
Update - Exit polls confirm what I'm saying.
"The number one question about your candidacy is “Can you be elected?” The public is asking it, the press is asking it, and your supporters are asking it.I heard they actually read the blog comments. (And STF.)
Answer it. Don’t talk about anything else until this is answered.
You should be starting every single sentence with “I will beat George Bush because…” and not saying anything else. You need to have this as your message, and nothing else, until it is no longer a question that people ask. You should have no other message because THERE IS NO OTHER QUESTION. Period.
Short message. Answer the number one question. Repeat and repeat – that’s basic marketing.
Answer this question and all the people who “support Dean, but,” will be back voting for you!
Update - I guess it resonated. Other people are copying and reposting my message in the comments. (Repetition works.)
Update - Exit polls confirm what I'm saying.
In Command
The Republican Drudge Report site has the big headline "In Command" up again, with a picture of Kerry. (No, I won't provide a link to Drudge.)
And, I hate to get into this game, but I saw Kerry interviewed on CNN, and his forehead and eyebrows did not move at all, not once, not even a little bit, not even when he blinked. No question about it -- Drudge was right.
And, I hate to get into this game, but I saw Kerry interviewed on CNN, and his forehead and eyebrows did not move at all, not once, not even a little bit, not even when he blinked. No question about it -- Drudge was right.
Bobby Knight makes a fool of himself again
Bob Knight has done it again. If you recall, I went to IU for my doctorate and I've commented on this before:
It really is about time for him to go, don't you think?
Strangely, my parents went to Texas Tech and have now begun to cheer for Knight's Tech squad. I keep telling them that it's only a matter of time before he goes ballistic there. And, with what appears to be another coddling university administration that is catering to Knight's every whim, the explosion is actually likely to come sooner rather than later. Of course, like a ticking time bomb, we all can't help but watch, fascinated, waiting for the inevitable.Apparently, yesterday it did.
For his players' sake, I really hope it doesn't happen.
Unfortunately, we all know it will, don't we?
It really is about time for him to go, don't you think?
Hullabaloo, on Kerry
Go read Hullabaloo:
Even MORE great Dibgy here:
"Kerry had better get his rhetoric together and stop with the 'IIIII led the fight against the Dingell-Daschle compromise in 1986 when my goooood friend the Senatooor from Delawaaaare and I stood firm for working women and the Contras in the funding for the Omnibus Spending bill 227 that offered nothing for the nuclear freeze under the Salt III treaty banning all long range ballistic child care vouuuuchers. I stoooood firrrrrm then and I'll stand firrrrm agaaaain!'He nails it.
The Republicans are going to reply, 'When America was attacked, George Bush knew what to do. He kept you safe.' "
Even MORE great Dibgy here:
"Whining about the media's unfairness or RNC cheating or primary voter's laziness or the Supreme Court stopping the vote count is useless. It does not matter how it happens, the end justifies the means. If you can't make it happen, you don't deserve to win, even if the deck is stacked, the media are useless lemmings or the other side hacks into the Diebold voting machines. If the game is rigged a true winner would make sure it's rigged in his favor. That's the American Way."And,
"By drawing out the primaries the way they did, the Democrats had far too much time to think about who they were voting for and they often voted for someone who wasn't a winner. If Bill Clinton couldn't win Iowa and New Hampshire, he had no business being the nominee. But, nobody told the voters or the press (who were fixated on Ross Perot at the time) so he managed to eke out the nomination when it was obvious that either Tom Harkin or Paul Tsongas should have run against George Bush."Heh.
More Smears
Does this sound a LOT like what I wrote about hearing on the radio the other day?
You're going to hear a LOT of this sort of thing in the coming months. And you're NOT going to hear about even more of it, because it will be "under the radar." Every single local newspaper, church newsletter, radio call-in show, local music radio DJ anecdote, internet mailing list, e-mail chain-letter, and EVERY OTHER SOURCE of information that most Americans have. THIS is where Bush will be spending a good chunk of his $2-300 million.
What do we do about it?
You're going to hear a LOT of this sort of thing in the coming months. And you're NOT going to hear about even more of it, because it will be "under the radar." Every single local newspaper, church newsletter, radio call-in show, local music radio DJ anecdote, internet mailing list, e-mail chain-letter, and EVERY OTHER SOURCE of information that most Americans have. THIS is where Bush will be spending a good chunk of his $2-300 million.
What do we do about it?
The Media are Playing for the Other Team
The Democrats have four good candidates in the Presidential race. Any one of them can be elected, any one of them would be a far better President than George W. Bush, and whichever one runs will be slimed by the combined efforts of the RNC and the national media.
That's why I don't think that we should put a lot of energy into thinking about the various candidates' different vulnerabilities. If Max Cleland can be slimed, anyone can be. The Democratic candidate is going to have to run over the media, because the great majority of the media are going to be playing for the other team.
Cases in point: the Bush AWOL issue, the Bush budget, and the recent attempts to blame the intelligence failures leading up to Iraq War II on the CIA.
The facts about Bush's military service have been readily available for a couple of years. There is room for differences of opinion, but there's unquestionably a real issue here. But the major media either ignore the issue, claim that Bush has been vindicated, or claim that no one really knows. Any of them could educate himself by clicking on one of the following links and spending half an hour, but none of them has bothered. (Links: DeLong, Daily Howler, and Orcinus.)
Second, there's the Bush budget. For months Brad DeLong has been commenting on the disastrous Bush fiscal policies and the compliant coverage it's been getting in the press. Here's his recent piece on the budget just presented. This budget is massively fraudulent, simply leaving out information normally included in budgets whenever that information happens to be embarassing to the Bush Administration. But the Post doesn't tell you that. Outrageous and impossible assertions are presented as if they make sense. (DeLong's followup).
Finally, the Iraq intelligence fiasco. People who read the papers and have a memory that goes back two years know that the CIA was more cautious than the White House about connecting WMD and Al Qaeda to Saddam. At the time, the CIA was blamed harshly for this, and a free-lance amateur intelligence service was set up in Cheney's office to doctor the evidence to administration specifications. (Slacktivist has collected the relevant stories here. And here's a neo-com book arguing the previous administration line in great detail: Laurie Mylroie's "How the CIA and the State Department Tried to Stop the War on Terror".)
The new story, though, is that the Bush Administration overestimated the Iraqi threat because it had been misled by the CIA-- exactly the opposite of the truth! So many columnists have agreed upon exactly the same cover story that it's difficult to believe that it hasn't been a coordinated effort.
And here's where we get to the interesting part. David Brooks, who used to be widely-respected as a conservative commentator, now works for the "liberal New York Times". But here he simply repeats the Bush Administration spin on the intelligence fiasco, right on schedule.
Think about it. As a conservative ideologue, Brooks was not thought of as a partisan hack. But since he moved to the Times, he seems to have become one. (There are many other examples). Doesn't this tell us that the fix is on, and that we are playing against the entire media -- even the liberal New York Times? I really don't think that there's an innocent explanation for the major media's failure to get these three stories right.
Oddly enough, there still are many don't trust anything they read on the internet. (As I have said elsewhere, we are not gentlemen.) But there's really been an inversion. Increasingly it's the "reliable sources" which can't be trusted.
PS: Maybe something's changing. Here's Dan Froomkin on the National Guard story. I'd love to be wrong about all this!
That's why I don't think that we should put a lot of energy into thinking about the various candidates' different vulnerabilities. If Max Cleland can be slimed, anyone can be. The Democratic candidate is going to have to run over the media, because the great majority of the media are going to be playing for the other team.
Cases in point: the Bush AWOL issue, the Bush budget, and the recent attempts to blame the intelligence failures leading up to Iraq War II on the CIA.
The facts about Bush's military service have been readily available for a couple of years. There is room for differences of opinion, but there's unquestionably a real issue here. But the major media either ignore the issue, claim that Bush has been vindicated, or claim that no one really knows. Any of them could educate himself by clicking on one of the following links and spending half an hour, but none of them has bothered. (Links: DeLong, Daily Howler, and Orcinus.)
Second, there's the Bush budget. For months Brad DeLong has been commenting on the disastrous Bush fiscal policies and the compliant coverage it's been getting in the press. Here's his recent piece on the budget just presented. This budget is massively fraudulent, simply leaving out information normally included in budgets whenever that information happens to be embarassing to the Bush Administration. But the Post doesn't tell you that. Outrageous and impossible assertions are presented as if they make sense. (DeLong's followup).
Finally, the Iraq intelligence fiasco. People who read the papers and have a memory that goes back two years know that the CIA was more cautious than the White House about connecting WMD and Al Qaeda to Saddam. At the time, the CIA was blamed harshly for this, and a free-lance amateur intelligence service was set up in Cheney's office to doctor the evidence to administration specifications. (Slacktivist has collected the relevant stories here. And here's a neo-com book arguing the previous administration line in great detail: Laurie Mylroie's "How the CIA and the State Department Tried to Stop the War on Terror".)
The new story, though, is that the Bush Administration overestimated the Iraqi threat because it had been misled by the CIA-- exactly the opposite of the truth! So many columnists have agreed upon exactly the same cover story that it's difficult to believe that it hasn't been a coordinated effort.
And here's where we get to the interesting part. David Brooks, who used to be widely-respected as a conservative commentator, now works for the "liberal New York Times". But here he simply repeats the Bush Administration spin on the intelligence fiasco, right on schedule.
Think about it. As a conservative ideologue, Brooks was not thought of as a partisan hack. But since he moved to the Times, he seems to have become one. (There are many other examples). Doesn't this tell us that the fix is on, and that we are playing against the entire media -- even the liberal New York Times? I really don't think that there's an innocent explanation for the major media's failure to get these three stories right.
Oddly enough, there still are many don't trust anything they read on the internet. (As I have said elsewhere, we are not gentlemen.) But there's really been an inversion. Increasingly it's the "reliable sources" which can't be trusted.
PS: Maybe something's changing. Here's Dan Froomkin on the National Guard story. I'd love to be wrong about all this!
Another Thought On Dean
Reading yet another article on what went wrong with the Dean campaign, I realize I haven't seen a single one that addresses what I think went wrong. Putting it simply: Dean did not efectively address the "electability" question.
I think any volunteer who had been working at the street level could tell you that the number one question asked was, "Can he be elected?" And the Iowa caucuses proved that this was the number one question on Democrats' minds. And it certainly was a question being asked by the press. You can't blame the press for asking the question if the candidate is not answering it effectively. And if he were answering it effectively, maybe they would stop asking.
I used to think that Dean is the most electable of the candidates, because he understands how the Republicans are going to campaign, and was going to fight back effectively. He is a centrist, endorsed by the NRA, clearly able to build a movement of activated, enthusiastic volunteers, ready to go door-to-door and donate money as necessary.
My opinion has, of course, changed. First, the campaign did not effectively respond to "the scream." I think this was an example of "Photoshopping" a candidate. They enhanced the sound in that tape, filtered out the crowd noise, and made is seem that Dean was just going nuts, when in fact he was raising his voice because the crowd was going wild. I'm not complaining here that he was unfairly smeared, I'm complaining that the candidate who had said he was ready to fight back WASN'T ready, when it came down to it. I had counted on Dean to assemble an effective response team, ready to respond to smears and tricks like this, and this did not happen.
Second, Dean never effectively addressed the big issue - electability! An effective ad would say, "A centrist governor, endorsed by the NRA, etc., etc." and would lay out the case that he IS electable. Such an ad should have been the ONLY thing running for weeks in Iowa.
Come to think of it, there's still time. Governor, if you really ARE electable, tell us why, over and over, and don't talk about anything else until that question is settled. We'll vote for you if you prove you really can beat Bush!
I think any volunteer who had been working at the street level could tell you that the number one question asked was, "Can he be elected?" And the Iowa caucuses proved that this was the number one question on Democrats' minds. And it certainly was a question being asked by the press. You can't blame the press for asking the question if the candidate is not answering it effectively. And if he were answering it effectively, maybe they would stop asking.
I used to think that Dean is the most electable of the candidates, because he understands how the Republicans are going to campaign, and was going to fight back effectively. He is a centrist, endorsed by the NRA, clearly able to build a movement of activated, enthusiastic volunteers, ready to go door-to-door and donate money as necessary.
My opinion has, of course, changed. First, the campaign did not effectively respond to "the scream." I think this was an example of "Photoshopping" a candidate. They enhanced the sound in that tape, filtered out the crowd noise, and made is seem that Dean was just going nuts, when in fact he was raising his voice because the crowd was going wild. I'm not complaining here that he was unfairly smeared, I'm complaining that the candidate who had said he was ready to fight back WASN'T ready, when it came down to it. I had counted on Dean to assemble an effective response team, ready to respond to smears and tricks like this, and this did not happen.
Second, Dean never effectively addressed the big issue - electability! An effective ad would say, "A centrist governor, endorsed by the NRA, etc., etc." and would lay out the case that he IS electable. Such an ad should have been the ONLY thing running for weeks in Iowa.
Come to think of it, there's still time. Governor, if you really ARE electable, tell us why, over and over, and don't talk about anything else until that question is settled. We'll vote for you if you prove you really can beat Bush!
2/02/2004
North Korea
Read about what's going on in North Korea. And this is coming from the BBC, so the Bush problem doesn't come into play, does it?
Why Kerry Instead Of Dean?
I have a post over at the american street, discussing my thoughts about why so many voters went for Kerry instead of Dean in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Update - A comment over at that post points to this, and says, "When is somebody going to point out that John Kerry is going to get reamed in the general election because of the book cover for "The New Soldier"? There on the cover is his name above a group of men mimicing the revered Iwo Jima memorial for WW2 vets with an upside down flag. [. . .] This is why the conservative media has been soft on Kerry and it's the Democrats who are going to have to pay for not alerting voters to the kinds of problems that this candidate will have to face if he becomes our nominee."
Read the whole page. It shows what's coming if Kerry is the nominee. If you think his status as a Vietnam Vet is going to help... read it. I'm not knocking Kerry for anything here. What I'm saying is that Vietnam Vet isn't going to be a plus for him. Remember how Clinton was accused of being unpatriotic for protesting against the war? Well, Kerry threw his medals away, and posed for pictures like this with upside-down flags. I think he was right to do so, but you KNOW what the Right is going to do with this. Remember Max Cleland - and he never protested against the war.
Update - A comment over at that post points to this, and says, "When is somebody going to point out that John Kerry is going to get reamed in the general election because of the book cover for "The New Soldier"? There on the cover is his name above a group of men mimicing the revered Iwo Jima memorial for WW2 vets with an upside down flag. [. . .] This is why the conservative media has been soft on Kerry and it's the Democrats who are going to have to pay for not alerting voters to the kinds of problems that this candidate will have to face if he becomes our nominee."
Read the whole page. It shows what's coming if Kerry is the nominee. If you think his status as a Vietnam Vet is going to help... read it. I'm not knocking Kerry for anything here. What I'm saying is that Vietnam Vet isn't going to be a plus for him. Remember how Clinton was accused of being unpatriotic for protesting against the war? Well, Kerry threw his medals away, and posed for pictures like this with upside-down flags. I think he was right to do so, but you KNOW what the Right is going to do with this. Remember Max Cleland - and he never protested against the war.
Who Were the Suckers?
Calpundit tells us about a new blog for liberal hawks called "Iraq'd". The guy (Spencer Ackerman) pretty much takes the bull by the horns and admits that he and his friends had been conned.
I know that recriminations and fingerpointing are very wrong and bad, but couldn't we at least get an acknowledgement that this time around it was the naive, unrealistic, lost-in-the-Sixties ideologues who called it right, and the sharp, realistic, tough-minded wonks who got suckered? Some of us left-wing Dems have been at the receiving end of TNR's snarky disdain for more than two decades now, and it really should be our turn now.
"It's not false just because George Bush says it". That was one of the liberal hawks' main arguments, and it turned out to be a very poor one. From 9/11 onward it's been clear that Bush was going to capitalize on the crisis for all kinds of unrelated political purposes, and there always were plenty of reasons to believe that his Iraq war plan itself was riddled with fraud.
Even if Iraq War II had been a great triumph, I don't think that the liberal hawks would have gained much from their stand. They probably would have improved their position within the weakened Democratic Party, but Bush wouldn't have needed them anymore for anything, and they would have found themselves discarded like used Kleenex.
I know that recriminations and fingerpointing are very wrong and bad, but couldn't we at least get an acknowledgement that this time around it was the naive, unrealistic, lost-in-the-Sixties ideologues who called it right, and the sharp, realistic, tough-minded wonks who got suckered? Some of us left-wing Dems have been at the receiving end of TNR's snarky disdain for more than two decades now, and it really should be our turn now.
"It's not false just because George Bush says it". That was one of the liberal hawks' main arguments, and it turned out to be a very poor one. From 9/11 onward it's been clear that Bush was going to capitalize on the crisis for all kinds of unrelated political purposes, and there always were plenty of reasons to believe that his Iraq war plan itself was riddled with fraud.
Even if Iraq War II had been a great triumph, I don't think that the liberal hawks would have gained much from their stand. They probably would have improved their position within the weakened Democratic Party, but Bush wouldn't have needed them anymore for anything, and they would have found themselves discarded like used Kleenex.
People Still Think...
Counterspin Central has results of a Newsweek poll:
"'Do you think Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was DIRECTLY involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, or not?'The good news is, this can only go down.
Jan. 29-30, 2004
Was -- 49%
Was Not -- 39%
Don't Know -- 16%'"
2/01/2004
Kerry?
Let me open this up for discussion before I go to bed. I think it's obvious that Kerry was and is the GOP choice for who they want to run against. Look at the level of attacks on Dean compared to the lack of attacks on Kerry. Lots of the anti-Dean stuff originated at places like Drudge, meaning from the Republicans, and I saw a "Kerry in Command" headline at Drudge the other day. There are few press attacks on Kerry -- even a 60 Minutes puff-piece last week. They have tons of oppo research on him, and he has plenty of votes they can twist into an anti-American fervor. He is married to an extremely wealthy woman, which they will find SO many ways to use as a model of hypocrisy. AND his voting record is very close to Ted Kennedy. On national security they can neutralize him, and on domestic issues they can tear him apart. Where Dean was the Centrist (endorsed by the NRA) who was cast as a liberal, Kerry is the liberal they can cast as ... well, think about it. This one really IS a liberal from New England.
Not to mention that his style is, to say the least, NOT one that most Americans are going to warm up to.
In my opinion the Republicans have been absolutely rejoicing at the prospect of running against another liberal from Massachusetts. What do you think? Was Kerry the GOP's plan all along?
Monday Update - Calpundit notices, too.
Not to mention that his style is, to say the least, NOT one that most Americans are going to warm up to.
In my opinion the Republicans have been absolutely rejoicing at the prospect of running against another liberal from Massachusetts. What do you think? Was Kerry the GOP's plan all along?
Monday Update - Calpundit notices, too.
Americans Deserve a Profound Apology...
Imagine that you are the parent, or the brother or sister, or the wife, husband or child of a young man or woman killed in Iraq - one of the 138 who died in the march on Baghdad, or one of the 384 who have died there since May 1, when major combat was pronounced over.Indeed.
Imagine, for that matter, that your loved one is among the almost 3,000 men and women who have been wounded in Iraq since the war began - many of whom will forever bear their horrible injuries as a reminder of where they were and why.
The why of it was torn apart last week.
Now, imagine how appalled the friends and the beloved of Iraq's casualties must have been last week to hear David Kay, the recently retired chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq tell the world, "It turns out we were all wrong."
Or to hear President Bush - who ordered the war in Iraq on the basis of "wrong" intelligence - changing his story, saying now that it was still a justified war because Saddam Hussein was such a bad guy and just the sort who would have developed and used weapons of mass destruction as only he could have.
Or Sen. John W. Warner of Virginia, the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, badgering Kay into acknowledging the very remote possibility that some day, somewhere, someone just may find evidence that Iraq had some sort of weapons program to justify the invasion and the cost in American lives and resources.
Or Vice President Dick Cheney still handing out the baloney about some trailers found in Iraq being tied to production of weapons of mass destruction even though Kay and all others have said it isn't so.
Imagine how the loved ones of the dead may feel as they watch the spectacle of political jockeying over who should take the blame for a war being started on the basis of flawed intelligence, over whether there will be an investigation, and over the effect the timing of such an investigation may have on Bush's campaign to get himself re-elected.
If I were such a parent, or spouse, or child, or wounded soldier, I expect my fury would be visceral and overwhelming. I would not let these men forget what they had done to my family. Blood is on their hands.
Read the rest of it.
A Smear
Today, driving to the store to buy a lightbulb, about 2:35pm Pacific time, I listened to a caller to the Bob Brinker radio show - a financial advice call-in show - someone calls in to talk about how "5 years ago" John Kerry came to California to tour the defense contractor plant where she works, and that night there was a company dinner. Employees were asked to contribute to his campaign, she says. One secretary she knows was afraid to not contribute because she was sure she would be fired. The host, Brinker, says of course she would have been fired, this is how it works, pure intimidation. Unnamed caller, unnamed company.
I will bet a week's pay this was a planted call from the Republicans, designed to smear Kerry. The call got past the producer, even though the call was not asking for financial advice. This is a national radio show with a large audience. I have no doubt that calls like this are showing up on talk shows all across the country, national and local. (Bush has already spent even more than Dean on his "primary" campaign, even though he is unopposed.)
Republicans ALWAYS accuse the opposition of things they are themselves doing. Intimidating employees to contribute is what Republicans do, not Democrats. Executives are "asked" to contribute the max to the Republicans. Of course anyone that isn't "on the same page" doesn't fit in at that company, etc...
I will bet a week's pay this was a planted call from the Republicans, designed to smear Kerry. The call got past the producer, even though the call was not asking for financial advice. This is a national radio show with a large audience. I have no doubt that calls like this are showing up on talk shows all across the country, national and local. (Bush has already spent even more than Dean on his "primary" campaign, even though he is unopposed.)
Republicans ALWAYS accuse the opposition of things they are themselves doing. Intimidating employees to contribute is what Republicans do, not Democrats. Executives are "asked" to contribute the max to the Republicans. Of course anyone that isn't "on the same page" doesn't fit in at that company, etc...
1/31/2004
The Snarky High Ground
The Teenager just linked to a NYT piece by David Brooks explaining that voters are silly to vote on the basis of "electability", because if they all do that, then voter A will vote for a candidate because he thinks that the candidate is electable, thus making the candidate look stronger and causing voter B to vote for him for the same reason, and so on -- with positive feedback loops leading to a sort of bubble craze which, however, will collapse instantaneously in the same way if the candidate suddenly starts to seem less electable for any reason.
This doesn't seem like much of a point. By now we're dealing with candidates who are all pretty much the same. Gephardt is out, Lieberman soon will be, and support for Kucinich and Sharpton is stable at 1% or 2%. So what we're looking at is really Coke versus Pepsi, and consumer choices of that type are famous for being volatile.
What's really happening is that the core Democratic voters, even the simple Iowa folk, have learned to play the meta-politics game of "electability". So now the pundits have had to try to regain their edge by playing meta-meta-politics: "Aren't those people out there fools, thinking about electability like that?" By doing this, they hope to maintain control of the all-important High Snarky Ground.
As is his wont, Brooks is just throwing a little monkey-wrench into the Democratic works -- no surprise there. Yglesias' case is a bit more complicated. Doesn't he belong to the moderate branch of the party, which has been promoting the swing-voter "electability" strategy and slagging on the odious Democratic Core Constituency ever since Matt was in diapers?
Since approximately 1965 I've had to live with the fact that most Americans don't agree with me about politics, and whatever changes there have been in my own opinions during that period have not changed the situation much. Between you and me (PC aside), the famous White Southern Male the Democrats are supposed to be trying to appeal to seems to be quite the jerk (as do his many Northern brothers). But if I choose to think about his response to a candidate when I vote in a primary -- as people have been nagging me to do for twenty years or more -- couldn't I be cut a little slack?
Of course, my real gripe against the New Dem types (the ones who've been pushing the swing voter strategy the hardest) is that I doubt that they would support an Old Democrat even if he were electable. (Consider Matt's insane drivellings about the ethanol subsidy and Gephardt, for example, or the way many of them turned on Gore because they thought he had gone populist on them.) The big difference between the people who helped Dukakis lose and the ones who helped Gore lose -- I don't mean Matt here -- is that Susan Estrich is "out", whereas Martin Peretz still isn't.
More here.
Revisions for style
This doesn't seem like much of a point. By now we're dealing with candidates who are all pretty much the same. Gephardt is out, Lieberman soon will be, and support for Kucinich and Sharpton is stable at 1% or 2%. So what we're looking at is really Coke versus Pepsi, and consumer choices of that type are famous for being volatile.
What's really happening is that the core Democratic voters, even the simple Iowa folk, have learned to play the meta-politics game of "electability". So now the pundits have had to try to regain their edge by playing meta-meta-politics: "Aren't those people out there fools, thinking about electability like that?" By doing this, they hope to maintain control of the all-important High Snarky Ground.
As is his wont, Brooks is just throwing a little monkey-wrench into the Democratic works -- no surprise there. Yglesias' case is a bit more complicated. Doesn't he belong to the moderate branch of the party, which has been promoting the swing-voter "electability" strategy and slagging on the odious Democratic Core Constituency ever since Matt was in diapers?
Since approximately 1965 I've had to live with the fact that most Americans don't agree with me about politics, and whatever changes there have been in my own opinions during that period have not changed the situation much. Between you and me (PC aside), the famous White Southern Male the Democrats are supposed to be trying to appeal to seems to be quite the jerk (as do his many Northern brothers). But if I choose to think about his response to a candidate when I vote in a primary -- as people have been nagging me to do for twenty years or more -- couldn't I be cut a little slack?
Of course, my real gripe against the New Dem types (the ones who've been pushing the swing voter strategy the hardest) is that I doubt that they would support an Old Democrat even if he were electable. (Consider Matt's insane drivellings about the ethanol subsidy and Gephardt, for example, or the way many of them turned on Gore because they thought he had gone populist on them.) The big difference between the people who helped Dukakis lose and the ones who helped Gore lose -- I don't mean Matt here -- is that Susan Estrich is "out", whereas Martin Peretz still isn't.
More here.
Revisions for style
1/30/2004
Blog Hero Award
The cherished STF Blog Hero Award goes to Cup O' Joe for his post They Brought It On Themselves! about Southern Whites.
"Nothing I can say will convince them that their outlook on life is harmful to them, or that the people they are trusting to protect and to guide them are more than likely just using them to further their own causes, whatever they may be. To them, I'm just an interfering Yankee (never mind that I've lived in Atlanta for a decade) who doesn't know anything about life (despite the fact that I have lived in more places than some of these people have even heard of). Things are the way they are and that's the way it will always be. It's an argument you would expect to hear from a slave or a feudal peasant, not a citizen of a free nation."Go read, it's good. Other good stuff there, too. Scroll around.
Repost
Repost of something from two weeks ago:
"But the most sacred duty civilians have to their armed forces is to ensure they are never called to sacrifice their lives unless this nation faces a real threat."
Kerry Guy Getting Creamed
I'm watching Crossfire, and a Kerry "Senior Advisor" is on, and is just getting creamed about the Iraq war and the WMD question. I mean eaten alive. Begala is stepping in to try to help him. The right-winter guys are bringing up old Kerry quotes about how Iraq had WMD and how we must act... the Kerry guy is being nice, doesn't know the issues, isn't prepared to argue the points, seems surprised that the right-wingers would say the things they are saying... Reminds me of Kerry before his makeover. "Pathetic" is the word coming to mind.
In a way it reminds me of Leiberman saying the Bush people should go ahead and count absentee ballots, even if they are not properly postmarked -- which might be the one event that stands out for me as exemplifying the problems of the old-style "Washington" Democrats.
I've been thinking that if Kerry can continue to be the tough, focused, fighting guy he has been for the last few weeks -- since he took on the Dean persona -- maybe he can win. It didn't occur to me that a campaign is more than just the guy at the top. It's also all the old-style Democrats that we have been so tired of. They're still there.
In a way it reminds me of Leiberman saying the Bush people should go ahead and count absentee ballots, even if they are not properly postmarked -- which might be the one event that stands out for me as exemplifying the problems of the old-style "Washington" Democrats.
I've been thinking that if Kerry can continue to be the tough, focused, fighting guy he has been for the last few weeks -- since he took on the Dean persona -- maybe he can win. It didn't occur to me that a campaign is more than just the guy at the top. It's also all the old-style Democrats that we have been so tired of. They're still there.
Voting Machines
Test of Electronic Balloting System Finds Major Security Flaws:
"Electronic voting machines from Diebold Inc. have computer security and physical security problems that might allow corrupt insiders or determined outsiders to disrupt or even steal an election, according to a report presented yesterday to Maryland state legislators."
Amen, Brother
Krugman, Where's the Apology?:
"Still, the big story isn't about Mr. Bush; it's about what's happening to America. Other presidents would have liked to bully the C.I.A., stonewall investigations and give huge contracts to their friends without oversight. They knew, however, that they couldn't. What has gone wrong with our country that allows this president to get away with such things?"
Political Blog Ads
One of the topics on the blogs today is inexpensive blog advertising vs. expensive TV advertising. I think there is no question that inexpensive POLITICAL blog ads reach the informed person most likely to get involved and/or contribute. Compared to the cost of TV advertising there shouldn't be any question that a campaign should be putting part of its money - particularly early money - into weblog ads.
I've accepted an ad for Chandler for Congress, over there on the right. Let me know what you think. And click on the ad to visit the site, see what you think about it, and send a message that politicians would do well to pay attention to us blogers and blog readers.
I've accepted an ad for Chandler for Congress, over there on the right. Let me know what you think. And click on the ad to visit the site, see what you think about it, and send a message that politicians would do well to pay attention to us blogers and blog readers.
The South
Erskine Blogs: Stop treating the South like a foreign land:
"I am not an oracle on Southern politics. But I know one thing. Pundits and Democrats need to stop treating the South like it is some sort of uncouth uncle who is easier to ignore than confront.
Certainly there are more differences between New York and Newfound Gap than weather. But as a world traveler, I feel confident enough in my understanding of American politics to say that they have more in common than they have differences. "
Coulter Fails to Slime Kerry
Despite my lifelong interest in slimy creatures, I don't normally do Ann Coulter. However, a line I saw in Diana Moon's fisking of Coulter caught my eye.
Coulter writes: ""Kerry's life experience consists of living off other men's money by marrying their wives and daughters".
To begin with, that's pretty misleading. Like George Washington, Kerry is a war hero who married a rich widow with a taste for classy guys-- and not someone else's wife, the way Neil Bush just did. (Apparently Coulter thinks that Theresa Heinz should have remained alone forever, the way Coulter probably will).
But here's my main point: what's this shit about "marrying other men's daughters?"
What other options are there? By law he can't marry other men's sons, nor can he marry his own daughters. Marrying other men's daughters is where the action is in the marriage biz. Does Coulter think Kerry should have remained single forever too?
It sort of seems that Coulter, at her age, is still not completely comfortable with what Mommy and Daddy do in bed and where babies come from. Isn't it about time for someone to take her aside and give her The Talk?
Edit: Neil Bush, I mean, not Jeb. Can't tell the felons without a scorecard.
Coulter writes: ""Kerry's life experience consists of living off other men's money by marrying their wives and daughters".
To begin with, that's pretty misleading. Like George Washington, Kerry is a war hero who married a rich widow with a taste for classy guys-- and not someone else's wife, the way Neil Bush just did. (Apparently Coulter thinks that Theresa Heinz should have remained alone forever, the way Coulter probably will).
But here's my main point: what's this shit about "marrying other men's daughters?"
What other options are there? By law he can't marry other men's sons, nor can he marry his own daughters. Marrying other men's daughters is where the action is in the marriage biz. Does Coulter think Kerry should have remained single forever too?
It sort of seems that Coulter, at her age, is still not completely comfortable with what Mommy and Daddy do in bed and where babies come from. Isn't it about time for someone to take her aside and give her The Talk?
Edit: Neil Bush, I mean, not Jeb. Can't tell the felons without a scorecard.
1/29/2004
Dean
Sometimes it is a good idea to wait a bit before saying anything. I think I'm glad that I had decided this week is one of those times. And the news today that his campaign is flat out of money make today another one of those times... I think I'll wait a bit longer to decide what I think about all of this.
Don't you wish the professional pundits would keep their mouths shut when they don't really have anything worth saying? Blogging is great -- you don't live and die by deadlines. Of course, you also don't get paid.
Don't you wish the professional pundits would keep their mouths shut when they don't really have anything worth saying? Blogging is great -- you don't live and die by deadlines. Of course, you also don't get paid.
"A Certain Amount of Baldness"
Recently the New York Times posted a story with the too-tactful headline "Less Certainty in White House on Iraq's Arms". Brad Delong objected that the White House is not "less certain" now; it is now certain that it had earlier been wrong.
"Mecki" commented (slightly revised):
"I was reminded of a story by Ephraim Kishon, in which he describes his loss of hair. When he's down to 3 hairs (and two have fallen out) he writes 'I guess I have to own up to having a certain amount of baldness' .
This is the Bush White House: When every one else has realised that there are no WMDs and there were no WMDs, they say 'Well, maybe not QUITE as many as we thought.'"
This sounds like a brand name for the whole Bush administration: "A Certain Amount of Baldness". It describes the economic plan pretty well too.
Edited for style
"Mecki" commented (slightly revised):
"I was reminded of a story by Ephraim Kishon, in which he describes his loss of hair. When he's down to 3 hairs (and two have fallen out) he writes 'I guess I have to own up to having a certain amount of baldness' .
This is the Bush White House: When every one else has realised that there are no WMDs and there were no WMDs, they say 'Well, maybe not QUITE as many as we thought.'"
This sounds like a brand name for the whole Bush administration: "A Certain Amount of Baldness". It describes the economic plan pretty well too.
Edited for style
1/28/2004
Blowback
Wire story from Moon's UPI, printed in Moon's Washington Times, Iraqi govt. papers: Saddam bribed Chirac - (United Press International):
And this,
Here is some background on the right-wing's campaign against France. These wingnuts REALLY ARE talking with increasing hostility toward France, with some discussion of military action! FRANCE!
Documents from Saddam Hussein's oil ministry reveal he used oil to bribe top French officials into opposing the imminent U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.This is almost certainly right-wing propaganda against France, planted in an Iraqi paper for the purpose of being picked up by US media.
And this,
A senior Bush administration official said Washington was aware of the reports but refused further comment.This is White House assistance in this smear job.
Here is some background on the right-wing's campaign against France. These wingnuts REALLY ARE talking with increasing hostility toward France, with some discussion of military action! FRANCE!
Lyons: "Attack on Scrooge McDuck"
Here's Gene Lyons' column for the week!
of the National Magazine Award.
Link
Attack on Scrooge McDuck• Free-lance columnist Gene Lyons is a Little Rock author and recipient
Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004
According to the seers and soothsayers of the right, a terrible new
threat confronts America and its inspired leader George W. Bush. Like
Shakespeare’s Calpurnia, they warn their mighty Caesar of lionesses
whelping in the streets, strange omens and portents in the night sky,
and they do fear them. The Wall Street Journal editorial page has waxed
apoplectic; James K. Glassman of the American Enterprise Institute
forsees "a great threat not just to the re-election of George Bush, but
to our truly open society." Even the Washington Post has expressed
alarm. And what’s the cause of all this hubbub? Simple: the Democrats
have found a Scrooge McDuck of their own. International financier George
Soros, among the richest men in the world, plans to devote a small
fraction of his estimated $7 billion to defeating President Bush. The
Hungarian-born tycoon, who emigrated from England to the U.S. in 1956,
has pledged a reported $18 million to three liberal organizations: $5
million to internet advocacy group MoveOn. org, $3 million to former
Clinton aide John Podesta’s Center for American Progress, and another
$10 million toward a Democratic voter registration drive.
Sounds ominous, right? By taking advantage of an obscure constitutional
loophole permitting even billionaires to oppose Bush, Soros bids to
overturn the natural order. As if that weren’t enough, he’s taken to
writing books and articles and granting interviews explaining why he
believes that Bush’s re-election would have terrible consequences for
America and the world.
Writers in the Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s Washington Times have expressed
consternation that a foreign-born citizen would be so cheeky. A website
called GOPUSA.com has described the Jewish financier as a "descendant of
Shylock." The Postasks Democrats to compare the consequences of
"conservative financier Richard Mellon Scaife opening his bank account
on behalf of Mr. Bush."
It’s worth wondering what’s in Washington Post water coolers these days.
The reclusive Mr. Scaife, who unlike Soros inherited his pile, has
bankrolled right-wing causes for decades. Had editors read their own
newspaper’s fine reporting back in 1999, they might realize that without
Scaife’s largesse, we might not have such ornaments to democracy as the
Federalist Society, the American Enterprise Institute, News-Max.com or
the American Spectator magazine.
Scaife’s funding of the Spectator’s secretive, $2.6 million "Arkansas
Project" during the Clinton years contributed to the care and feeding of
Whitewater witness David Hale, a convicted felon making absurd
allegations against the president. It also financed articles describing
the president of the United States as a drug smuggler and murderer.
Operatives hired by the Spectator even probed the private lives of
journalists deemed unfriendly to Kenneth Starr. Unlike Clinton’s sexual
antics, Starr placed his office’s investigation of the "Arkansas
Project" under seal. Grand Jury secrets, you see.
The estimable Mr. Soros, in contrast, works in broad daylight. He even
writes his own books. His latest, entitled "The Bubble of American
Supremacy" argues that the Bush administration has responded to the 9/11
terror attacks exactly as Osama bin Laden wanted it to: by implementing
"a radical foreign policy agenda" in which might makes right. An excerpt
appeared in the December 2003 Atlantic Monthly. "The Bush doctrine,"
Soros wrote "... is built on two pillars: the United States will do
everything in its power to maintain its unquestioned military supremacy;
and the United States arrogates the right to pre-emptive action. In
effect, the doctrine establishes two classes of sovereignty: the
sovereignty of the United States, which takes precedence over
international treaties and obligations; and the sovereignty of all other
states, which is subject to the will of the United States. This is
reminiscent of George Orwell’s ‘ Animal Farm’: all animals are equal,
but some animals are more equal than others."
The Bush doctrine, Soros recently told Josh Marshall, "is unacceptable
cannot possibly be accepted—by the rest of the world." By invading Iraq
under false pretenses, he thinks, the U.S. rid the world of a despicable
tyrant at the expense of its fundamental credibility. When President
Bush uses farcically Orwellian doublespeak like "weapons of mass
destruction-related program activities" to describe Saddam’s
non-existent military threat, he doesn’t even expect to be believed by
any but the dullest voters. And when Bush boasts, as he did in his State
of the Union speech, that "no one can now doubt the word of America,"
and that he "will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of
our country," he doesn’t mean that Iraq’s imaginary links to 9/11 have
been proven. He means that any nation he threatens had better back down.
Having lived under Nazi and communist occupation, Soros insists that
people who call Bush a "fascist" are both wrong and counter-productive.
He also insists, however, that an ideology of pure power is profoundly
un-American and doomed to fail. How that makes the man a danger to
democracy, I cannot imagine.
of the National Magazine Award.
Link
1/27/2004
What I Think Happened
I think that a lot of last minute deciders, who had not been paying particular attention to the race, voted for Kerry based on his resume, assuming that he can win because he is a veteran and Dean isn't. I suspect that none of them have had to sit through an entire Kerry speech.
Anyone who HAS tried to sit through an entire Kerry speech knows he can't beat Bush.
Anyone who HAS tried to sit through an entire Kerry speech knows he can't beat Bush.
Somehting in the Air
I don't know why, but lots of bloggers who seem usually to have full-time proofreaders are posting things loaded with typos, elided words, repeated words, etc. Or maybe it's just me.
Alterman and Springsteen: Problems?
Eric Alterman doesn't like Deanies:
"Moreover, it’s kind of pathetic that so many people on the left become so tied into hero worship—Nader, Dean, Chomsky, (and dare I say it, Stalin)—that they feel a need to abuse anyone who does not share their wide-eyed admiration."
Well, yeah, you did dare say that, Eric. You be scary when you be mad.
He explained himself the next day, though:
"Did I smear all or even a majority of Dean supporters? Did I compare Dean to Stalin? You get an “F” in reading comprehension for even asking either question."
OK, fine, I'm probably not a Stalinist, but since I found the gratuitous Stalin reference highly annoying, I get an F in reading comprehension. I think I'll take what's behind the third door, Eric.
Eric needs to find another outlet. He doesn't let on, but the restraining order Bruce Springsteen slapped on his sorry ass must have really hurt him.
Edit: I WAS JOKING! There was no restraining order!
(Edited for style.)
"Moreover, it’s kind of pathetic that so many people on the left become so tied into hero worship—Nader, Dean, Chomsky, (and dare I say it, Stalin)—that they feel a need to abuse anyone who does not share their wide-eyed admiration."
Well, yeah, you did dare say that, Eric. You be scary when you be mad.
He explained himself the next day, though:
"Did I smear all or even a majority of Dean supporters? Did I compare Dean to Stalin? You get an “F” in reading comprehension for even asking either question."
OK, fine, I'm probably not a Stalinist, but since I found the gratuitous Stalin reference highly annoying, I get an F in reading comprehension. I think I'll take what's behind the third door, Eric.
Eric needs to find another outlet. He doesn't let on, but the restraining order Bruce Springsteen slapped on his sorry ass must have really hurt him.
Edit: I WAS JOKING! There was no restraining order!
(Edited for style.)
Sharpton Working For Bush?!
The Left Coaster: Al Sharpton Has Left Our Building.
Go read. Looks like a GOP "dirty trick" designed to erode black support for the Democrats, especially Dean! A high-level GOP campaign operative working with the Sharpton campaign -- for free! From the nature of this relationship I suspect that any investigative follow-up of this story will also show some kind of campaign or personal funding coming to Sharpton from the GOP, whether publicly disclosed or not (as in Swiss bank account).
Go read. Looks like a GOP "dirty trick" designed to erode black support for the Democrats, especially Dean! A high-level GOP campaign operative working with the Sharpton campaign -- for free! From the nature of this relationship I suspect that any investigative follow-up of this story will also show some kind of campaign or personal funding coming to Sharpton from the GOP, whether publicly disclosed or not (as in Swiss bank account).
The Runup
I'm watching Bush taking questions on TV. He calls the pre-war period, "the runup to the war." Is this related to the "marketing campaign" that his Chief of Staff referred to? Runup?
He also says that Saddam was a man with bad intentions, who could have gotten weapons, so the US is safer with him gone.
Is the US safer from stopping the war on those who attacked us on 9/11 to instead go to Iraq? Either we are in a desperate war against the terrorists, or not. If we are, then how can we pause that war to start a different war?
He also says that Saddam was a man with bad intentions, who could have gotten weapons, so the US is safer with him gone.
Is the US safer from stopping the war on those who attacked us on 9/11 to instead go to Iraq? Either we are in a desperate war against the terrorists, or not. If we are, then how can we pause that war to start a different war?
It took a while...
but apparently the majority of Americans now hold the beliefs about IraqWar Part II that I did before the war took place.
Sigh.
Better late than never I guess.
Too bad all those people had to die, huh?
Most Americans (51 percent to 43 percent) believe the result of the war with Iraq was not worth the loss of American life and other costs of attacking Iraq. (CBS News/New York Times poll, January 12-15, 2004)Thanks for playing folks.
Americans overwhelmingly (70 percent) disagree with the statement that “the threat of terrorism has been significantly reduced by the [Iraq] war.” (Program on International Policy Attitudes poll, November 21-30, 2003)
By a wide margin (61 percent to 24 percent), Americans say that U.S. priorities should be to focus on finding Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda members, rather than focus on dealing with Saddam and Iraq (CBS News/New York Times poll, December 21-22, 2003)
Americans strongly believe (62 percent to 34 percent) that, given the goals versus the costs of the war, the number of US military casualties so far has been unacceptable (ABC News/Washington Post poll, January 15-18, 2004)
Three-fifths of the public (60 percent) say that the Bush administration was either hiding elements of (39 percent) or mostly lying about (21 percent) their knowledge of Iraq’s WMD (CBS News/New York Times poll, January 12-15, 2004)
Most Americans (53 percent) still think either that the Iraq threat could have been contained (39 percent) or that it wasn’t a threat at all (14 percent), compared to 44 percent who believe Iraq’s threat merited immediate military action (CBS News/New York Times poll, December 21-22, 2003)
Twice as many Americans (31 percent to 15 percent) believe the capture of Saddam will increase the threat of terrorism against the US than believe it will decrease that threat (CBS News/New York Times poll, December 21-22, 2003)
More Americans (25 percent to 20 percent) believe the capture of Saddam will increase attacks on US troops in Iraq than believe the capture will decrease these attacks (CBS News/New York Times poll, December 21-22, 2003)
Most Americans (53 percent to 43 percent) say we are not safer and more secure now that Saddam has been captured (Newsweek poll, January 8-9, 2004)
Sigh.
Better late than never I guess.
Too bad all those people had to die, huh?
1/26/2004
Virus Warning
Suddenly I'm getting lots of e-mail with attachments. Obviously viruses. Don't open any e-mails with attachments for a while.
Keep This Going -- We Need A Horse Race
I think it would be great if the nomination race goes right up to the convention! The press LOVES a horse race and will cover this as a major story, every day. And every day the media will be reporting what each candidate said about how terrible Bush is for the country!
For example, With Race Near Fever Pitch, Candidates Zero In on Bush:
For example, With Race Near Fever Pitch, Candidates Zero In on Bush:
"Throughout the day, the candidates denounced Mr. Bush's economic and foreign policy: in one typical remark, Mr. Kerry described the foreign policy as 'arrogant and inept.' But mainly, it was a day for the candidates to avoid conflict with one another and set out the themes that have defined this campaign since the beginning. From here in southern New Hampshire to Hanover, in the western part of the state, and from the seacoast to the hills of Keene in the southwest, the candidates called for a sharp expansion of health care coverage and an end to tax cuts that benefit the wealthy. More than anything else, each presented himself as the Democrat who could beat Mr. Bush. "So here's to Dean, Kerry, Edwards and Clark - may the best man not emerge until August!
Today's Google Experiment: "I trust Hamas more than my own government."
Does anyone remember when Republicans were blocking anti-terrorism bills following the Oklahoma City and Atlanta Olympics bombings?:
"However, some law enforcement provisions were dropped at the insistence of House [Republicans] lawmakers fearful that federal law enforcement would become too powerful and intrude on individual liberties [of right-wing terrorists].In contrast, here's part of a Clinton radio address on the subject:
[. . .] Complaining that many new tools that would have helped detect and prevent terrorism had been stripped from the bill, Rep. Frank blamed what he called the 'Hamas wing of the Republican Party.' Hamas is an Islamic terrorist group.
Rep. Frank was referring to a remark made by Rep. Hyde during last month's House debate on the bill. At that time, Rep. Hyde, R-Ill., said he had just heard 'a dear friend of mine, a great Republican, say, 'I trust Hamas more than I trust my own government.''
[. . .] Congressional leaders initially promised to complete the bill six weeks after the Oklahoma City federal building bombing that killed 168 last April 19."
"And law enforcement has also asked that explosives used to make a bomb be marked with a taggant -- a trace chemical or a microscopic plastic chip scattered throughout the explosives. This way sophisticated machines can find bombs before they explode, and when they do explode police scientists can trace a bomb back to the people who actually sold the explosive materials that led to the bomb.And do you remember when the Republicans refused to investigate the militias following the Oklahoma City bombing, choosing instead of investigate the government's actions at Waco -- justifying and further inflaming the domestic terrorists?
Now, tagging works. In Switzerland over the past decade it's helped to identify who made bombs and explosives in over 500 cases. When it was being tested in our country several years ago, it helped police to find a murderer in Maryland.
In the last two weeks since the Olympic bombing, our law enforcement officers have been working around the clock, but they have been denied a scientific tool that might help to solve investigations like this one.
Our anti-terrorism bill would have given us the ability to require tagging gunpowder often used in making pipe bombs. The Republicans in Congress could give law enforcement this anti-terrorism tool, but once again they're listening to the gun lobby over law enforcement. It may be good politics, but it's not good for the American people. "
1/25/2004
Dean Goes Nuts
Dean Goes Nuts.com.
"I scream! You scream! We all scream for Howard Dean!"Their favorite is my favorite, too! (Warning - broadband recommended, no screams.)
Why Can't Democrats Add?
Over at Fight for the Future - Blog for the Future, "Why Can't Democrats Add?":
"It takes 18 years to grow more African American voters, the same for Latinos (unless you let immigrants who are already working here become citizens). Growing more single women is a pretty hard campaign to message.Good question: why aren't Demcorats doing more -- much more -- to GROW THE BASE? They're not doing enough to protect and hold on to the base they have.
But growing more union members? The Democrats could do that almost overnight. Polls show that about 47 million Americans want a union but don't have one. The main reason is that corporations tell workers that life will be hell if they vote union.
In Florida, just 2000 more union members, registering and voting for Gore in the same percentage as other union members - and the Supreme Court never would have gotten the case. But most Dems haven't helped a single worker in Florida join a union.
Bush's main man, Karl Rove, told the New Yorker magazine that it is 'absolutely' the president's goal to lower the number of union members.
They outlawed unions for 60,000 airport screeners and 170,000 civilian workers in the Department of Homeland Security. Next comes 750,000 Defense workers. Plus contracting out 850,000 federal jobs to nonunion companies.
So my question is, why do we live in a country where the Republicans know how to subtract but the Democrats don't know how to add?"
The So-Called Dean "Scream"
Go see it and hear it the way it sounded in the room - before filtering out the crowd noise and pumping up the volume at the scream, which is what you heard on TV all week.
(Thanks to Body and Soul)
(Thanks to Body and Soul)
Blog Hero Award
The coveted, much sought-after blog hero award goes to Body and Soul: Attacking a general (or any other Democrat):
"The natural tendency, when you see your opponent get trashed, even when you know it's unfair, is to sit back and watch it happen. But under the circumstances, I think the Democrats have more to gain from standing up for each other than from standing by and letting it happen. In other words, all of the candidates should make it clear that they object to the press putting the Dean Scream on endless repeat. When they go after Dean for mentioning Diebold, all of them should back him up. After Clark was attacked unfairly, all of them should make clear that while they may not want to dwell on Bush's military record, it's disingenuous of the press to completely ignore it.
My gooey, naive, and certainly odd advice to the candidates: Point out your differences with the other candidates, but stand up and be counted when they attack your opponents unfairly, because if you rise to that position, they'll go after you in the same way. It's a battle you can't fight alone."
Republicans Eat Their Own
Vicious tactics are to be expected from Republicans, but here in Oregon they're using them on each other.
Goli Ameri (a woman) and Tim Phillips are contending for the Republican nomination in Oregon's First Congressional District. Both are generic business Republicans who make no mention of social issues on their websites. Phillips is the establishment candidate with many significant endorsements.
Ameri is an immigrant from Iran who has had a successful business career here, while Phillips' mother is an immigrant from India. Both support the Bush administration's new strictness toward foreign visitors, but in 1998 Ameri protested rather similiar policies by the Clinton administration.
After 9/11 her change of position is hardly surprising, and it's not at all unusual for a Republican to respond differently to similiar policies coming from Clinton and from Bush. But Phillips has charged that Ameri "put the people of Iran's interests before those of the American people", and has succeeded in posting his disloyalty smear on The National Journal's "House Race Hotline" (subscription, no link; it may have been taken down by now).
So that's how they treat each other. It gives us a pretty good idea what kind of civility we can expect from them in the general election. Phillips is getting some Republican flak for his stand right now (look here) but in the fall we can expect the gloves to be off.
Ameri Site
Phillips site
Phillips' link to "House Race Hotline" at Jan 25., 10 a.m.
My copy of "House Race Hotline" story
(Edited to add "House Race Hotline" links).
Goli Ameri (a woman) and Tim Phillips are contending for the Republican nomination in Oregon's First Congressional District. Both are generic business Republicans who make no mention of social issues on their websites. Phillips is the establishment candidate with many significant endorsements.
Ameri is an immigrant from Iran who has had a successful business career here, while Phillips' mother is an immigrant from India. Both support the Bush administration's new strictness toward foreign visitors, but in 1998 Ameri protested rather similiar policies by the Clinton administration.
After 9/11 her change of position is hardly surprising, and it's not at all unusual for a Republican to respond differently to similiar policies coming from Clinton and from Bush. But Phillips has charged that Ameri "put the people of Iran's interests before those of the American people", and has succeeded in posting his disloyalty smear on The National Journal's "House Race Hotline" (subscription, no link; it may have been taken down by now).
So that's how they treat each other. It gives us a pretty good idea what kind of civility we can expect from them in the general election. Phillips is getting some Republican flak for his stand right now (look here) but in the fall we can expect the gloves to be off.
Ameri Site
Phillips site
Phillips' link to "House Race Hotline" at Jan 25., 10 a.m.
My copy of "House Race Hotline" story
(Edited to add "House Race Hotline" links).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)