11/20/2002
A Blatant Plug for Commonweal Institute
The way to fight back is to learn how the right was so successful at moving the public toward their objectives, and then do what they did.
Job Fair
I was driving home from the dog food store yesterday and tuned in to the traffic report. They said there was a traffic jam because E-Bay was having a job fair.
Meanwhile, today, Xerox Cuts More Than 2,400 Jobs, NCR to Eliminate 1,500 Jobs, and Black & Decker Cutting 1,300 Jobs, "The company announced in January that it would spend $190 million to restructure and move manufacturing from higher-cost plants in the United States and United Kingdom to lower-cost facilities in Mexico, China and the Czech Republic, and announced plans to cut 2,400 jobs." The articles says 2400, the headline 1300, what's the difference.
Afternoon Update - Boeing to cut 5,000 more jobs in commercial group
Naturally, the stock market was way up.
Meanwhile, today, Xerox Cuts More Than 2,400 Jobs, NCR to Eliminate 1,500 Jobs, and Black & Decker Cutting 1,300 Jobs, "The company announced in January that it would spend $190 million to restructure and move manufacturing from higher-cost plants in the United States and United Kingdom to lower-cost facilities in Mexico, China and the Czech Republic, and announced plans to cut 2,400 jobs." The articles says 2400, the headline 1300, what's the difference.
Afternoon Update - Boeing to cut 5,000 more jobs in commercial group
Naturally, the stock market was way up.
11/19/2002
Movie
We went to see the new Harry Potter movie last night. It's a great movie, and I recommend it for anyone. But before the movie we had to sit through TWENTY MINUTES of COMMERCIALS!!!! Some were commercials for other movies, but most were for video games, SUVs, things like that!
We haven't been to any movies for a while. First it was the unemployment budget. Then it was a huge amount of work with the Commonweal Institute. So it's been maybe as long as 5 months! But after this I'm not sure we'll be going to very many movies! COMMERCIALS! (And the popcorn sucked, which is even worse than the commercials.)
We haven't been to any movies for a while. First it was the unemployment budget. Then it was a huge amount of work with the Commonweal Institute. So it's been maybe as long as 5 months! But after this I'm not sure we'll be going to very many movies! COMMERCIALS! (And the popcorn sucked, which is even worse than the commercials.)
Like the Meat in the Supermarket
Here:
Do you know that we are no longer allowed to see honor guard ceremonies for dead soldiers?
VietNam was the last time Americans were allowed to see what REALLY happens in a war. And because of the draft it happened to THEM. If you think about it, this means that no one under about 45 really understands that war is anything other than a TV show. It's like the meat in supermarkets - it comes in a nice clean package. THIS is why the public thirsts for war. Much of the public sees this as a TV show. Clean. Sanitary. No REAL death. No REAL gore. It's just another TV show. Like the meat in the supermarket.
"One reason there was no trace of what happened in the Neutral Zone on those two days was that Armored Combat Earth Movers came behind the armored burial brigade, leveling the ground and smoothing away projecting Iraqi arms, legs and equipment."This isn't about what we did, it's about how it was hidden from us, so we wouldn't know what we did. Our "government" presents us with carefully controlled information, set up so TV screens don't show us the reality. Manufactured consent instead of informed consent. Democracy is So Last Century.
Do you know that we are no longer allowed to see honor guard ceremonies for dead soldiers?
VietNam was the last time Americans were allowed to see what REALLY happens in a war. And because of the draft it happened to THEM. If you think about it, this means that no one under about 45 really understands that war is anything other than a TV show. It's like the meat in supermarkets - it comes in a nice clean package. THIS is why the public thirsts for war. Much of the public sees this as a TV show. Clean. Sanitary. No REAL death. No REAL gore. It's just another TV show. Like the meat in the supermarket.
Poindexter = Reliable
I got a note from Bellona Times, pointing me to this about John Poindexter and the new Total Information Awareness System.
You need to know that the Total Information Awareness System is not a joke. It will enable the Republican Party to track ANY of us, every activity. If you think it isn't about furthering The Party, then ask yourself why it's being set up by John Poindexter. If you didn't click on the John Poindexter yet, click on it. I want you to KNOW who this is.
How can they be SURE that Poindexter is the guy for this job? He has credentials. He has been CONVICTED of hiding from Congress the real agenda of his activities.
You need to know that the Total Information Awareness System is not a joke. It will enable the Republican Party to track ANY of us, every activity. If you think it isn't about furthering The Party, then ask yourself why it's being set up by John Poindexter. If you didn't click on the John Poindexter yet, click on it. I want you to KNOW who this is.
How can they be SURE that Poindexter is the guy for this job? He has credentials. He has been CONVICTED of hiding from Congress the real agenda of his activities.
11/18/2002
Today's Google Experiment
For today's Google Experiment, let's go to Google and search on the words"george bush pilly pillow". There are some interesting stories there. (Spell it differently to find this.)
Next, search on "george bush cheerleader".
This comes out of a conversation with my wife this weekend. I told her Bush was a cheerleader in college (in the East, not in Texas). She didn't believe me. So I told her that Bush carries around a pillow that he calls his "pilly." So she was sure I was in making-things-up mode. I wasn't.
Next, search on "george bush cheerleader".
This comes out of a conversation with my wife this weekend. I told her Bush was a cheerleader in college (in the East, not in Texas). She didn't believe me. So I told her that Bush carries around a pillow that he calls his "pilly." So she was sure I was in making-things-up mode. I wasn't.
Tangled Web
In a Washington Post story about Bob Woodward's book, "The president is shown to be preoccupied by public perceptions of the war, looking at polling data from Rove, now his senior adviser, even after pretending to have no interest."
Remember, Bush campaigned on the claim that he didn't pay attention to polls. Of course, the reason he made this claim was polling showed more people would vote for him if he said he didn't pay attention to polls.
Remember, Bush campaigned on the claim that he didn't pay attention to polls. Of course, the reason he made this claim was polling showed more people would vote for him if he said he didn't pay attention to polls.
Little Cat Feet
Fascism Comes On Little Cat Feet.
(There's no permanent link. If there is a different column at this address, see if you can find the November 18 column.)
(There's no permanent link. If there is a different column at this address, see if you can find the November 18 column.)
BuzzFlash Editorial
I've been reading the BuzzFlash Editorial, They Brazenly Lie, Without Apology and Without Shame: You Know Who We're Talking About.
It's worth reading. However, I have a disagreement. The editorial says, "But did the Democrats take to the airwaves and scream to the high heavens that Bush was betraying the American people by accusing the Democrats of "obstructing" a Department of Homeland Security? Hell, no, that would have forced the Democrats to get angry and shout a little, which is just too uncivilized for their way of thinking. Sometimes we get the feeling that Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt think that it is just too crude to point out the relentless lying and hypocrisy of the White House."
You have to watch C-SPAN to know that the Democrats did this. The problem is not that they aren't saying things, it's that you wouldn't KNOW they are saying these things if you watch regular TV or listen to regular radio or read regular newspapers. It's a different era and we have to get used to it - the Republicans control the media. Democrats CAN'T "take to the airwaves." Get used to it.
Don't get mad at the Democrats for being shut out by the media. Instead, we need to build a "media" for people to get information! As I wrote the other day, I think the best place to start this is BuzzFlash. Tell everyone you know to check BuzzFlash every day.
It's worth reading. However, I have a disagreement. The editorial says, "But did the Democrats take to the airwaves and scream to the high heavens that Bush was betraying the American people by accusing the Democrats of "obstructing" a Department of Homeland Security? Hell, no, that would have forced the Democrats to get angry and shout a little, which is just too uncivilized for their way of thinking. Sometimes we get the feeling that Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt think that it is just too crude to point out the relentless lying and hypocrisy of the White House."
You have to watch C-SPAN to know that the Democrats did this. The problem is not that they aren't saying things, it's that you wouldn't KNOW they are saying these things if you watch regular TV or listen to regular radio or read regular newspapers. It's a different era and we have to get used to it - the Republicans control the media. Democrats CAN'T "take to the airwaves." Get used to it.
Don't get mad at the Democrats for being shut out by the media. Instead, we need to build a "media" for people to get information! As I wrote the other day, I think the best place to start this is BuzzFlash. Tell everyone you know to check BuzzFlash every day.
11/16/2002
11/15/2002
Politicized
Also posted at Stand Down:.
This new alert - warning of possible "spectacular" attacks inside the United States...
It used to be, I would worry about what might happen. I worried about going to Comdex last year because of anthrax. I worried about flying.
Now I think about whether the Bush people have been caught at something they're trying to distract us from. I wonder what advantage the Republicans are trying to gain. After going down a checklist like this, and then hearing that the Europeans are also worrying, THEN I start to worry that this one might be for real.
This is the consequence of Bush politicizing the war on terrorism. There were several phony terrorism alerts, each one coming immediately after some embarrassing revelation - like the Harken stories hitting the press. Remember when Ashcroft came on TV from Moscow to talk about "dirty bombs" and later we found out the guy had really been caught a month previously? Remember how the terrorist alerts STOPPED after the press started questioning the timing?
And then there was the war vote, timed exactly for the election...
So they have politicized the war on terrorism. The public cannot trust the government. Imagine the divisions at home if the Iraq adventure goes poorly. We're set up for a fall.
This new alert - warning of possible "spectacular" attacks inside the United States...
It used to be, I would worry about what might happen. I worried about going to Comdex last year because of anthrax. I worried about flying.
Now I think about whether the Bush people have been caught at something they're trying to distract us from. I wonder what advantage the Republicans are trying to gain. After going down a checklist like this, and then hearing that the Europeans are also worrying, THEN I start to worry that this one might be for real.
This is the consequence of Bush politicizing the war on terrorism. There were several phony terrorism alerts, each one coming immediately after some embarrassing revelation - like the Harken stories hitting the press. Remember when Ashcroft came on TV from Moscow to talk about "dirty bombs" and later we found out the guy had really been caught a month previously? Remember how the terrorist alerts STOPPED after the press started questioning the timing?
And then there was the war vote, timed exactly for the election...
So they have politicized the war on terrorism. The public cannot trust the government. Imagine the divisions at home if the Iraq adventure goes poorly. We're set up for a fall.
Something Cool
Here's something cool. And it's not about right-wingers or Bush or Republicans or corrupt corporations.
Waldman Report
This piece, over at The Waldman Report, is good. He agrees with me, so he must be brilliant. "One of the messages of Cleland's loss is that it doesn't matter what a Democrat's ideology is - Cleland, after all, was a moderate who voted for Bush's tax cut and his Iraq resolution. Republicans are always going to call Democrats liberals and question their patriotism. If they'll do it to a man who lost three limbs in Vietnam, they'll do it to anybody. "
Read down to where he writes,
Read down to where he writes,
What might have happened if Cleland had aired an ad like this?"When his country called, Saxby Chambliss dodged the draft. Max Cleland volunteered - and came home an injured war hero. Now draft dodger Chambliss has the nerve to question Max Cleland's patriotism. Every time Chambliss does it, he spits in the eye of every Georgian who's served his country. Does draft dodger Saxby Chambliss have any shame?"
Yes, That's Exactly Right
As a matter of fact, yes, I do sit around and bitch about Republicans all day, every day.
Good For the Country
In a Washington Post interview President-Elect Gore says, ""I could have handled the whole thing differently," he told the Post Magazine, "and instead of making a concession speech, launched a four-year, rear-guard guerrilla campaign to undermine the legitimacy of the Bush presidency and to mobilize for a rematch. And there was no shortage of advice to do that.""
Gore's right; that sort of thing is not good for the country. Gore puts Country over Party. Of course, this is exactly what the Republicans did when Clinton was elected. Then and now the leadership of the Republican Party has made it quite clear that they put Party over Country.
Update - I need to clear up some wording. I was referring to the preceding paragraph about launching a rear-guard guerilla campaign to undermine the presidency, not the preceding sentence about putting Country over Party, when I said "this is exactly what the Republicans did when Clinton was elected." The Republicans put the good of their party over the good of the country, and worked to undermine the Clinton presidency from day 1.
Gore's right; that sort of thing is not good for the country. Gore puts Country over Party. Of course, this is exactly what the Republicans did when Clinton was elected. Then and now the leadership of the Republican Party has made it quite clear that they put Party over Country.
Update - I need to clear up some wording. I was referring to the preceding paragraph about launching a rear-guard guerilla campaign to undermine the presidency, not the preceding sentence about putting Country over Party, when I said "this is exactly what the Republicans did when Clinton was elected." The Republicans put the good of their party over the good of the country, and worked to undermine the Clinton presidency from day 1.
Noosphereblues
I was reading Noosphere Blues, which clued me in to a good Mike Finley piece, Talking John Birch Blues.
Taking Money Out of the Economy
This story today - the Bush Administration is "privatizing" 850,000 federal jobs. That's HALF the federal civilian workers. That's 850,000 people - how many families? - going from good union jobs with benefits and job security to low-wage, no-benefit, no-security positions (while the good stuff rises to a few rich people at the top.) They say it should save more than 30%.
And remember, Bush also changed the rules to allow corporations with a history of violating the law to bid for contracts.
Update - It's not half of all government jobs, it's the jobs that are not "inherently governmental." "Those jobs are defined as "commercial activities," like running cafeterias, making travel arrangements and other tasks that are routinely done in the private sector. The change would not apply to any policy-making or political job, or most managerial ones. There's a NYTimes story here.
And remember, Bush also changed the rules to allow corporations with a history of violating the law to bid for contracts.
Update - It's not half of all government jobs, it's the jobs that are not "inherently governmental." "Those jobs are defined as "commercial activities," like running cafeterias, making travel arrangements and other tasks that are routinely done in the private sector. The change would not apply to any policy-making or political job, or most managerial ones. There's a NYTimes story here.
11/14/2002
Which is More Important to Them?
There's the war on terror, and there's the war on gay's. Which is more important? If you're just USING the war on terror to obtain power, so you can do things like go after the gays, the choice is clear.
Remember hearing about the shortage of Arabic translators? NOTHING is as important as the right-wing agenda.
Remember hearing about the shortage of Arabic translators? NOTHING is as important as the right-wing agenda.
Stock Market Idiocy
Stocks are way up again. From this story, "Thursday's gains followed news that sales at the nation's retailers were flat in October, better than the 0.2 percent decline analysts expected."
Retail sales didn't go up. They just didn't drop as much as investors expected, so stocks go UP!
We're in a stock bubble again. Watch out. And if you're expecting a pension from Honeywell ... uh ... well ... good luck.
Retail sales didn't go up. They just didn't drop as much as investors expected, so stocks go UP!
"People are looking for reasons to buy stocks, rather than sell them. When investor psychology changes, that is what happens. Two months ago nobody wanted to buy," said Michael Murphy, head trader for Wachovia Securities.Here's more "upbeat" news today to send stocks even higher: Sprint PCS to Lay Off 1,600 Workers, Tokyo Stocks Tumble to New Lows Again, Credit Suisse Reports $1.4B Loss, Mall Retailers Earnings Slide, PG&E Reports Drop in Third Quarter, Greenspan Sees Economy 'Soft Patch', Sears Stock Tumbles on Downgrade, GE's Aura Rattled by Worries, Skepticism, AMD to Cut 15 Percent of Work Force, Argentina to Miss World Bank Payment, and my favorite, because I've been writing about the huge pension problem, Honeywell: $1.7 Billion Pension Deficit. And what is Honeywell putting in the pension plan to make up the deficit? ""We anticipate a substantial portion of any such contribution would consist of Honeywell stock," the company said."
We're in a stock bubble again. Watch out. And if you're expecting a pension from Honeywell ... uh ... well ... good luck.
It Isn't Working, So Do it More
Bush's plan for fixing the economy is to cut taxes for the rich and cut government spending. Got that? Redistributing the money upward while cutting programs that benefit the middle class and poor (and don't forget the people who will be laid off because of spending cuts).
Already working people pay a tax not paid by the rich - the "payroll tax" - and that money is currently being redistributed out to the very rich through tax cuts and debt interest payments. Most people don't understand about this tax - that it is ONLY paid by lower and middle-income people. And, to be repetitive, let me repeat, this is a tax that is paid by poor and middle-class people and redistributed to the rich. That's what Gore's "lockbox" was all about - preventing this money from being handed to the rich. When Rush says the rich pay most of the taxes, this tax is not part of the calculation, and never mind that the rich pay more because they have most of the income. (And, of course, the Democrats haven't been telling the public about this because it might upset the Donor Class.)
Republicans believe in "supply-side" economics - if you concentrate money at the top the rich will build factories, which will hire people and that will create demand for the goods the factories produce. The rich-worshippers say, "have you ever been given a job by a poor person?" We have a CONSUMER economy, but let's send the money up to the top so it can be put in offshore accounts, instead of distributing it out to the consumers. Right. I saw a comment the other day after a weblog entry - I forget where - that a nine-year-old can figure it out: "Daddy, you have three factories but only enough customers for two, so why would you build a fourth factory?"
We need policies that get more money into the hands of more people who will spend it on goods. That's called "demand-side" economics. It's redistributing the money from the top and spreading it out among the people. It is the opposite of concentrating the wealth at the top, and historically THIS is what has worked to help ailing economies. Companies hire when they have customers with money walking in the door.
Already working people pay a tax not paid by the rich - the "payroll tax" - and that money is currently being redistributed out to the very rich through tax cuts and debt interest payments. Most people don't understand about this tax - that it is ONLY paid by lower and middle-income people. And, to be repetitive, let me repeat, this is a tax that is paid by poor and middle-class people and redistributed to the rich. That's what Gore's "lockbox" was all about - preventing this money from being handed to the rich. When Rush says the rich pay most of the taxes, this tax is not part of the calculation, and never mind that the rich pay more because they have most of the income. (And, of course, the Democrats haven't been telling the public about this because it might upset the Donor Class.)
Republicans believe in "supply-side" economics - if you concentrate money at the top the rich will build factories, which will hire people and that will create demand for the goods the factories produce. The rich-worshippers say, "have you ever been given a job by a poor person?" We have a CONSUMER economy, but let's send the money up to the top so it can be put in offshore accounts, instead of distributing it out to the consumers. Right. I saw a comment the other day after a weblog entry - I forget where - that a nine-year-old can figure it out: "Daddy, you have three factories but only enough customers for two, so why would you build a fourth factory?"
We need policies that get more money into the hands of more people who will spend it on goods. That's called "demand-side" economics. It's redistributing the money from the top and spreading it out among the people. It is the opposite of concentrating the wealth at the top, and historically THIS is what has worked to help ailing economies. Companies hire when they have customers with money walking in the door.
11/13/2002
Another Part of their Strategy
I've been noticing that the Republicans have another strategy working. When the Democrats propose ANYTHING, they put together a package that wipes out something important to people, NAME IT the same as what the Democrats proposed, and then hammer the Democrats by saying, "But you proposed it in the first place!"
The rebate portion of the tax cuts was proposed by Democrats. Bush took it over, used it to hammer through the huge tax cuts for the rich, then even mailed out a campaign letter to the public announcing "his" tax rebates, and then the actual checks had the slogan of the Bush 2000 campaign printed on them!
The Fatherland Security was proposed by Democrats and Bush resisted. Then the Republicans put together a package of union-busting legislation AND used it to get rid of any threat of an independent investigation into 9/11. They hammered the Democrats with this all through the election.
The Iraq vote was a little more tricky than that. By announcing they would proceed to war without asking the Congress, they provoked Democrats (and others) into demanding a vote. So when they demanded the vote as part of the election campaign, they could hammer Democrats, saying they asked for it in the first place. Of course, the whole thing was a plan to get it placed in the election campaign.
It seems like the Democratic leadership just won't ever figure out that these Republicans are not the least bit interested in working with anyone else. ANY time they try to "work with" the Republicans they get hammered. The Republicans aren't even interested in governing. Only in accumulating power. How many times will Lucy have to pull away the football?
The rebate portion of the tax cuts was proposed by Democrats. Bush took it over, used it to hammer through the huge tax cuts for the rich, then even mailed out a campaign letter to the public announcing "his" tax rebates, and then the actual checks had the slogan of the Bush 2000 campaign printed on them!
The Fatherland Security was proposed by Democrats and Bush resisted. Then the Republicans put together a package of union-busting legislation AND used it to get rid of any threat of an independent investigation into 9/11. They hammered the Democrats with this all through the election.
The Iraq vote was a little more tricky than that. By announcing they would proceed to war without asking the Congress, they provoked Democrats (and others) into demanding a vote. So when they demanded the vote as part of the election campaign, they could hammer Democrats, saying they asked for it in the first place. Of course, the whole thing was a plan to get it placed in the election campaign.
It seems like the Democratic leadership just won't ever figure out that these Republicans are not the least bit interested in working with anyone else. ANY time they try to "work with" the Republicans they get hammered. The Republicans aren't even interested in governing. Only in accumulating power. How many times will Lucy have to pull away the football?
Commonweal Had a Problem
If you signed up for Commonweal Institute's newsletter before about 2:00 Wednesday they didn't get your request, so please sign up again.
Go See Maru
Maru has posted a MUST-SEE about Democrats bending over for the Republicans! The links are not working, so scroll to Wednesday Nov. 13, "Having learned nothing, Dems plan to fold on judicial nominees".
11/12/2002
Sold Out the Unions!
Two Senate Dems sold out the unions. Democrats John Breaux of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska voted with Bush
Daschle added to the betrayal, "Though Sen. Robert Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat opposed to the department, may try to wage a filibuster against it, Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle has said he would oppose any such delay." What? The REPUBLICANS filibustered this bill for months AND IT DIDN'T COST THEM A THING IN THE ELECTION! In fact, their tactics energized their base, and their base turned out to vote! Now it's the Democrats' opportunity to stand up for workers, and what does Daschle say? I take back what I said defending Daschle. DUMP HIM!
Additionally, "In addition, the new department would effectively be able to bypass civil service rules in promoting, firing and transferring workers, the aides said." This means patronage - only Republicans will get jobs in the government now. Democrats will be fired.
Maybe some recall petitions are in order here! Maybe if they started hearing from us maybe this stuff would stop.
Daschle added to the betrayal, "Though Sen. Robert Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat opposed to the department, may try to wage a filibuster against it, Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle has said he would oppose any such delay." What? The REPUBLICANS filibustered this bill for months AND IT DIDN'T COST THEM A THING IN THE ELECTION! In fact, their tactics energized their base, and their base turned out to vote! Now it's the Democrats' opportunity to stand up for workers, and what does Daschle say? I take back what I said defending Daschle. DUMP HIM!
Additionally, "In addition, the new department would effectively be able to bypass civil service rules in promoting, firing and transferring workers, the aides said." This means patronage - only Republicans will get jobs in the government now. Democrats will be fired.
Maybe some recall petitions are in order here! Maybe if they started hearing from us maybe this stuff would stop.
More Job Cuts Coming
In the last couple of weeks a number of people I know have been laid off.
Anyway, from Financial Times today:
And the stock market will react by going up another 200 points.
Anyway, from Financial Times today:
The Business Roundtable, an association of 150 CEOs whose companies employ over 10m workers, said a survey of its membership showed that 60 per cent were expecting to cut jobs next year against just 11 per cent who said employment in their companies would grow. More than 80 per cent said they expected to hold or cut capital expenditure over the coming year.What, we're here with no paddle?
And the stock market will react by going up another 200 points.
The Path Out of the Bush
Let me write some more about the research that led me to hook up with the Commonweal Institute. My own path into this adventure was through the Clinton impeachment and what led up to it. If you followed the news closely, you started hearing that much of the anti-Clinton sleaze was coming from organizations financed by just ONE GUY – Richard Mellon Scaife.
After Hillary Clinton referred to the “vast right-wing conspiracy” articles began to appear documenting pieces of this web of organizations. The American Spectator, funded by Scaife, was the lead sleaze-spreader. The Federalist Society, funded by Scaife (and a few others), was supplying the worker bees. Ken Starr, of the Federalist Society, wanted to leave to take a University position funded by Scaife. Many of those employed by Starr were from the Federalist Society. Scaife money was bankrolling Paula Jones and her legal representatives. Etc...
Then I started noticing that Scaife and some others were behind a hell of a lot more than JUST the anti-Clinton effort. For example, from a 1998 Salon article about Scaife's anti-Clinton efforts, The man behind the mask:
Blinded By The Right crystallized this in my mind. From talking to people about all of this I realize that I am not alone in this. The book brought it together for many people. It became real.
Please visit Commonweal’s information page and read some of what is there. This information takes a while to percolate, but then you start to see that there is a path back out of the Bush.
After Hillary Clinton referred to the “vast right-wing conspiracy” articles began to appear documenting pieces of this web of organizations. The American Spectator, funded by Scaife, was the lead sleaze-spreader. The Federalist Society, funded by Scaife (and a few others), was supplying the worker bees. Ken Starr, of the Federalist Society, wanted to leave to take a University position funded by Scaife. Many of those employed by Starr were from the Federalist Society. Scaife money was bankrolling Paula Jones and her legal representatives. Etc...
Then I started noticing that Scaife and some others were behind a hell of a lot more than JUST the anti-Clinton effort. For example, from a 1998 Salon article about Scaife's anti-Clinton efforts, The man behind the mask:
"The victories we're celebrating today didn't begin last Tuesday," Heritage Foundation president Edwin Feulner Jr. told a meeting of supporters in 1994 just after the Republican sweep of the House of Representatives. "They started more than 20 years ago when Dick Scaife had the vision to see the need for a conservative intellectual movement in America. These organizations built the intellectual case that was necessary before political leaders like Newt Gingrich could translate their ideas into practical political alternatives."I started looking into this on the web. But at that point it still seemed more like paranoid conspiracy theory stuff than something real. Then, earlier this year, I read David Brock’s book, Blinded By The Right. This book, written by the very journalist who had initiated the attacks on Clinton, talked about this web of organizations, some of the participants, and the money behind it. It was a revelation – it wasn’t just some paranoid fantasy, it was really happening! Here was confirmation that this web existed.
Blinded By The Right crystallized this in my mind. From talking to people about all of this I realize that I am not alone in this. The book brought it together for many people. It became real.
Please visit Commonweal’s information page and read some of what is there. This information takes a while to percolate, but then you start to see that there is a path back out of the Bush.
Why I Don't Use the Term "Conservative"
I don't use the term "conservative" to describe this current crop of right wingers. That's THEIR description of themselves. These people stole the term from the honest and honorable traditional conservatives, like John McCain, and then booted them out of their "movement." (Look what they did to McCain in South Carolina.)
These right-wingers are the same crowd that used to talk about "The Jew York Times" and the Jew Media." (I wrote about this in September.) They've learned to tone that stuff down but much of their nonsense really is largely the same crackpot message - "government schools are socialist," "ban the teaching of evolution and put prayer back in the schools," "we're a Christian Nation." Back then they were not called "conservatives." They were called the "far right" and the "ultra right" and the "Christian Right." In fact, in the 50's and 60's the originators of this movement, the John Birchers and Libertarians and Liberty Lobby types were known as the "kooks." Real, honest conservatives wanted nothing to do with them.
In fact, their very use of the word "conservative" shows how this movement works. The word "conservative" has positive connotations in the public's mind so these far-right ideologues took over the word, and used their bullying tactics to toss the old-fashioned conservatives out of the Republican Party. They needed a respectable cover for what they're up to.
Suppose they decided to describe themselves as "those-who-are-best-for-your-interests". I don't think I would be using that phrasing when referring to them. For the same reasons I don't use "conservative."
Perhaps the term "regressives" is the best description. Who was it that thought that up the other day?
These right-wingers are the same crowd that used to talk about "The Jew York Times" and the Jew Media." (I wrote about this in September.) They've learned to tone that stuff down but much of their nonsense really is largely the same crackpot message - "government schools are socialist," "ban the teaching of evolution and put prayer back in the schools," "we're a Christian Nation." Back then they were not called "conservatives." They were called the "far right" and the "ultra right" and the "Christian Right." In fact, in the 50's and 60's the originators of this movement, the John Birchers and Libertarians and Liberty Lobby types were known as the "kooks." Real, honest conservatives wanted nothing to do with them.
In fact, their very use of the word "conservative" shows how this movement works. The word "conservative" has positive connotations in the public's mind so these far-right ideologues took over the word, and used their bullying tactics to toss the old-fashioned conservatives out of the Republican Party. They needed a respectable cover for what they're up to.
Suppose they decided to describe themselves as "those-who-are-best-for-your-interests". I don't think I would be using that phrasing when referring to them. For the same reasons I don't use "conservative."
Perhaps the term "regressives" is the best description. Who was it that thought that up the other day?
The Commonweal Institute - "the Heritage Foundation of the Left"
Some time ago I wrote that I have taken a position at a public policy institute. I have been working with the Commonweal Institute , which I like to describe as “the Heritage Foundation of the Left.” I’ve been helping them get organized, get their new website up, and commence fundraising activities. Our hope is that we can raise sufficient seed money to launch the kind of PR and fundraising campaign that is required to develop the research and education institute and communications “engine” that is needed to start to bring the public back toward the center, and bring progressive and moderate voices back into the public “marketplace of ideas.”
The Nov. 5 election confirms just how bad things are.
Do I have to describe the problem? The far-right is now the government. Everywhere we turn – us “liberals” or “progressives” or “moderates,” or whatever we choose to call ourselves – we suffer heartbreaking setbacks. We see environmental protections removed, industries allowed to violate laws, women's health programs losing funding, huge tax cuts for the ultra-rich – resulting in less and less money available for education, health care and all kinds of other social necessities. The list goes on and on and seems to get worse every day.
An approach to this problem
One approach to doing something about it is to learn how the right did it – and then do that. So I’d like to write about the right-wing movement's campaign to move the public to the right. By examining how it was done we can learn how to counter it, and move the public and the country back into balance, back to the center – back to sanity. And then I’ll describe the Commonweal Institute’s plan to do something about it.
Part 1 – What has been happening to us
Part 2 – What Commonweal Institute plans to do about it (Scroll down about 250-300 paragraphs)
Research.
I hooked up with the Commonweal Institute because I’ve been doing research into how the right has been able to be so effective. The growth of this ideological movement didn’t happen by accident. The American public has been the target of an ongoing, deliberate, planned campaign to push them to the right. (The Commonweal Institute has put up a page of links to articles, reports and resources on this subject, at http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/information.html.)
There really was a plan.
You have to look back a few decades to see how it started. In the early 1970’s a small group of wealthy far-right and Christian-right individuals, foundations and corporations began funding a few think tanks and a number of front organizations with the intention of building a “movement.” Over time, using tons of cash, the right has built up an “idea machine” whose “idea product” is aggressively marketed to the public through a number of communications channels. But it really comes back to just a small number of individuals, foundations and corporations providing the underlying funding and coordination for it all.
Here’s how the process works:
Their “think tanks” come up with studies and policy papers that have the appearance of scholarship. These are the “ideas.” (Unlike legitimate scholarship, the results of this process are designed and selected to support their ideological agenda.) This information is translated by marketing and psychology professionals into “popular language” – easy-to-understand language that resonates emotionally and culturally rather than logically – with help from polling, focus groups, interviewing and other modern marketing techniques. The resulting simplified, “popularized” phrasing is pumped out to the public through a multitude of channels, by “experts” and “scholars” employed by the think tanks or otherwise paid by the movement. It is picked up and repeated – amplified – by far-right outlets such as the Drudge Report, NewsMax, Rush Limbaugh, Washington Times, Fox News, and a multitude of right-wing columnists, pundits, authors and celebrities.
Communications engine.
When the right gets going with their “communications engine” it’s hard to avoid being exposed to whatever their message-of-the-day might be. It seems to come from every direction you turn. It isn’t hard to understand that almost all of the voices on AM radio, all day and night, are part of the right-wing network. But people are not aware how many of the commentators on TV, how many of the op-ed pieces or letters to the editor in newspapers, “sources” and experts in news stories, “studies” referred to in magazine articles, and books reviewed in the paper actually originate from and are predominately funded by just the few sources.
Examples of “idea product.”
Here are some examples of right-wing “idea product” that is aggressively repeated, moving the public to the right. Perhaps you have heard the messages “public schools are failing,” “taxes take money out of the economy” or “Social Security is going broke.” You have probably heard these repeated so many times by so many “experts” that you think they are true – established facts. “Everybody knows” these things. They have become “conventional wisdom.” But they’re not true. These messages were designed to prime the public to accept specific right-wing plans.
Politicians harvesting the results.
Over time the public becomes so inundated with the right-wing messaging – without hearing from opposing voices – that they come to believe what they are hearing. It is after this process that the right-wing politicians step in to harvest the results. Political candidates offering “solutions” to these widely-understood “problems” have an advantage over candidates who do not “offer alternatives.”
Without a capacity like that of the right wing to set the public agenda and frame the public debate, moderate and progressive politicians are at, and will remain at, a distinct disadvantage.
Long term strategy.
The right-wing movement follows a long-term strategy. Years before we heard about “vouchers" we started hearing that “public schools are failing.” This has been drummed into the public mind for so long that most people now believe that it’s a fact. After many years of this, along come the vouchers and other “competition” schemes. And the vouchers and other schemes are only steps along the road to the ultimate strategic goal – total privatization of schools. The right wingers say they want to get rid of “socialist schools” and they mean it.
Money, money, money.
In the 1990s this group of powerful right-wingers spent over $1 BILLION on this process. I’m not even talking about political contributions or 3rd-party issue ads. An incredible amount of money has gone into their efforts. Their think tanks and front organizations crank out these messages to such an extent that the far right now virtually monopolizes the nation’s “marketplace of ideas.”
And it hasn’t stopped. The largest right-wing think tank, the Heritage Foundation, will double its funding by the 2004 election. An additional $400 million will be pumped into over 500 other right wing groups influencing the public's views and perspectives on the key issues facing our nation.
That is a description of the process that has moved the public to the right over the last few decades. There is a lot of research available, detailing the establishment and financing of the movement, as well as the individuals, organizations, institutes and foundations involved. We have made available a collection of links at Commonweal Institute’s Information page, http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/information.html. I encourage everyone reading this to study these resources.
Understanding
Understanding what the right is doing and how they are doing it makes you less susceptible to it. Understanding seems to bring an immunity, you start to be able to spot the process at work. And understanding it helps you explain it to others. I strongly encourage you to take a look at the articles at Commonweal's information page, and refer others to this information. As more and more people understand what has been going on the right will be less and less effective.
It’s not just me.
Summing up this section, let me refer you to Scott Rosenberg’s Salon weblog, just the other day:
What is Commonweal Institute going to do?
The smartass answer is, we’re going to do what the right-wing movement has done. We’re going to be a “Heritage Foundation of the Left.”
Here’s the Commonweal Institute blurb:
The Commonweal Institute will pursue a long term strategy. Our long-term goal is to move people’s underlying attitudes away from the right wing’s agenda and back to a moderate/progressive perspective.
A very important distinction.
Let me get one thing out of the way right now. When I say Commonweal Institute is going to “do what the right does,” I do NOT mean we are going to lie, deceive, mislead, trick and/or fool the public.
We progressives and moderates have a clear advantage in this battle of ideas. Put simply, our task is not to convince blue-collar workers to give up their Social Security, pensions, healthcare, environmental protections, worker protections and all the rest of the social benefits and protections we have built over the years so that some rich white guy can have a bigger jet. That’s what the right wing movement does. That’s why with all the billions spent and all the domination of the media they STILL can’t get past 50%, even after convincing most people not to even vote! We don’t have to lie, trick or otherwise fool the public to get them thinking our way.
Changing underlying attitudes takes work.
People respond best to stories that trigger an emotional response, using words that evoke images in the mind and metaphors that hook facts to their deeper feelings, giving them a sense of “Oh yeah, that's right.” Just like the right, we will use contemporary marketing and public relations techniques such as polling, interviewing and focus groups to identify the deeper concerns of target groups. We will “translate” the “idea product” of think tanks and organizations into this kind of specialized language.
Creating our own conventional wisdom.
Just as the right has repeated “public schools are failing” and “Social Security is going broke,” in order to lead people to their agenda, the Commonweal Institute will create honest conventional wisdom that reflects moderate and progressive principles.
Infrastructure.
The kind of organization we’re talking about creating with Commonweal Institute is “infrastructure.” This is the kind of organization that the right has built up. It does not necessarily support particular causes – it is “multi-issue.” The particular infrastructure need that Commonweal Institute will address is to change underlying public attitudes, by putting out a more general message to a wide mainstream audience. It will translate particular issues into a wider framework of understanding and communicate that perspective to a wide, mainstream audience.
Reaching a wide audience.
One of the methods the Commonweal Institute will use is to reach out to wide, diverse audiences, using multiple channels of communication. Commonweal will also target specific demographic groups with targeted messages. Commonweal’s channels of communication will include books, articles, columns, commentaries, letters to the editor, newsletters, on-line information, expert speakers, scholars, talk show guests, video clips, tapes, media training for activists and advertisements, as well as providing talking points and other ready-to-go materials for use by opinion leaders, candidates, public speakers, educators, activists and the general public.
While single-issue organizations offer similar resources for their issues, they tend to be financially dependant on regularly reaching out to their own base of supporters. Many have limited budgets and cannot reach as many as they would like. Fundraising is difficult and ongoing, and it makes sense to reach people who will tend to support your cause. It isn’t typically economical for single-issue organizations to spend the money to reach out to the mainstream general public. So out of necessity there is a lot of preaching to the converted. Also they tend more and more to be fighting shorter-term defensive battles, as they are under constant attack by the right-wing movement.
To reach out to wide general audiences, talking about a number of issues, you need a different kind of organization. We need to fund and develop infrastructure – a multi-issue research and communications engine. This is what Commonweal Institute is.
Return on investment.
Let’s say you support an organization that is working to protect the remaining California redwoods. Let’s say that this organization has spent $200,000 a year for 10 years, or $2 million. Now, after the November 5 election, let’s say that one Federalist Society judge gets a chance to make a ruling on logging, or the Bush Administration gets their “forest fire protection” initiative passed. Those redwoods are under immediate threat. How much of that $2 million is down the drain? This kind of loss is happening more and more, because progressives and moderates have not built up the kind of infrastructure that works to change the underlying attitudes that would have prevented the losses suffered on November 5, and would bring forth immediate public reaction to nonsense like “forest fire protection” that is clearly intended to benefit logging companies.
An organization like the Commonweal Institute will increase the return on investment for organizations working on particular causes.
It’s Not About Politicians.
It’s not enough just to support organizations that fight for individual issues, or politicians with attractive programs and political parties with good platforms. Politicians and parties follow where the people are. And it especially isn’t enough to talk to others who are just like ourselves—we need to reach out to others, to involve more people. We must expand the base of citizens who actively support progressive and moderate programs and principles. Bringing the public back home is a big task, one that moderate and progressive politicians and parties can’t handle alone.
It is important to understand that there is a distinction between the idea development & communication process, and the political process. We aren’t going to change the country by choosing better politicians – we’re going to have to change the public’s underlying attitudes and willingness to get involved. It is after the attitude change occurs that the politicians and political parties can step in – they reap the results from a public that is primed to accept their programs. If we can do this work to change underlying attitudes our politicians will have an easier job – running on issues that the public understands, with programs they are ready to accept, rather than trying to introduce and explain our issues as part of their campaigns.
Growing the base.
Another effect of changing underlying public attitudes toward the moderate/progressive perspective will be the growth of the base of support for moderate and progressive organizations and politicians. Environmental, social, health, and other types of organizations will see their own funding base increase. They will also have some of their burden reduced as government again picks up some of the load.
Some good news.
Lack of money is not what has been handicapping moderates and progressives. There is actually a lot of money available on the moderate/progressive side. It just hasn’t been used as effectively as the money poured into right-wing idea machine infrastructure.
Much of the philanthropic money of moderates and progressives is donated on a program basis – funding specific programs attempting to achieve specific results, lots of pilot programs – but not enough general support for ongoing operations and not enough discretionary money directed to specific programs. The right has provided general operating funding – money that can be used any way the organizations want – as long as it is spent to further the right-wing ideological movement, according to their specific long-term strategic goals. Moderate and progressive philanthropy needs to do much more of this.
Until this funding pattern changes, organizations like the Commonweal Institute will need to be funded by individual donors who understand the necessity of the task at hand and want to help out.
Whew!
OK, I wrote a lot here today. Let me sum up:
Please visit Commonweal Institute’s new website. There are four points on the front page, each leading to more info on that subject.
Please take a look at the collection of resources on Commonweal’s Information Page. No matter what else you take from this, learning about what the right-wing has been doing and telling others is one of the most effective ways to immunize yourself and combat their pervasive messaging!
And, of course, if you agree that it is time to work “to restore balance to the marketplace of ideas,” please help build the Commonweal Institute.
And please, leave a comment here about all of this by clicking on the word "Comment" just below this sentence.
The Nov. 5 election confirms just how bad things are.
Do I have to describe the problem? The far-right is now the government. Everywhere we turn – us “liberals” or “progressives” or “moderates,” or whatever we choose to call ourselves – we suffer heartbreaking setbacks. We see environmental protections removed, industries allowed to violate laws, women's health programs losing funding, huge tax cuts for the ultra-rich – resulting in less and less money available for education, health care and all kinds of other social necessities. The list goes on and on and seems to get worse every day.
An approach to this problem
One approach to doing something about it is to learn how the right did it – and then do that. So I’d like to write about the right-wing movement's campaign to move the public to the right. By examining how it was done we can learn how to counter it, and move the public and the country back into balance, back to the center – back to sanity. And then I’ll describe the Commonweal Institute’s plan to do something about it.
Part 1 – What has been happening to us
Part 2 – What Commonweal Institute plans to do about it (Scroll down about 250-300 paragraphs)
Part 1 – What has been happening to us
Research.
I hooked up with the Commonweal Institute because I’ve been doing research into how the right has been able to be so effective. The growth of this ideological movement didn’t happen by accident. The American public has been the target of an ongoing, deliberate, planned campaign to push them to the right. (The Commonweal Institute has put up a page of links to articles, reports and resources on this subject, at http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/information.html.)
There really was a plan.
You have to look back a few decades to see how it started. In the early 1970’s a small group of wealthy far-right and Christian-right individuals, foundations and corporations began funding a few think tanks and a number of front organizations with the intention of building a “movement.” Over time, using tons of cash, the right has built up an “idea machine” whose “idea product” is aggressively marketed to the public through a number of communications channels. But it really comes back to just a small number of individuals, foundations and corporations providing the underlying funding and coordination for it all.
Here’s how the process works:
Their “think tanks” come up with studies and policy papers that have the appearance of scholarship. These are the “ideas.” (Unlike legitimate scholarship, the results of this process are designed and selected to support their ideological agenda.) This information is translated by marketing and psychology professionals into “popular language” – easy-to-understand language that resonates emotionally and culturally rather than logically – with help from polling, focus groups, interviewing and other modern marketing techniques. The resulting simplified, “popularized” phrasing is pumped out to the public through a multitude of channels, by “experts” and “scholars” employed by the think tanks or otherwise paid by the movement. It is picked up and repeated – amplified – by far-right outlets such as the Drudge Report, NewsMax, Rush Limbaugh, Washington Times, Fox News, and a multitude of right-wing columnists, pundits, authors and celebrities.
Communications engine.
When the right gets going with their “communications engine” it’s hard to avoid being exposed to whatever their message-of-the-day might be. It seems to come from every direction you turn. It isn’t hard to understand that almost all of the voices on AM radio, all day and night, are part of the right-wing network. But people are not aware how many of the commentators on TV, how many of the op-ed pieces or letters to the editor in newspapers, “sources” and experts in news stories, “studies” referred to in magazine articles, and books reviewed in the paper actually originate from and are predominately funded by just the few sources.
Examples of “idea product.”
Here are some examples of right-wing “idea product” that is aggressively repeated, moving the public to the right. Perhaps you have heard the messages “public schools are failing,” “taxes take money out of the economy” or “Social Security is going broke.” You have probably heard these repeated so many times by so many “experts” that you think they are true – established facts. “Everybody knows” these things. They have become “conventional wisdom.” But they’re not true. These messages were designed to prime the public to accept specific right-wing plans.
Politicians harvesting the results.
Over time the public becomes so inundated with the right-wing messaging – without hearing from opposing voices – that they come to believe what they are hearing. It is after this process that the right-wing politicians step in to harvest the results. Political candidates offering “solutions” to these widely-understood “problems” have an advantage over candidates who do not “offer alternatives.”
Without a capacity like that of the right wing to set the public agenda and frame the public debate, moderate and progressive politicians are at, and will remain at, a distinct disadvantage.
Long term strategy.
The right-wing movement follows a long-term strategy. Years before we heard about “vouchers" we started hearing that “public schools are failing.” This has been drummed into the public mind for so long that most people now believe that it’s a fact. After many years of this, along come the vouchers and other “competition” schemes. And the vouchers and other schemes are only steps along the road to the ultimate strategic goal – total privatization of schools. The right wingers say they want to get rid of “socialist schools” and they mean it.
Money, money, money.
In the 1990s this group of powerful right-wingers spent over $1 BILLION on this process. I’m not even talking about political contributions or 3rd-party issue ads. An incredible amount of money has gone into their efforts. Their think tanks and front organizations crank out these messages to such an extent that the far right now virtually monopolizes the nation’s “marketplace of ideas.”
And it hasn’t stopped. The largest right-wing think tank, the Heritage Foundation, will double its funding by the 2004 election. An additional $400 million will be pumped into over 500 other right wing groups influencing the public's views and perspectives on the key issues facing our nation.
That is a description of the process that has moved the public to the right over the last few decades. There is a lot of research available, detailing the establishment and financing of the movement, as well as the individuals, organizations, institutes and foundations involved. We have made available a collection of links at Commonweal Institute’s Information page, http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/information.html. I encourage everyone reading this to study these resources.
Understanding
Understanding what the right is doing and how they are doing it makes you less susceptible to it. Understanding seems to bring an immunity, you start to be able to spot the process at work. And understanding it helps you explain it to others. I strongly encourage you to take a look at the articles at Commonweal's information page, and refer others to this information. As more and more people understand what has been going on the right will be less and less effective.
It’s not just me.
Summing up this section, let me refer you to Scott Rosenberg’s Salon weblog, just the other day:
"What did the Republicans do in the 1970s? They went back to their roots and created institutions for the long-term. They spent money on think-tanks and local organizations and decided to build a new party from the ground up that appealed to conservatives. They elected Ronald Reagan in 1980, and the party they built then is the same party that Karl Rove is orchestrating today. The fringe-y think tanks of the '70s -- like the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute -- now provide an endless supply of talking-head and op-ed support for right-wing policies. And, give them credit, they're just full of ideas."
Part 2 – What Commonweal Institute plans to do about it
What is Commonweal Institute going to do?
The smartass answer is, we’re going to do what the right-wing movement has done. We’re going to be a “Heritage Foundation of the Left.”
Here’s the Commonweal Institute blurb:
The Commonweal Institute is a multi-issue research and educational institute - a think tank - committed to advancing moderate and progressive principles through strategic marketing and aggressive communication of ideas. Our goals: to restore balance to the marketplace of ideas; to revitalize and reenergize the democratic process; to advance the values of fairness, justice, and opportunity and to help create a equitable society with sustainable economic development.The Commonweal Institute is a "think tank" and "communications engine" that will use methods like those used to market everyday products—just like those that the right wing has used so effectively to dominate our nation’s marketplace of ideas. We are committed not only to developing ideas through the think tank part – the research and education institution part – of our concept, but also to advancing moderate and progressive principles through strategic marketing and aggressive communication of ideas. This is the communications engine part of the concept.
The Commonweal Institute will pursue a long term strategy. Our long-term goal is to move people’s underlying attitudes away from the right wing’s agenda and back to a moderate/progressive perspective.
A very important distinction.
Let me get one thing out of the way right now. When I say Commonweal Institute is going to “do what the right does,” I do NOT mean we are going to lie, deceive, mislead, trick and/or fool the public.
We progressives and moderates have a clear advantage in this battle of ideas. Put simply, our task is not to convince blue-collar workers to give up their Social Security, pensions, healthcare, environmental protections, worker protections and all the rest of the social benefits and protections we have built over the years so that some rich white guy can have a bigger jet. That’s what the right wing movement does. That’s why with all the billions spent and all the domination of the media they STILL can’t get past 50%, even after convincing most people not to even vote! We don’t have to lie, trick or otherwise fool the public to get them thinking our way.
Changing underlying attitudes takes work.
People respond best to stories that trigger an emotional response, using words that evoke images in the mind and metaphors that hook facts to their deeper feelings, giving them a sense of “Oh yeah, that's right.” Just like the right, we will use contemporary marketing and public relations techniques such as polling, interviewing and focus groups to identify the deeper concerns of target groups. We will “translate” the “idea product” of think tanks and organizations into this kind of specialized language.
Creating our own conventional wisdom.
Just as the right has repeated “public schools are failing” and “Social Security is going broke,” in order to lead people to their agenda, the Commonweal Institute will create honest conventional wisdom that reflects moderate and progressive principles.
Infrastructure.
The kind of organization we’re talking about creating with Commonweal Institute is “infrastructure.” This is the kind of organization that the right has built up. It does not necessarily support particular causes – it is “multi-issue.” The particular infrastructure need that Commonweal Institute will address is to change underlying public attitudes, by putting out a more general message to a wide mainstream audience. It will translate particular issues into a wider framework of understanding and communicate that perspective to a wide, mainstream audience.
Reaching a wide audience.
One of the methods the Commonweal Institute will use is to reach out to wide, diverse audiences, using multiple channels of communication. Commonweal will also target specific demographic groups with targeted messages. Commonweal’s channels of communication will include books, articles, columns, commentaries, letters to the editor, newsletters, on-line information, expert speakers, scholars, talk show guests, video clips, tapes, media training for activists and advertisements, as well as providing talking points and other ready-to-go materials for use by opinion leaders, candidates, public speakers, educators, activists and the general public.
While single-issue organizations offer similar resources for their issues, they tend to be financially dependant on regularly reaching out to their own base of supporters. Many have limited budgets and cannot reach as many as they would like. Fundraising is difficult and ongoing, and it makes sense to reach people who will tend to support your cause. It isn’t typically economical for single-issue organizations to spend the money to reach out to the mainstream general public. So out of necessity there is a lot of preaching to the converted. Also they tend more and more to be fighting shorter-term defensive battles, as they are under constant attack by the right-wing movement.
To reach out to wide general audiences, talking about a number of issues, you need a different kind of organization. We need to fund and develop infrastructure – a multi-issue research and communications engine. This is what Commonweal Institute is.
Return on investment.
Let’s say you support an organization that is working to protect the remaining California redwoods. Let’s say that this organization has spent $200,000 a year for 10 years, or $2 million. Now, after the November 5 election, let’s say that one Federalist Society judge gets a chance to make a ruling on logging, or the Bush Administration gets their “forest fire protection” initiative passed. Those redwoods are under immediate threat. How much of that $2 million is down the drain? This kind of loss is happening more and more, because progressives and moderates have not built up the kind of infrastructure that works to change the underlying attitudes that would have prevented the losses suffered on November 5, and would bring forth immediate public reaction to nonsense like “forest fire protection” that is clearly intended to benefit logging companies.
An organization like the Commonweal Institute will increase the return on investment for organizations working on particular causes.
It’s Not About Politicians.
It’s not enough just to support organizations that fight for individual issues, or politicians with attractive programs and political parties with good platforms. Politicians and parties follow where the people are. And it especially isn’t enough to talk to others who are just like ourselves—we need to reach out to others, to involve more people. We must expand the base of citizens who actively support progressive and moderate programs and principles. Bringing the public back home is a big task, one that moderate and progressive politicians and parties can’t handle alone.
It is important to understand that there is a distinction between the idea development & communication process, and the political process. We aren’t going to change the country by choosing better politicians – we’re going to have to change the public’s underlying attitudes and willingness to get involved. It is after the attitude change occurs that the politicians and political parties can step in – they reap the results from a public that is primed to accept their programs. If we can do this work to change underlying attitudes our politicians will have an easier job – running on issues that the public understands, with programs they are ready to accept, rather than trying to introduce and explain our issues as part of their campaigns.
Growing the base.
Another effect of changing underlying public attitudes toward the moderate/progressive perspective will be the growth of the base of support for moderate and progressive organizations and politicians. Environmental, social, health, and other types of organizations will see their own funding base increase. They will also have some of their burden reduced as government again picks up some of the load.
Some good news.
Lack of money is not what has been handicapping moderates and progressives. There is actually a lot of money available on the moderate/progressive side. It just hasn’t been used as effectively as the money poured into right-wing idea machine infrastructure.
Much of the philanthropic money of moderates and progressives is donated on a program basis – funding specific programs attempting to achieve specific results, lots of pilot programs – but not enough general support for ongoing operations and not enough discretionary money directed to specific programs. The right has provided general operating funding – money that can be used any way the organizations want – as long as it is spent to further the right-wing ideological movement, according to their specific long-term strategic goals. Moderate and progressive philanthropy needs to do much more of this.
Until this funding pattern changes, organizations like the Commonweal Institute will need to be funded by individual donors who understand the necessity of the task at hand and want to help out.
Whew!
OK, I wrote a lot here today. Let me sum up:
Please visit Commonweal Institute’s new website. There are four points on the front page, each leading to more info on that subject.
Please take a look at the collection of resources on Commonweal’s Information Page. No matter what else you take from this, learning about what the right-wing has been doing and telling others is one of the most effective ways to immunize yourself and combat their pervasive messaging!
And, of course, if you agree that it is time to work “to restore balance to the marketplace of ideas,” please help build the Commonweal Institute.
And please, leave a comment here about all of this by clicking on the word "Comment" just below this sentence.
11/10/2002
The Black Box
Has anyone heard what became of the "black box" flight recorder on Paul Wellstone's plane? The plane was legally required to carry one. Have they found it, and what did it show?
Dems Moving to the Right -- Should Check BuzzFlash Instead
The NY Times today has this analysis claiming that the Democrats lost so many races because "White Moderates" voted Republican. This is probably true, but what does it mean? Does it mean that Democrats need to move to the right to get votes?
My thinking on Democrats moving to the right in response:
The right currently dominates the channels of communication reaching most Americans, and therefore dominate the messaging most Americans receive.
Most Americans do not know what the Administration is DOING, only what they are SAYING. They have no idea of the radical right-wing changes taking place in our country's policies.
White moderates THINK that Republicans are moderates & Democrats are out-of-touch liberals, because that's what they are being messaged by the available information sources.
The Republicans will ALWAYS paint themselves as moderates, and Democrats as "extremist liberals," and will get away with it as long as they control the channels of communication.
As Democrats move to the right in response to this voting pattern it enables the Republicans to move FURTHER to the right.
This has allowed the Bush Administration to move much, much farther to the right than Reagan.
As the Democratic Party moves to the right the Democratic base is eroding - either to Greens or not voting - without growing the base from the middle/right toward which it is moving.
Using conventional media with conventional communications methods there is no way to reach most Americans and alter this cycle.
My conclusion on Democrats moving to the right:
Moving to the right does not improve Democratic prospects, erodes the Democratic base, and harms the country. Right-wing domination of communications channels allows the right to frame public perception of Democratic and Republican positions, so Democratic repositioning is worse than useless - it allows the Republicans to move ever further to the right in response. It also alienates those of us who are Democrats for reasons of principle.
My thoughts on the communication channel problem:
In the 80's the right faced a similar problem (from its perspective) and devised different communication methods to reach the public. Their base learned where to find them. Talk radio, for example. Drudge. (Unfortunately these included bombastic ridicule, insults, accusations, lies, etc. Remember Newt's rise, on C-SPAN?)
The right's base grew as a result of being able to freely communicate their perspective through these new channels.
You can get good information on the web.
Those of us who are getting information on the web are getting very different information than what most Americans are getting.
Because of this most of us don't understand how different our understanding of events is from what most Americans are thinking.
Progressive ranks are growing as a result of the information available on the web.
People in possession of information makes a difference. They are able to inform and influence others.
The right effectively uses The Drudge Report as a centralized information distribution source from the right-wing perspective. (It used to be Limbaugh, but the Internet came along, so now Limbaugh is often repeating what's on Drudge.) If something appears on Drudge, you soon see it running through most communication channels.
We need to get as many people as possible checking a good centralized online news source for information that comes from our perspective.
From what I can find, BuzzFlash is the best online daily news source from our perspective. (Even with its odd name.)
My suggestion for mitigating the right-wing domination of communications channels:
We need to encourage everyone we know to check BuzzFlash daily. A centralized source of progressive-perspective news will unify us, give us a place to unify and grow our base, while receiving the information to influence others. (And then, of course, get them all reading weblogs as well.)
My thinking on Democrats moving to the right in response:
My conclusion on Democrats moving to the right:
Moving to the right does not improve Democratic prospects, erodes the Democratic base, and harms the country. Right-wing domination of communications channels allows the right to frame public perception of Democratic and Republican positions, so Democratic repositioning is worse than useless - it allows the Republicans to move ever further to the right in response. It also alienates those of us who are Democrats for reasons of principle.
My thoughts on the communication channel problem:
My suggestion for mitigating the right-wing domination of communications channels:
We need to encourage everyone we know to check BuzzFlash daily. A centralized source of progressive-perspective news will unify us, give us a place to unify and grow our base, while receiving the information to influence others. (And then, of course, get them all reading weblogs as well.)
11/09/2002
Investigate Sept. 11
Counterspin Central says the #1 item on the Democrat's agenda should be to demand a public, independent investigation into September 11. I wholeheartedly agree. Go read about it.
11/08/2002
Too funny
This story is funny, with a great photo. On a more serious note,
The most recent Democratic travesty dates back to a precise moment in time: May 23, 2001. On that day, twelve Democratic senators voted to defund the Democratic agenda on which they had been elected. They supported the Bush scheme to award most of the Clinton surplus to wealthy Republicans. From that time forward, the game plan was to protect the Dirty Dozen from the embarrassment that would come with exposing the moral bankruptcy of Bush economics. The Democratic Party refused to advocate the Democratic economic platform and, in the process, lost credibility with its own voters. Now it has also lost many of the Quislings who supported the tax heist, which means that the party discarded principle in exchange for failure.Actually this is a different (and better) way of saying what I wrote in Mostly Zell. Daschle was hamstrung having to protect the Democratic Senate majority, with Zell maybe going to leave the party. To go forward from here, perhaps we need to ask some of these "Republicans Lite" to please leave the party. A good criteria for that might be the ones that voted for the Bush tax cut.
11/07/2002
The Donor Class
How do you get the Democrats to be something other than Republicans Lite, when politics depends on money?
Campaign consultants get a cut of the money a candidate spends on TV ads. So campaign consultants tell candidates it is vitally important to spend tons of cash on TV. So candidates need to raise tons of cash in a limited time period. So they need to appeal to people with the means to give $1000 contributions. Any way you cut it people who can freely give $1000 contributions are rich people. So the candidate spends his or her time associating with the rich - The Donor Class - appealing to them for money. So the candidate's viewpoint naturally amends itself to the concerns of the people the candidate spends time with and depends on.
While money is always important, campaigns USED TO have get-out-the-vote (GOTV) mechanisms in place. Poll watchers, block captains, precinct captains and volunteers - all geared toward getting out the vote. Several years ago the national Democrats largely abandoned local GOTV in favor of putting their resources behind TV ads.
Poll watching works - I know it does because I increased the Democratic turnout in my precinct by 20%. It wasn't a matter of great skill, mostly it was a phone call telling them where the polling place was, maybe offering a ride. (Increasing by 20% meant getting 6 more people to vote in a precinct where 30 Democrats had already voted, but increasing is increasaing and that is a good thing.) While unions contributed to a GOTV effort this time, it wasn't enough and was starting largely from scratch. The old way, the block captain knew everyone on the block and talked to them about why they should vote Democratic and then got them to the polls on election day. I was calling strangers, starting that afternoon.
We just had an election where more money than ever was spent on TV ads, with the lowest voter turnout ever. Maybe now you know where I'm going with this. Maybe Democrats DON'T need to put all that money into TV ads.
If we're going to rebuild a Democratic Party that isn't a Republican Party Lite, we will have to reduce the dependence on the Donor Class. Building a strong GOTV machine, precinct-by-precinct is the way to get the job done.
Campaign consultants get a cut of the money a candidate spends on TV ads. So campaign consultants tell candidates it is vitally important to spend tons of cash on TV. So candidates need to raise tons of cash in a limited time period. So they need to appeal to people with the means to give $1000 contributions. Any way you cut it people who can freely give $1000 contributions are rich people. So the candidate spends his or her time associating with the rich - The Donor Class - appealing to them for money. So the candidate's viewpoint naturally amends itself to the concerns of the people the candidate spends time with and depends on.
While money is always important, campaigns USED TO have get-out-the-vote (GOTV) mechanisms in place. Poll watchers, block captains, precinct captains and volunteers - all geared toward getting out the vote. Several years ago the national Democrats largely abandoned local GOTV in favor of putting their resources behind TV ads.
Poll watching works - I know it does because I increased the Democratic turnout in my precinct by 20%. It wasn't a matter of great skill, mostly it was a phone call telling them where the polling place was, maybe offering a ride. (Increasing by 20% meant getting 6 more people to vote in a precinct where 30 Democrats had already voted, but increasing is increasaing and that is a good thing.) While unions contributed to a GOTV effort this time, it wasn't enough and was starting largely from scratch. The old way, the block captain knew everyone on the block and talked to them about why they should vote Democratic and then got them to the polls on election day. I was calling strangers, starting that afternoon.
We just had an election where more money than ever was spent on TV ads, with the lowest voter turnout ever. Maybe now you know where I'm going with this. Maybe Democrats DON'T need to put all that money into TV ads.
If we're going to rebuild a Democratic Party that isn't a Republican Party Lite, we will have to reduce the dependence on the Donor Class. Building a strong GOTV machine, precinct-by-precinct is the way to get the job done.
Iraq and Election
Suppose the Democratic leadership had taken Bush's war vote demand and said, "It is inappropriate to bring this to use immediately before the election. We'll be glad to take this up after the election, but we are not going to bring this to the Senate floor now."
1) It places a focus on Bush's motives for bringing this to the Congress just before the election. One lesson we learned from VietNam is that the country must be united behind any military action we undertake. Nothing could be more divisive than introducing this war vote into the election campaign. Sensible leadership would do everything they could to AVOID the divisiveness of having the war debate occur during campaign season. But this was planned to occur DURING campaign season. Bush is a divider,not a uniter.
2) It changes the Iraq debate to a question of the immediacy of the threat, which then changes the debate to a question of the necessity of the action. If it isn't immediate - he's a month from getting a nuke, or something like that - then why not have inspectors in there instead of invading?
3) It places the Democrats on the side of "dealing with Iraq," but at an appropriate time.
But this didn't happen. The country is divided about 50/50 on whether to go to war, with most of those in favor erroneously believing that Iraq was behind 9/11 AND that they have nukes now, and many of those opposed convinced that the President has lied to the public and manipulated the election.
1) It places a focus on Bush's motives for bringing this to the Congress just before the election. One lesson we learned from VietNam is that the country must be united behind any military action we undertake. Nothing could be more divisive than introducing this war vote into the election campaign. Sensible leadership would do everything they could to AVOID the divisiveness of having the war debate occur during campaign season. But this was planned to occur DURING campaign season. Bush is a divider,not a uniter.
2) It changes the Iraq debate to a question of the immediacy of the threat, which then changes the debate to a question of the necessity of the action. If it isn't immediate - he's a month from getting a nuke, or something like that - then why not have inspectors in there instead of invading?
3) It places the Democrats on the side of "dealing with Iraq," but at an appropriate time.
But this didn't happen. The country is divided about 50/50 on whether to go to war, with most of those in favor erroneously believing that Iraq was behind 9/11 AND that they have nukes now, and many of those opposed convinced that the President has lied to the public and manipulated the election.
Rove's Current Scam
Karl Rove's current spin scam is that the Republicans have won the right to make major changes to the country just because they've got a couple more votes in the Congress than the Democrats have. This is an evenly divided country, which means there should be legislation right in the middle, not on the far right. Government is supposed to be about what's good for the country and what the people want, not what's good for the Party and what the Party wants. It's really early here - I'll write more later.
11/06/2002
More Worldcom Corruption
Get used to coincidental news stories like the following: (Really, read down to the punchline, I mean, the third headline.)
SEC Expands Charges Against WorldCom, "The government on Tuesday expanded its civil fraud charges against WorldCom and the company raised its estimate of inflated earnings to more than $9 billion in one of the most stunning accounting scandals of the past year."
WorldCom fraud reaches $9bn, "In a court filing in New York, the SEC said that WorldCom has admitted that it concealed $9bn in expenses, all of which was converted into false profits."
Also in the news today today, WorldCom Gets Veterans Affairs Deal, "WorldCom Inc., a recent target of labor and consumer groups seeking to bar it from government work, has won a contract to provide long-distance services for the Department of Veterans Affairs"
Remember when Bush came into office, and promptly changed the rules so that corporations convicted of breaking laws - including defrauding the government - could again get lucrative government contracts? Read about it here.
SEC Expands Charges Against WorldCom, "The government on Tuesday expanded its civil fraud charges against WorldCom and the company raised its estimate of inflated earnings to more than $9 billion in one of the most stunning accounting scandals of the past year."
WorldCom fraud reaches $9bn, "In a court filing in New York, the SEC said that WorldCom has admitted that it concealed $9bn in expenses, all of which was converted into false profits."
Also in the news today today, WorldCom Gets Veterans Affairs Deal, "WorldCom Inc., a recent target of labor and consumer groups seeking to bar it from government work, has won a contract to provide long-distance services for the Department of Veterans Affairs"
Remember when Bush came into office, and promptly changed the rules so that corporations convicted of breaking laws - including defrauding the government - could again get lucrative government contracts? Read about it here.
Mostly Zell
Today I've ranted about how the Democrats let the Republicans fight dirty, how the public doesn't get information to make informed choices, and how us bloggers need to read what we write and not be so optimistic that things will turn out. Now I'll try to write about what happened and what to do.
I blame Zell, and at the same time I thank him for sticking around until now and saving the country.
Daschle did what he had to do to lead the Senate. Keeping the majority in the Senate was literally saving the country. So Daschle had to make the sacrifices that had to be made to try to hold that majority, with Senator Zell Miller of Georgia ready to bolt at any time, and other Democrats running for the Senate who had voted for Bush's tax cuts. This is why the Democrats could not run against Bush's tax cuts. That's over now and I can't blame Daschle at all.
Now things are different. I think now would be a good time to politely ask Zell to leave the Democratic Party and confirm the Republicans as the Party of the Confederacy. And maybe a few others should think about leaving. The Democrats are the minority party now and do not have to try to hold Zell and those others in the party just to keep the majority. Goodbye, thanks for helping save the country, but it's time to rebuild the Demcoratic Party as the party of working people.
I blame Zell, and at the same time I thank him for sticking around until now and saving the country.
Daschle did what he had to do to lead the Senate. Keeping the majority in the Senate was literally saving the country. So Daschle had to make the sacrifices that had to be made to try to hold that majority, with Senator Zell Miller of Georgia ready to bolt at any time, and other Democrats running for the Senate who had voted for Bush's tax cuts. This is why the Democrats could not run against Bush's tax cuts. That's over now and I can't blame Daschle at all.
Now things are different. I think now would be a good time to politely ask Zell to leave the Democratic Party and confirm the Republicans as the Party of the Confederacy. And maybe a few others should think about leaving. The Democrats are the minority party now and do not have to try to hold Zell and those others in the party just to keep the majority. Goodbye, thanks for helping save the country, but it's time to rebuild the Demcoratic Party as the party of working people.
The Democrats
(Written this morning, not posted until now.)
The Democrats showed up at a hockey game with badminton rackets. The Republicans weren't there to play hockey, either - they brought machine guns.
Here's what I'm talking about. In Georgia, (as had been done with Bush vs McCain in the South Carolina primary), the Republicans ran a draft-dodger against a war hero and won by questioning the war-hero's patriotism. (Meanwhile, in Washington, the Republicans were quietly cutting Veterans' benefits and health care.) They pulled it off by, as Joe Conason put it, fomenting an atmosphere of war to scare the shit out of the public and silence opposing voices. Was that good for the country? WHO CARES? The Republicans didn't care, and the Democrats didn't make it an issue.
The Democrats don't get it. The Republican Party has been completely taken over by the far-far-right, and it is a new game. It isn't about policy. It isn't about what is good for the country. The Republican approach is, "What is it that we need to get the public to believe in order to get them to vote for us, how do we get them to believe it, and how do we keep them believing it?"
Look at it this way, if focus groups showed that a certain key group of South Dakota Democrats would not vote for Tom Daschle if they learned that he had secretly received a medal from the King of Siam, there would be a story on the Drudge Report that he had received a medal from the King of Siam, and it would be repeated in the Washington Times, and Rush Limbaugh would pick it up, and soon every media outlet in the country would be talking about it.
The story would have no basis in reality whatsoever – and that would not matter. Remember the story about Clinton selling Arlington National Cemetery plots? The public thinks there were "Clinton Scandals," even though every single charge was proven false! That's how it works. You don't fight this kind of accusation by saying "No, I didn’t." You can't fight this sort of thing that way. You fight it by exposing the operation so the public sees what is going on underneath the phony stories.
The Democrats need to get in the game.
The Democrats showed up at a hockey game with badminton rackets. The Republicans weren't there to play hockey, either - they brought machine guns.
Here's what I'm talking about. In Georgia, (as had been done with Bush vs McCain in the South Carolina primary), the Republicans ran a draft-dodger against a war hero and won by questioning the war-hero's patriotism. (Meanwhile, in Washington, the Republicans were quietly cutting Veterans' benefits and health care.) They pulled it off by, as Joe Conason put it, fomenting an atmosphere of war to scare the shit out of the public and silence opposing voices. Was that good for the country? WHO CARES? The Republicans didn't care, and the Democrats didn't make it an issue.
The Democrats don't get it. The Republican Party has been completely taken over by the far-far-right, and it is a new game. It isn't about policy. It isn't about what is good for the country. The Republican approach is, "What is it that we need to get the public to believe in order to get them to vote for us, how do we get them to believe it, and how do we keep them believing it?"
Look at it this way, if focus groups showed that a certain key group of South Dakota Democrats would not vote for Tom Daschle if they learned that he had secretly received a medal from the King of Siam, there would be a story on the Drudge Report that he had received a medal from the King of Siam, and it would be repeated in the Washington Times, and Rush Limbaugh would pick it up, and soon every media outlet in the country would be talking about it.
The story would have no basis in reality whatsoever – and that would not matter. Remember the story about Clinton selling Arlington National Cemetery plots? The public thinks there were "Clinton Scandals," even though every single charge was proven false! That's how it works. You don't fight this kind of accusation by saying "No, I didn’t." You can't fight this sort of thing that way. You fight it by exposing the operation so the public sees what is going on underneath the phony stories.
The Democrats need to get in the game.
It's the Information Sources, Stupid
Those of us who get our information over the internet have lost sight of the current state of America. WE are informed. They are not. WE get information. We are referred to articles from British or Indonesian or Israeli papers. They get fed stuff by those same news sources that we spend our time complaining about.
We are reading The Daily Howler. They're reading the blatantly biased stuff that The Daily Howler laughs at!
We mustn't forget that polls show that most people believe that Iraq was behind 9/11, that Iraq has nuclear weapons, etc. The public believes that this economy is Clinton's fault. The public believes that tax cuts for the rich "create jobs" and that the "Death Tax" will cost their kids. WE know these are false, they don't. How could they know? The aren't reading Seeing the Forest. They aren't reading Eschaton.
The stuff we are writing about is for real. This isn't just a bunch of people with computers fooling themselves. By and large the bloggers GET IT.
The Republicans get it, too. That's why they have made such an effort to bring the sources of information under their influence. The question is what to do about it.
We are reading The Daily Howler. They're reading the blatantly biased stuff that The Daily Howler laughs at!
We mustn't forget that polls show that most people believe that Iraq was behind 9/11, that Iraq has nuclear weapons, etc. The public believes that this economy is Clinton's fault. The public believes that tax cuts for the rich "create jobs" and that the "Death Tax" will cost their kids. WE know these are false, they don't. How could they know? The aren't reading Seeing the Forest. They aren't reading Eschaton.
The stuff we are writing about is for real. This isn't just a bunch of people with computers fooling themselves. By and large the bloggers GET IT.
The Republicans get it, too. That's why they have made such an effort to bring the sources of information under their influence. The question is what to do about it.
11/05/2002
Bitter Blogger
How much of what the liberal political bloggers write is about how manipulative is was to launch the Iraq war debate just before the election? How much of what we write is about how the press is totally slanted? How much of what we write is about how the timidity of the National Democrats drives people away from supporting them? How much of what we write is about how the information that the public receives is one-sided? How much of what we write is about the influence of money? How much of what we write is about the way that illogical emotional propaganda wins people over against their own interests? How much of what we write is about how the Republicans appeal to people through trickery and bribes? How much of what we write is about Republican voter suppression and intimidation in minority areas - not to mention purging voter roles?
How much of what we wrote about the election was hopeful denial of the very realities we write about? Considering what we write, what did we fucking expect?
How much of what we wrote about the election was hopeful denial of the very realities we write about? Considering what we write, what did we fucking expect?
Poll Watching
I'm taking a short break from election activities. This morning I was calling voters, using lists prepared by the Democrats. This afternoon I've been working at "poll watching."
THIS is how you win elections. I am assigned to a polling place. I have a list of registered Democrats from the precincts that vote at this polling place. Every few hours the polling place posts a list of people who have voted. (Actually they post the whole list of voters, and the people who have voted are crossed out.) I take that list, and cross out anyone that has voted who is also on my list of Democrats. Then I start trying to reach the ones who have not voted. Later in the day this will likely turn into a frenzy, and if there is time I'll be calling, maybe looking for people, and offering rides to the polls. My job is to get the rest of the people to vote.
I hope the Democrats are doing this everywhere, precinct by precinct. Here they are organized enough to be doing this, and we are looking for a Democratic "sweep" of every statewide office.
They way it used to work is every precinct had a "captain." That person lived in the precinct, walked from door to door through the year, got to know everyone and how they would vote, talked to anyone who could be persuaded and most important rounded them all up and got them to vote on election day. We need to bring that system back.
THIS is how you win elections. I am assigned to a polling place. I have a list of registered Democrats from the precincts that vote at this polling place. Every few hours the polling place posts a list of people who have voted. (Actually they post the whole list of voters, and the people who have voted are crossed out.) I take that list, and cross out anyone that has voted who is also on my list of Democrats. Then I start trying to reach the ones who have not voted. Later in the day this will likely turn into a frenzy, and if there is time I'll be calling, maybe looking for people, and offering rides to the polls. My job is to get the rest of the people to vote.
I hope the Democrats are doing this everywhere, precinct by precinct. Here they are organized enough to be doing this, and we are looking for a Democratic "sweep" of every statewide office.
They way it used to work is every precinct had a "captain." That person lived in the precinct, walked from door to door through the year, got to know everyone and how they would vote, talked to anyone who could be persuaded and most important rounded them all up and got them to vote on election day. We need to bring that system back.
Going Out to Help
I'm leaving now, to go help with Get Out The Vote efforts.
I hope I'll be at a victory party late into the night. See you tomorrow.
You shouldn't be reading this because you should also be out helping.
I hope I'll be at a victory party late into the night. See you tomorrow.
You shouldn't be reading this because you should also be out helping.
The Oil
Carve-up of oil riches begins,
The leader of the London-based Iraqi National Congress, Ahmed Chalabi, has met executives of three US oil multinationals to negotiate the carve-up of Iraq's massive oil reserves post-Saddam.
Disclosure of the meetings in October in Washington - confirmed by an INC spokesman - comes as Lord Browne, the head of BP, has warned that British oil companies have been squeezed out of post-war Iraq even before the first shot has been fired in any US-led land invasion.
Left Dumbs Down
Nicholas Kristoff has a column in today's NY Times, The Left Dumbs Down, in which he complains about "The Left" (it's actually a few people on the left) resorting to name-calling and conspiracy theories.
And what about people who AREN'T engaging in this stuff? They're singled out for extra criticism,
He says it sounds like Rush Limbaugh, that the White House team that executed Vince Foster must have struck again, and that this is a good day to reflect on this incivility.
OK, I will.
It worked. They won. And where were people like Kristoff in the Clinton years, when the Republicans were going nuts with conspiracies and accusations and insults and ridicule and incivility (all planned by polls, and focus group tested)? Criticizing Clinton.
And what about people who AREN'T engaging in this stuff? They're singled out for extra criticism,
It's true that Democratic politicians like Tom Daschle haven't joined the conspiratorial hysteria, but that's because they're ducking controversial issues and are frightened of offending centrists. Al Gore's speech last month on the economy blasted the administration without offering a single specific suggestion of what should be done.So the people who AREN'T engaging in incivility are only not doing so because they are cowards!
He says it sounds like Rush Limbaugh, that the White House team that executed Vince Foster must have struck again, and that this is a good day to reflect on this incivility.
OK, I will.
It worked. They won. And where were people like Kristoff in the Clinton years, when the Republicans were going nuts with conspiracies and accusations and insults and ridicule and incivility (all planned by polls, and focus group tested)? Criticizing Clinton.
11/04/2002
Nasty in Espanol
I've been getting this really nasty campaign e-mail, in Spanish. Anyone else getting it? I'll bet it is being masively spammed.
White people can translate this at Bablefish. Just paste this URL where it says Translate a Web Page: http://seetheforest.blogspot.com/ (And remember to choose Spanish to English.)
Muy queridos familiares y amigos:... and ...
Tengo urgentes noticias sobre las posiciones del partido demócrata sobre el aborto y la homosexualidad. Debido a que nuestra fe, nuestra familia y nuestros hijos son tan importantes, creo que es de vital importancia que ustedes estén en conocimiento de esto antes de que vayan a votar. el próximo Martes 5.de Noviembre.
CON RESPECTO AL ABORTO
Sabia usted que los demócratas en el Senado de Estados Unidos han votado vez tras vez a favor de mantener legal el aborto aun hasta el tercer trimestre de embarazo! Este cruel procedimiento implica que un bebé que esta por nacer, lo voltean para que salgan primero los pies y luego, antes de sacarle la cabecita, el medico le corta el cuello con un cuchillo punzante, le abre un hoyo al cerebro y le succiona los sesos al bebé. Todo esto lo hacen estos médicos sin anestesia. Debido a los Demócratas, esta practica de aborto, o mejor dicho, infanticidio, es legal hoy dÃa hasta los 9 meses de embarazo! Si señores, este criminal proceso es 100% legal y el partido demócrata quiere que permanezca legal. Los Republicanos han tratado de prohibir el “aborto de nacimiento parcial”, (como se llama oficialmente), por casi 10 años y los Demócratas han parado los esfuerzos de los Republicanos.
ADOPCIONES DE NINOS POR HOMOSEXUALESIt goes on...
Como si el matrimonio entre homosexuales no fuese lo suficientemente depravado, casi todos los Demócratas apoyan la adopción de niños por
homosexuales aun cuando padres de familia normales, hombre y mujer, esten listos y dispuestos para adoptar al mismo niño. Si los Demócratas
continúan bloqueando las nominaciones de los nombramientos judiciales del Presidente Bush, incluyendo el caso de Miguel Estrada a la segunda Corte mas alta del paÃs, y continúan ganando mas puestos estatales, las adopciones entre homosexuales y cuidado de niños por los sodomitas, se volverá algo generalizado y los niños sufrirán eternamente la implementación de estas medidas degeneradas.
White people can translate this at Bablefish. Just paste this URL where it says Translate a Web Page: http://seetheforest.blogspot.com/ (And remember to choose Spanish to English.)
Economic News
Factory Orders Continue to Decline, "Orders to U.S. factories fell for a second straight month in September. It was another setback for manufacturing, which has seen almost 2 million jobs evaporate over the last two years and is struggling not to sink even deeper into the quicksand of economic uncertainties. "
Layoffs soar 151 percent in October, "U.S. companies more than doubled their planned job cuts in October, a job placement firm said Monday."
Bets are on for an interest-rate cut, "The economic recovery is idling and financial markets think the Federal Reserve is ready to goose the accelerator."
October sales hint at problems ahead, "On a year-over-year basis, sales fell more than 30 percent for the Big Three. Even highly profitable Toyota (TM: news, chart, profile) saw sales fall more than 20 percent while more double-digit declines jarred the rest of the industry. Most important, the reports drive home the tenet that discounts can be very effective but do lose their impact over time."
My personal favorite from last week: Consumer Gloom May Cause Recession-Report, "Nearly six in 10 Americans rated the economy as poor in October, more than during last year's recession, a separate CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll said, despite optimism for better days next year. That gloom could soon drag on a recovery being driven almost entirely by consumer spending. "
TAKE TOMORROW OFF AND HELP GET OUT THE VOTE!
Update - Applied Materials to cut 11% of staff, "Applied Materials will cut 11 percent of its workforce due to an ongoing slowdown in the semiconductor industry, the world's largest maker of chip equipment announced on Monday."
Layoffs soar 151 percent in October, "U.S. companies more than doubled their planned job cuts in October, a job placement firm said Monday."
Bets are on for an interest-rate cut, "The economic recovery is idling and financial markets think the Federal Reserve is ready to goose the accelerator."
October sales hint at problems ahead, "On a year-over-year basis, sales fell more than 30 percent for the Big Three. Even highly profitable Toyota (TM: news, chart, profile) saw sales fall more than 20 percent while more double-digit declines jarred the rest of the industry. Most important, the reports drive home the tenet that discounts can be very effective but do lose their impact over time."
My personal favorite from last week: Consumer Gloom May Cause Recession-Report, "Nearly six in 10 Americans rated the economy as poor in October, more than during last year's recession, a separate CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll said, despite optimism for better days next year. That gloom could soon drag on a recovery being driven almost entirely by consumer spending. "
TAKE TOMORROW OFF AND HELP GET OUT THE VOTE!
Update - Applied Materials to cut 11% of staff, "Applied Materials will cut 11 percent of its workforce due to an ongoing slowdown in the semiconductor industry, the world's largest maker of chip equipment announced on Monday."
Economy Not Helping Democrats
New story, Polls: Voters Eye Domestic Issues.
If the Democrats wanted to run on economic issues, they could have made a lot more noise about the minimum wage, extending unemployment benefits, JOBS PROGRAMS, and other legislation to help working families. (Remember working families? They're the ones you represent, not the ones you get our money from.) To be fair, they've tried to talk about these things outside of the Congress, and the networks and papers won't cover them. But they could have done a LOT in the Congress to bring these issues front and center, and they didn't. They should have help everything up - expecially the war vote - pending action on programs for working people. Think about where they would be now, in this election, had they chosen to represent their constituents instead of rolling over for the Republicans.
Some political analysts have suggested that Democrats don't have an advantage on the economy because they haven't offered a clear alternative.It isn't when the slowdown started, it's what are they DOING ABOUT IT?!! And whether their policies, like tax cuts for the extremely rich, are helping or not.
Republican National Chairman Marc Racicot, also on NBC, said he isn't surprised Democrats haven't gained a clear advantage on the economy.
He cited international problems like terrorism that have affected the economy, and added: "This recession started before (President Bush (news - web sites)) took office. The American people know precisely what's going on."
If the Democrats wanted to run on economic issues, they could have made a lot more noise about the minimum wage, extending unemployment benefits, JOBS PROGRAMS, and other legislation to help working families. (Remember working families? They're the ones you represent, not the ones you get our money from.) To be fair, they've tried to talk about these things outside of the Congress, and the networks and papers won't cover them. But they could have done a LOT in the Congress to bring these issues front and center, and they didn't. They should have help everything up - expecially the war vote - pending action on programs for working people. Think about where they would be now, in this election, had they chosen to represent their constituents instead of rolling over for the Republicans.
More Microsoft
Going back in time, I took a look at Common Cause's 2000 report The Microsoft Playbook.
My personal favorite, "Just before the 1998 election, Microsoft gave $25,000 to the South Carolina Republican Party. Three weeks later, South Carolina Republican Attorney General Charles Condon pulled the state out of the anti-trust lawsuit filed against Microsoft."
My personal favorite, "Just before the 1998 election, Microsoft gave $25,000 to the South Carolina Republican Party. Three weeks later, South Carolina Republican Attorney General Charles Condon pulled the state out of the anti-trust lawsuit filed against Microsoft."
11/03/2002
Go See at Blah3
There's a great new spot over at Blah3, and it's about voting Tuesday so it's important. Go see it! Then send an e-mail to your friends about going to see it, too. AND about voting!
Hackers Take Down Black Commentator
From Black Commentator: "During the night of October 25, 2002 hackers destroyed approximately 6-8 servers owned by the company that provides hosting services for our Website."
They also say: "We do not believe the hacker attack was directed specifically at www.BlackCommentator.com."
However, "The hacker attack has delayed publication of issue 15 until Monday, November 4, 2002." The day before the election.
They also say: "We do not believe the hacker attack was directed specifically at www.BlackCommentator.com."
However, "The hacker attack has delayed publication of issue 15 until Monday, November 4, 2002." The day before the election.
Absolute and Total Bushit
Blame Game on Economy Seen as Pointless
Obviously Clinton made a difference. A huge difference. They don't want people to think about that as they head down to vote. Obviously FDR made a huge, huge difference that raised the country to a level of prosperity unimagined before he came along.
And obviously Bush has made a difference - largely by inaction with a touch of take from the poor and give to the rich. Long-term unemployment. Falling from huge surpluses to massive deficits in a single year. Hell, I don't need to go on with the list, do I?
In fact, the blame game is a pointless one to some degree because economists say there's little the occupant of the White House Oval Office can do to directly affect the $10 trillion U.S. economy.How many times have you heard this repeated? The President can't do anything about the economy. It makes no difference. Don't vote. Don't blame Republicans when the stock market goes down, unemployment and deficits soar, wages drop, benefits go away, and the money concentrates at the top.
Obviously Clinton made a difference. A huge difference. They don't want people to think about that as they head down to vote. Obviously FDR made a huge, huge difference that raised the country to a level of prosperity unimagined before he came along.
And obviously Bush has made a difference - largely by inaction with a touch of take from the poor and give to the rich. Long-term unemployment. Falling from huge surpluses to massive deficits in a single year. Hell, I don't need to go on with the list, do I?
11/02/2002
Get on Board?
OK I'm thinking of throwing in the towel and buying 100 shares of Microsoft on Monday.
What do you think? There isn't anything that's going to stop them. They've got $40 BILLION in cash so they're either going to buy up a bunch of tech companies and/or start giving a dividend.
This is special - if you knew my history with Microsoft (it goes back to 1978 and none of it is good) you would be amazed that I'm writing this, but hey, if you can't beat 'em... Maybe I'll get on board and vote Republican, too. Maybe start smoking again?
I'm serious. What do you think? Should I buy the stock?
What do you think? There isn't anything that's going to stop them. They've got $40 BILLION in cash so they're either going to buy up a bunch of tech companies and/or start giving a dividend.
This is special - if you knew my history with Microsoft (it goes back to 1978 and none of it is good) you would be amazed that I'm writing this, but hey, if you can't beat 'em... Maybe I'll get on board and vote Republican, too. Maybe start smoking again?
I'm serious. What do you think? Should I buy the stock?
Imminent National Emergency
Bush is out campaigning every day now. What happened to the imminent national emergency that required the Congress to vote before the election?
Today's Paper
Two articles from this morning's paper, U.S. retreating on mahogany limit - (Subhead: POSITION ON DWINDLING FORESTS CALLED BETRAYAL)
The Bush administration is backing off a key global environmental initiative launched by the president's father, who proposed restricting trade in the wood from world's dwindling mahogany forests.and, U.S. ending support of world health plan - (Subhead: WHITE HOUSE, IN MOVE AGAINST ABORTION RIGHTS, REJECTS GLOBAL ACCORD)
The Bush administration has intensified its battle against abortion rights worldwide by stating that it can no longer support a landmark international agreement that established reproductive health care as a means to curb population growth.Take a moment to reflect on just how stunning and horrible these two stories are, and then a moment to reflect on all the reasons these two stories are not headlines in every paper in the country, with horrified citizens running out into the streets in protest.
11/01/2002
The Check Arrived
Looks like Microsoft made sure their check to the RNC arrived on time.
You can not purchase a computer that has Windows and another OS installed. You can not purchase a computer with a non-Microsoft word processor or spreadsheet or database program installed.
The proof is in the pudding. Does the Microsoft settlement open up competition? Answer - not a single competitor has received funding since the settlement. In the time since the "settlement" almost all Microsoft's competitors in these areas have been wiped out. There will be no incentive to invest in a competing company. Companies in areas that Microsoft is thinking of entering will not receive funding.
Everyone will pay more for computers and software. Windows is the most expensive single component in a computer. Microsoft Office costs more than $400 and you can't really use a computer without it.
But the worst part of this is that it demonstrates that the best way to deal with America's justice system is to pay cash to the Republican Party, not to follow the law.
You can not purchase a computer that has Windows and another OS installed. You can not purchase a computer with a non-Microsoft word processor or spreadsheet or database program installed.
The proof is in the pudding. Does the Microsoft settlement open up competition? Answer - not a single competitor has received funding since the settlement. In the time since the "settlement" almost all Microsoft's competitors in these areas have been wiped out. There will be no incentive to invest in a competing company. Companies in areas that Microsoft is thinking of entering will not receive funding.
Everyone will pay more for computers and software. Windows is the most expensive single component in a computer. Microsoft Office costs more than $400 and you can't really use a computer without it.
But the worst part of this is that it demonstrates that the best way to deal with America's justice system is to pay cash to the Republican Party, not to follow the law.
Bubbling
Stocks are bubbling along. Earlier this week stocks rose because the economic data was so bad that investors decided that the Fed will cut interest rates 1/2 point next week. Today's report, stocks are rising because the really bad economic data, though worse than expected, wasn't as bad as it could have been. "Stocks ticked higher in late morning trade on Friday as October's momentum swept into a fresh month with investors reckoning that weak jobs and manufacturing data could have been worse."
The new Standard & Poors "core earnings" - earnings without lots of gimmicks and tricks - showed the S&P 500 at a P/E ratio of 57 last week. Stocks are up since then. The current non-core PE of the S&P 500 is 23.6. For perspective, the PE of the S&P in October 1929 was 21, and of the DOW was 17 - BEFORE THE CRASH. Stocks are currently priced higher than where stocks crashed from in 1929. Using "core earnings" we are higher by a factor of about 2.3 times.
The new Standard & Poors "core earnings" - earnings without lots of gimmicks and tricks - showed the S&P 500 at a P/E ratio of 57 last week. Stocks are up since then. The current non-core PE of the S&P 500 is 23.6. For perspective, the PE of the S&P in October 1929 was 21, and of the DOW was 17 - BEFORE THE CRASH. Stocks are currently priced higher than where stocks crashed from in 1929. Using "core earnings" we are higher by a factor of about 2.3 times.
10/31/2002
Well, DUH!
Bush, and the whole right wing crowd, like to say that taxes "take money out of the economy." The New York Times has an article, Do Lower Taxes Mean Faster Economic Growth?
There's more - the whole article is worth reading.
But the degree of misleading information emanating from both Washington and the media about how taxes affect the economy is disturbing. As I listen to the radio, watch TV news and read a variety of newspapers, it seems that quite a few Americans, including economics writers and media hosts, think that low-tax countries unquestionably grow faster than high-tax economies. Right and left, they seem to attribute more rapid growth in America to lower taxes.I thought that this was a settled question decades ago. Redistribution of income from the top to the broad consuming public stimulates our CONSUMER ECONOMY. Clinton raised taxes at the top and cut taxes at the bottom and look what happened. Bush cut taxes at the top and cut services for the middle and bottom and look what happened. Well, DUH!
What may surprise them is that there is no evidence for that. "You can make a theoretical case that high taxes impede economic growth, but it is just not supported by the evidence in the U.S. or across countries," said William Easterly, a former World Bank economist soon to join the faculty of New York University.
There's more - the whole article is worth reading.
MyDD
Are they going to have Reagan die? Seeing the Wellstone effect, the Republicans might have Reagan die this weekend. Check out this at MyDD.
Didn't Take Long
The Bush people appointed William Webster to head the accounting oversight board, when was it, Friday? This was after corporate types got Bush to kill the appointment of a serious investigator who would clean up the corporate mess.
So take a look at this story, SEC to Investigate Watchdog Pick. It seems that SEC Chair Harvey Pitt concealed from the SEC that his choice to head the accounting oversight board had headed an auditing committee of a company facing fraud charges.
These clowns think they can get away with anything. Can they?
So take a look at this story, SEC to Investigate Watchdog Pick. It seems that SEC Chair Harvey Pitt concealed from the SEC that his choice to head the accounting oversight board had headed an auditing committee of a company facing fraud charges.
These clowns think they can get away with anything. Can they?
10/30/2002
FAIR
Tom Tomorrow points to Fair's page, "Why U.N. inspectors left Iraq--then and now." It has examples of what various news organizations said back when the inspectors were pulled out, and say now to better fit Bush's lie that they were kicked out. Well worth a look. Here's one example:
The U.N. orders its weapons inspectors to leave Iraq after the chief inspector reports Baghdad is not fully cooperating with them.Soon Winston Smith will be changing old videotapes to reflect today's line.
-- Sheila MacVicar, ABC World News This Morning, 12/16/98
To bolster its claim, Iraq let reporters see one laboratory U.N. inspectors once visited before they were kicked out four years ago.
--John McWethy, ABC World News Tonight, 8/12/02
Sideshow, About Iraq
First I was pretty upset about Paul Wellstone's death. Then I was too busy to write much. Still am. So go read what Sideshow writes about Iraq. My comment, and my entry on the subject, is, "Yeah, what she said."
Well, more, actually. Sideshow writes, "Having already proceeded on a course to create a diplomatic nightmare prior to 9/11..." I've been meaning to say a few words about this. I think US policy leading up to 9/11 deserves more attention. I remember how Bush was swinging US Middle Eastern policy entirely away from the previous (and necessary) role of semi-neutral mediator. After Bush made statements entirely blaming Arafat and the Palestinians for the conflict, I remember saying to my wife that it seemed as though Bush was intentionally trying to start a war. This should be part of any investigation of events leading up to 9/11. Fat chance.
Well, more, actually. Sideshow writes, "Having already proceeded on a course to create a diplomatic nightmare prior to 9/11..." I've been meaning to say a few words about this. I think US policy leading up to 9/11 deserves more attention. I remember how Bush was swinging US Middle Eastern policy entirely away from the previous (and necessary) role of semi-neutral mediator. After Bush made statements entirely blaming Arafat and the Palestinians for the conflict, I remember saying to my wife that it seemed as though Bush was intentionally trying to start a war. This should be part of any investigation of events leading up to 9/11. Fat chance.
Got a Letter Today
I got a letter today:
This new Bush/Harken insider trading revelation has really got me steamed:So I asked him if I can post the message, and he writes:
Board was told of risks before Bush stock sale
Harken memo went to SEC after probe
By Michael Kranish and Beth Healy, Globe Staff, 10/30/2002
WASHINGTON - One week before George W. Bush's now-famous sale of stock in Harken Energy Corp. in 1990, Harken was warned by its lawyers that Bush and other members of the troubled oil company's board faced possible insider trading risks if they unloaded their shares.
These fucking pukes. Bush had the audacity to lie to the American people and suggest that matter had been looked into and he had been cleared. But now we learn that not only was he warned by Harken's legal team, they hid the warning form the SEC when it investigated HIM for insider trading. Seems to me that means they or Bush are guilty of Obstruction of Justice, in addition to insider trading.
I gotta go for a walk and calm down. The hypocrisy is of these people is so damn maddening.
You can print it and use my name. I want the whole damn country to know what liars, swindlers and cheats these people are.But I didn't post his name.
The GOP Thugs spent $70,000,000 destroying Clinton over lying about sex under oath and alleged crimes as involving the Whitewater affair. Bush's Harken dealings are text book insider trading dealings, and Harken Energy's off the balance sheet manipulations and phony profit reporting behavior/dealings pre-dated ENRON yet could have been used by ENRON as a how to guide.
Wellstone
I'm late getting this posted. The Hamster has suggested that a fitting tribute to Senator Wellstone would be to read Wellstone's 2001 book, "Conscience of a Liberal." I agree.
Radio Day
Relating directly to the previous entry, President Bush is planning an election-related "Radio Day" today, with radio talk show hosts setting up on the White House lawn.
Just how blatant can the election manipulation get, before the public reacts?
No, wait a minute, if you listen to AM radio, or watch TV, or read local newspapers, you aren't going to get a chance to hear anyone suggest that there's anything improper about this -- or about the timing of the Iraq war vote. You're only going to hear about why you should vote Republican, and about how stupid "liberals" are, and about how markets are the best way to decide policy, and about how raising wages costs jobs, and about how estate taxes are "death taxes" rather than taxes on inherited income, etc.
The tent will be open from 6 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. for about 50 radio hosts and reporters to broadcast live to millions of listeners. Syndicated conservative hosts Oliver North and Sean Hannity will be there.All on paid government time, by the way. And what's this with allowing Ollie North back at the White House?
...
Guests for eight- to 10-minute interviews will include Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Attorney General John Ashcroft, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and Commerce Secretary Don Evans. Even White House staffers who rarely do interviews will make the rounds, including chief of staff Andy Card, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and senior adviser Karl Rove.
Just how blatant can the election manipulation get, before the public reacts?
No, wait a minute, if you listen to AM radio, or watch TV, or read local newspapers, you aren't going to get a chance to hear anyone suggest that there's anything improper about this -- or about the timing of the Iraq war vote. You're only going to hear about why you should vote Republican, and about how stupid "liberals" are, and about how markets are the best way to decide policy, and about how raising wages costs jobs, and about how estate taxes are "death taxes" rather than taxes on inherited income, etc.
Free Airtime
Republicans are complaining that Sen. Paul Wellstone's memorial service was broadcast on TV in Minnesota. They say it was giving "free airtime" to Democrats.
I guess we'll be hearing that complaint all day, nonstop, from now until the election on AM radio, and on the Fox News Network, and the Sunday talk shows, with no opposing voices whatsoever. We will if that's what the focus groups say works best for The Party.
I guess we'll be hearing that complaint all day, nonstop, from now until the election on AM radio, and on the Fox News Network, and the Sunday talk shows, with no opposing voices whatsoever. We will if that's what the focus groups say works best for The Party.
10/29/2002
War and Election
I think the Republicans are planning to try to force the UN to vote just before the election, bringing it back into the spotlight. This will be a test to see how blatantly they can try to manipulate the public and get away with it.
10/28/2002
Didn't get it.
A few people didn't get what I was saying. It was like they were saying, "The only good Democrat is a dead Democrat." OK? I guess I was being obscure.
The Only Good Indian
Over the weekend and continuing today I heard a lot of right-wing pundits talk about how Senator Paul Wellstone was such a great liberal, a man who stood on his principles, who stood for something, who was honest, how much they respected him, etc., not like those other Democrats who run with the polls, only do what they need to do to get elected, etc. Listening to them, it would seem that Paul Wellstone was the only Good Democrat.
10/26/2002
10/25/2002
Yeah, I'll Just Bet
Bush, "I would like to express my deep condolences for the loss of the Senate," Bush said shortly after hearing of Wellstone's death Friday. "And also, I would like to express my condolences to the bereaved family."
Yeah, right. If grief for Wellstone is what's on your mind here, how come you said "loss of the Senate?"
Update:Bush might not have said it.
Yeah, right. If grief for Wellstone is what's on your mind here, how come you said "loss of the Senate?"
Update:Bush might not have said it.
1968
This year is starting to remind me of 1968. A lot has happened. I feel like I felt after Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy were killed.
10/24/2002
Blog Recommendation
I want to recommend a blog called Thinking It Through. Seems to agree with me on many issues: must be brilliant. He does some good in-depth writing.
Read his column, Does the NRA Mistrust Democracy?
And today's entry, THE TALENT-CARNAHAN RACE AND POLITICS IN MISSOURI
Read his column, Does the NRA Mistrust Democracy?
And today's entry, THE TALENT-CARNAHAN RACE AND POLITICS IN MISSOURI
More No Law
Thanks to Tapped, here's a press release from the Dept. of Education, announcing a $600,000 government grant for a PR campaign to help The Party gain votes from black people.
A previous entry about Bush's education legislation.
A previous entry about Bush's education legislation.
No Law Anymore
Today's Washington Post, Bush Enlists Government in GOP Campaign.
Most of it, of course, illegal. Blatantly illegal. Not only that, but much of it is being paid for by the government, not The Party.
The 24/7 use of AM radio as a full-time Republicans Party advertisement is, of course, illegal as well.
But who is going to enforce these laws, the Bush Justice Department? HA!
Update - Imagine the uproar if Clinton were doing any of this.
Most of it, of course, illegal. Blatantly illegal. Not only that, but much of it is being paid for by the government, not The Party.
The 24/7 use of AM radio as a full-time Republicans Party advertisement is, of course, illegal as well.
But who is going to enforce these laws, the Bush Justice Department? HA!
Update - Imagine the uproar if Clinton were doing any of this.
10/23/2002
Voter Fraud
I've said a few times that I see the Republicans often using a sophisticated trick, where they accuse their opponents of doing something that they are actually doing themselves. It's called "inoculation." It masks their own activities, and makes the opponent look silly if they come back with an accusation of the Republicans doing the same thing they're accusing the opponent of. Like Bush accusing Gore of being willing to say or do anything to win, or Bush accusing Gore of being a liar.
They've become such smokescreen specialists, because they're usually trying to do things that they know the voters don't want. So sometimes to understand what the Republicans are up to you need to listen to what they're accusing the Democrats of being up to. (I said it's sophisticated, but maybe I meant it takes a lot of words to explain it.)
The Republicans have been making lots of accusations of voter fraud, and it's building up. Right now Drudge has no fewer than 5 voter fraud stories posted. Meanwhile, in Dallas the voting machines are acting funny. (Eschaton again.) Remember, these are machines that do not generate paper which can be checked against the totals! These are voting machines from one of the companies in the story I wrote about a ways back, about how right-wingers are quietly buying up all the voting machine companies.
They've become such smokescreen specialists, because they're usually trying to do things that they know the voters don't want. So sometimes to understand what the Republicans are up to you need to listen to what they're accusing the Democrats of being up to. (I said it's sophisticated, but maybe I meant it takes a lot of words to explain it.)
The Republicans have been making lots of accusations of voter fraud, and it's building up. Right now Drudge has no fewer than 5 voter fraud stories posted. Meanwhile, in Dallas the voting machines are acting funny. (Eschaton again.) Remember, these are machines that do not generate paper which can be checked against the totals! These are voting machines from one of the companies in the story I wrote about a ways back, about how right-wingers are quietly buying up all the voting machine companies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)