I'm a free trade skeptic, as is Dave. At a minimum, free trade has been oversold, without serious consideration of the transition costs and -- above all -- without concern for the particular people who are hurt (mostly labor). On the whole and in the long run, free trade may very well be a good thing, but right now for a lot of people it's a bad thing.
As a non-economist, I'm always at something of a loss arguing this point over at Brad DeLong's site. So here's Max Sawicky, an economist who isn't a born-again free-trader.
Read it all, but here's a sample: "Some people defend outsourcing on the grounds that its ill effects could be alleviated by a non-existent safety net. This cold comfort for obvious reasons. We might add that the trend in the Federal budget makes any such safety net ever more unlikely. Nor is the liberal urge to balance the budget helpful in this dimension."
2/15/2004
GOP == KKK
Tell me how this is different from the KKK, in language and intent, except I don't think the KKK is big in Rhode Island: College Republicans offer whites-only award:Jew Liberal media's reporting of this.
"A student group at Roger Williams University is offering a new scholarship for which only white students are eligible, a move they say is designed to protest affirmative action.I'm sure they're complaining about the
The application for the $50 award requires an essay on 'why you are proud of your white heritage' and a recent picture to 'confirm whiteness.'
'Evidence of bleaching will disqualify applicants,' says the application, issued by the university's College Republicans. "
Why Care about Bush's Military Service?
I haven't jumped into the Bush AWOL fray so far, though I'm glad that Kevin Drum and others have done so. This is something that I researched briefly a year or two ago, so I've known for that there's a problem there for awhile. Of course, it's also true that many from that generation (mine) have skeletons in their closets, and I have never thought that military service should be a prerequisite for political leadership. So this is a tricky one.
I also somewhat agree with those who think we shouldn't pin too many of our hopes on this issue. Even if GWB's Guard service turns out to have been adequate, he will remain one of the worst Presidents in American history. And if it turns out that Bush's service was unproblematic, then all the usual suspects will be able to feign horror at Democratic slime tactics, and we'll be seeing the same old "Democrats are no better than Republicans" meme again.
(Isn't it interesting, though, that "The Democrats are just as bad" always counts as a defense of the Republicans? No one ever argues that the Republicans aren't creeps.)
And while the hypocrisy issue still can be raised, there's so much hypocrisy in politics that for many voters indignation fatigue has set in.*
However, the problems with Bush's military service do make a pretty good wedge issue. A lot of Bush's support comes from people who vote more on character than on issues. For them physical courage, personal integrity, and a strict sense of honor are primary requirements for leadership. Those who think this way aren't terribly analyitic or curious, but they do care about details -- for them, certain acts are just inexcusable. Many of them have been flimflammed by Bush so far, but they will turn against him if they find out that his record is seriously blemished. This group might be small, but it's part of Bush's core constituency, so it's important.
And on the other hand, perhaps this issue (ignored in the 2000 campaign) might just be the last straw for a lot of people. Problems with the Iraq War and its justifications, Bush's loopy economic plans, his waffling on tariffs, the weird marriage-promotion boondoggle, the weird Mars mission trial balloon, etc., etc., might have pushed a lot of centrists and moderate conservatives to the point that they're willing to look at the evidence (which has always been there) about Bush's military service. Once someone loses the benefit of the doubt, people start looking at the little things. I think that's what has happened, and it's about time.
There's still a problem here: the kingmaker role of the corrupt monopoly media. If they've actually turned against Bush, that's a good thing, but it's a very limited good. As long as the media select our Presidents for us, we're in trouble.
* This makes it seem that I myself don't care much about personal character. I have to admit that after more than forty years on the scene, the idea that someone in politics might be full of integrity strikes me as a dream from a bygone day, like King Arthur or Good King Wenceslas.
I also somewhat agree with those who think we shouldn't pin too many of our hopes on this issue. Even if GWB's Guard service turns out to have been adequate, he will remain one of the worst Presidents in American history. And if it turns out that Bush's service was unproblematic, then all the usual suspects will be able to feign horror at Democratic slime tactics, and we'll be seeing the same old "Democrats are no better than Republicans" meme again.
(Isn't it interesting, though, that "The Democrats are just as bad" always counts as a defense of the Republicans? No one ever argues that the Republicans aren't creeps.)
And while the hypocrisy issue still can be raised, there's so much hypocrisy in politics that for many voters indignation fatigue has set in.*
However, the problems with Bush's military service do make a pretty good wedge issue. A lot of Bush's support comes from people who vote more on character than on issues. For them physical courage, personal integrity, and a strict sense of honor are primary requirements for leadership. Those who think this way aren't terribly analyitic or curious, but they do care about details -- for them, certain acts are just inexcusable. Many of them have been flimflammed by Bush so far, but they will turn against him if they find out that his record is seriously blemished. This group might be small, but it's part of Bush's core constituency, so it's important.
And on the other hand, perhaps this issue (ignored in the 2000 campaign) might just be the last straw for a lot of people. Problems with the Iraq War and its justifications, Bush's loopy economic plans, his waffling on tariffs, the weird marriage-promotion boondoggle, the weird Mars mission trial balloon, etc., etc., might have pushed a lot of centrists and moderate conservatives to the point that they're willing to look at the evidence (which has always been there) about Bush's military service. Once someone loses the benefit of the doubt, people start looking at the little things. I think that's what has happened, and it's about time.
There's still a problem here: the kingmaker role of the corrupt monopoly media. If they've actually turned against Bush, that's a good thing, but it's a very limited good. As long as the media select our Presidents for us, we're in trouble.
* This makes it seem that I myself don't care much about personal character. I have to admit that after more than forty years on the scene, the idea that someone in politics might be full of integrity strikes me as a dream from a bygone day, like King Arthur or Good King Wenceslas.
2/14/2004
Dean Supporters to be Purged?
Via Atrios there's a New Republic story about plans by Democratic Party regulars to take revenge on people who supported Dean. Key quote: "As one former high-ranking Clinton administration official puts it, 'Will they work again in this town again? I hope not.'"
If something like this came from Fox News I'd assume it was a deliberate provocation meant to split the party, but the people at TNR are officially Democrats. Of course, I've always wondered whether Peretz would try to destroy the party if he thought that his side was going to lose control, and maybe I know now.
I'm 100% ABB and didn't even take sides in the primaries, but this makes steam come out of my ears. I like a lot of things about Kerry and a pray to God (should there be one) that he wasn't involved in this. Dean did the Democrats an enormous amount of good by getting out ahead and showing that it was actually possible to attack Bush, and he and his supporters don't deserve this kind of treatment.
Dean did fling a bit of shit in the direction of the party pros, but they richly deserved it. Kerry won't do himself any favors by playing their creepy little game.
If something like this came from Fox News I'd assume it was a deliberate provocation meant to split the party, but the people at TNR are officially Democrats. Of course, I've always wondered whether Peretz would try to destroy the party if he thought that his side was going to lose control, and maybe I know now.
I'm 100% ABB and didn't even take sides in the primaries, but this makes steam come out of my ears. I like a lot of things about Kerry and a pray to God (should there be one) that he wasn't involved in this. Dean did the Democrats an enormous amount of good by getting out ahead and showing that it was actually possible to attack Bush, and he and his supporters don't deserve this kind of treatment.
Dean did fling a bit of shit in the direction of the party pros, but they richly deserved it. Kerry won't do himself any favors by playing their creepy little game.
The Media Demand Your Love and Admiration Now!
Remember the way Bush joshed with the media and gave them nicknames, and how that was supposed to show that he was a regular guy (unlike the stiff, arrogant, Al Gore)?
My take on that is different. Bush's real message was something like this: "Welcome to the club! Sure, I'm a bigshot, but in your own way you're all bigshots too now. You're The Press. So let's all be buddies!"
In the old days, when there were lots of them, reporters were just reporters and columnists were just columnists. But as reporters grew fewer (with media consolidation and the rise of the monopoly media), individual reporters became more important. Rather than just being some guy with a B.A. who got himself a pretty good job, the new hire became A CNN Political Reporter or something like that, and he expected to be treated with respect.
Ironically, this happened while professional standards were plummetting. The lords of the new monopoly media -- Roger Ailes, Jack Welch, Rupert Murdoch, the Rev. Moon, and the others -- are kingmakers, almost a branch of government, and the authority that reporters now have comes entirely from the men who hired them. As a result, the reporter's job has become a balancing act between the old professional standards (which have not been entirely forgotten) and the need to please the boss. Since it is still forbidden to directly order the suppression of facts and the slanting of news, skilled reporters have become mind-readers and, like well-trained horses or dogs, do the right thing without being told. In this new post-professional world, success is everything: truth-tellers and whistle-blowers who get fired aren't heroes or martyrs any more, but just suckers and losers.
In this context I find it very odd to be told that internet sources, especially the anonymous ones, "lack authority". The contrast apparently is with the authority of the New York Times, Fox News, etc., etc. But as we have seen, this authority is rapidly diminishing -- partly because of the media's incompetence and corruption, but also because of the challenge from internet media.
Much as the pamphleteers of a few centuries ago challenged the claims of the nobility and the Church to a monopoly of truth, today's internet writers are challenging the mainstream media. They really can't claim to be able to replace the mainstream media and they really aren't trying to, but they're doing a pretty good job of keeping our open political system alive.
The media whores, of course, don't think this is fair. After years of hard work honing their craft, learning to express tomorrow's conventional wisdom today, and brownnosing, they finally got the big-time jobs they'd been looking for, and they thought that they'd arrived. They were going to "have authority." They were going to be the ones to say "And that's the way it is!"
But then the internet came along.
A BUNCH OF LINKS:
Some Salon no-name writes about anonymity
Tena of Atrios on "The Internet"
"Bloggers are not Gentlemen"
Kerry and the media (pre-intern)
Brad DeLong on the incompetent and arrogant press
The Indispensable Daily Howler
(Originally I had a long thing about the corrupt and incompetent media, the fluff story about Kerry and the intern, the flap about anonymity on the Internet, the Bush National Guard story, etc., etc. Rather than bore you with all that, I decided to go straight to my most interesting point. But just to remind you: the fight for freedom in America and Europe was fought and won by anonymous lowlife journalists relying on a new medium called "the printing press". Not by people with authority.)
My take on that is different. Bush's real message was something like this: "Welcome to the club! Sure, I'm a bigshot, but in your own way you're all bigshots too now. You're The Press. So let's all be buddies!"
In the old days, when there were lots of them, reporters were just reporters and columnists were just columnists. But as reporters grew fewer (with media consolidation and the rise of the monopoly media), individual reporters became more important. Rather than just being some guy with a B.A. who got himself a pretty good job, the new hire became A CNN Political Reporter or something like that, and he expected to be treated with respect.
Ironically, this happened while professional standards were plummetting. The lords of the new monopoly media -- Roger Ailes, Jack Welch, Rupert Murdoch, the Rev. Moon, and the others -- are kingmakers, almost a branch of government, and the authority that reporters now have comes entirely from the men who hired them. As a result, the reporter's job has become a balancing act between the old professional standards (which have not been entirely forgotten) and the need to please the boss. Since it is still forbidden to directly order the suppression of facts and the slanting of news, skilled reporters have become mind-readers and, like well-trained horses or dogs, do the right thing without being told. In this new post-professional world, success is everything: truth-tellers and whistle-blowers who get fired aren't heroes or martyrs any more, but just suckers and losers.
In this context I find it very odd to be told that internet sources, especially the anonymous ones, "lack authority". The contrast apparently is with the authority of the New York Times, Fox News, etc., etc. But as we have seen, this authority is rapidly diminishing -- partly because of the media's incompetence and corruption, but also because of the challenge from internet media.
Much as the pamphleteers of a few centuries ago challenged the claims of the nobility and the Church to a monopoly of truth, today's internet writers are challenging the mainstream media. They really can't claim to be able to replace the mainstream media and they really aren't trying to, but they're doing a pretty good job of keeping our open political system alive.
The media whores, of course, don't think this is fair. After years of hard work honing their craft, learning to express tomorrow's conventional wisdom today, and brownnosing, they finally got the big-time jobs they'd been looking for, and they thought that they'd arrived. They were going to "have authority." They were going to be the ones to say "And that's the way it is!"
But then the internet came along.
A BUNCH OF LINKS:
Some Salon no-name writes about anonymity
Tena of Atrios on "The Internet"
"Bloggers are not Gentlemen"
Kerry and the media (pre-intern)
Brad DeLong on the incompetent and arrogant press
The Indispensable Daily Howler
(Originally I had a long thing about the corrupt and incompetent media, the fluff story about Kerry and the intern, the flap about anonymity on the Internet, the Bush National Guard story, etc., etc. Rather than bore you with all that, I decided to go straight to my most interesting point. But just to remind you: the fight for freedom in America and Europe was fought and won by anonymous lowlife journalists relying on a new medium called "the printing press". Not by people with authority.)
More on Calhoun's tall tale...
right here:
So Calhoun noticed the issue. And he didn't call his local paper and give them the scoop of their lifetime. He didn't call or write the Washington Post. Instead, he called the Bush people, who are never very concerned with image(they're more substance focused), and said, "If you need me to come forward, I will."Read the rest of it. Suffice it to say there are a few logical and evidentiary holes in Calhoun's story.
And the Bush people, in the eleventh hour of a presidential campaign, with a potential landmine about to go off under their feet, say, "We're hoping that won't be necessary."
And you can understand their reasoning: "We could just nip this thing right in the bud and put the allegation that our presidential candidate was AWOL during a time of war, or we can just sit back and see how this crazy thing plays out. I mean, it's not like anyone took a picture of him in a sweater, or anything. What the heck? Tell him we'll call him if we need him."
And though the rumors persisted, and occassionally popped up in newspaper stories, and though there were websites devoted to the issue, and though there were even rewards offered for a guardsman who could remember serving with Bush in Alabama, nobody in the Bush administration bothered to give Calhoun a call, and Calhoun never bothered to mention it to anyone.
Keep in mind, this is the Bush administration that spared no evidence, no matter how flimsy, on the need to invade Iraq--the African uranium, the aluminum tubes, the al-Qaeda operatives meeting with Iraqi intelligence in Prague. All of which turned out to be bullshit, but they offered it without hesitation, and sometimes over the objections of the CIA, the State Department, foreign governments, and the U.N. weapons inspectors.
But when it came to a potentially campaign ending scandal, and they had eye-witness testimony, they preferred to just let it slide and see what happened.
And when the issue resurfaced during the Democratic debates, did anyone bother to pick up the phone and say, "Calhoun, we need you"? Nope. And when it began appearing in the major newspapers and on network television, did anyone say, "Call Calhoun"? Nope. And when Tim Russert sat in the Oval Office and asked Bush about his guard service, did Bush say, "Tim, you can call Bill Calhoun. He'll tell you I showed up"? Nope.
Instead, the Bush people released a dental record.
But now that Calhoun has stepped forward, he can surely point us in the direction to put this issue to rest. Right?
Calhoun said he does not have any photographs or documents to prove Bush showed up for duty, but his ex-wife, Patsy Burks, said she remembered Calhoun's account.Well, Christ, ex-wives are better than any ol' stupid piece of paper.
2/13/2004
Now isn't that conveeenient?
Honestly, does anyone really believe this Calhoun guy?
He apparently was put in contact with the media by some of W's sycophantic Republican supporters and, heck folks, his story even contradicts the written records they've presented already. Calhoun is now claiming W attended quite a few more drills in Alabama than W's own military records say he did.
This seems even more suspicious considering that Calhoun is in Daytona for the 500 and W is going to be there on Sunday.
I can't help but wonder if W will slip Calhoun the $100,000 briefcase in person on Sunday or if Karl Rove will do it for him.
Update 2/14/04 11:59 a.m. CST: Billmon is all over Calhoun's unlikely story in this post.
Just as I thought, Calhoun is apparently just another loyal Republican trying to help Karl and the boys out.
He apparently was put in contact with the media by some of W's sycophantic Republican supporters and, heck folks, his story even contradicts the written records they've presented already. Calhoun is now claiming W attended quite a few more drills in Alabama than W's own military records say he did.
This seems even more suspicious considering that Calhoun is in Daytona for the 500 and W is going to be there on Sunday.
I can't help but wonder if W will slip Calhoun the $100,000 briefcase in person on Sunday or if Karl Rove will do it for him.
Update 2/14/04 11:59 a.m. CST: Billmon is all over Calhoun's unlikely story in this post.
Just as I thought, Calhoun is apparently just another loyal Republican trying to help Karl and the boys out.
No Connection
My cable internet service is out for a few days. I'll be posting from dial-up only if it is absolutely necessary. Sorry, need the speed. Maybe John and 2 Thomases and Richard can post something?
The Real Man
There is, as far as I can tell, no positive evidence that Mr. Bush is a man of exceptional uprightness. When has he even accepted responsibility for something that went wrong? On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that he is willing to cut corners when it's to his personal advantage. His business career was full of questionable deals, and whatever the full truth about his National Guard service, it was certainly not glorious.Indeed.
Old history, you may say, and irrelevant to the present. And perhaps that would be true if Mr. Bush was prepared to come clean about his past. Instead, he remains evasive. On "Meet the Press" he promised to release all his records — and promptly broke that promise.
I don't know what he's hiding. But I do think he has forfeited any right to cite his character to turn away charges that his administration is lying about its policies. And that is the point: Mr. Bush may not be a particularly bad man, but he isn't the paragon his handlers portray.
Some of his critics hope that the AWOL issue will demolish the Bush myth, all at once. They're probably too optimistic — if it were that easy, the tale of Harken Energy would have already done the trick. The sad truth is that people who have been taken in by a cult of personality — a group that in this case includes a good fraction of the American people, and a considerably higher fraction of the punditocracy — are very reluctant to give up their illusions. If nothing else, that would mean admitting that they had been played for fools.
Still, we may be on our way to an election in which Mr. Bush is judged on his record, not his legend. And that, of course, is what the White House fears.
2/12/2004
Intimidation - or When Your Company IS "The Party"
This story in today's Washington Post, GOP Activists Chafe at H&R Block Hire, says a lot more than you think it does:
It seems that more and more there is a very thin line between a company and The Party (part 1, part 2)
"Republican activists were chattering and e-mailing one another yesterday about H&R Block -- and it wasn't about getting their taxes done.Here we have Republicans publicly complaining that H&R Block has hired a Democrat as a VP, clearly trying to intimidate the company into firing this person and hiring a Republican instead, and threatening legislative consequences. What is between the lines in the story is what this says about all the other companies. If the Republicans feel free to openly complain because one company hired a Democrat as an executive, it means that they are used to companies being "on board" with the "game plan," "on the same page" and "reading from the same playbook" (attempt at speaking corporatese...) -- in other words, they expect companies to only hire Republicans as executives.
They were angry that the tax and financial services preparation company had recently hired Nicholas J. Spaeth, a Democrat, as the company's senior vice president and chief legal officer. Spaeth, based at the company's headquarters in Kansas City, Mo., is responsible for overseeing 'the functions of the company's business units' as well as its government relations activities.
[. . .] Adding insult to injury, said one GOP activist, is the fact that H&R Block's main in-house lobbyist in Washington is Robert Weinberger, who is a member of the board of the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks political money and is considered hostile by Republicans.
"They run a Democratic shop. They're insulting to Republicans. They don't understand Republicans," said Grover Norquist, one of the forces behind the K Street Project.
"We looked at skills in doing the job, not in the points of view," she said.
She noted that the company's political action committee contributions for the 2001-2002 campaign cycle and for 2003 were split 50-50 between Republican and Democratic candidates. She also said Sarah Wilson, a legislative assistant in the Washington office, worked for then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush.
The company's even-handed PAC contributions did not impress Norquist.
"That is so 1984. So they have no interest in legislation in this town?" Norquist said. "That is so lazy."
It seems that more and more there is a very thin line between a company and The Party (part 1, part 2)
2/11/2004
Huh?
The White House late Wednesday released a copy of a dental evaluation President Bush had in the National Guard in Alabama during the Vietnam War to rebut suggestions made by Democrats who have questioned whether the president ever showed up for duty there.But, wait, given everything W and the boys have said this just doesn't make any sense:
A copy of the dental examination done on Jan. 6, 1973, documents the president serving at Dannelly Air National Guard Base, which is south of Montgomery, Ala., White House press secretary Scott McClellan said in a statement. Earlier in the day, McClellan hardened its defense of Bush's Guard service, saying critics were "trolling for trash" for political gain.
According to the White House, the dental exam shows Bush did report for duty in Alabama. The exam, however, was done after November 1972, when earlier reports have said Bush returned to Texas.No, not "earlier reports" but everything the man and his minions have ever said about this has included the claim that he returned to Texas in November of 1972.
Why are they contradicting themselves all of a sudden?
What's up here?
What are they trying to hide?
I think this is what desperation looks like folks.
[Link via Atrios]
If It Were Clinton...
Saw at Atrios:
Retired Guard officer says he saw some files discarded in trash
How is this different?
Here's how it is different: Bush is not a Democrat. That's all there is to it. That's all the press or the Congress needs.
Retired Guard officer says he saw some files discarded in trash
Retired National Guard Lt. Col. Bill Burkett said Tuesday that in 1997, then-Gov. Bush's chief of staff, Joe Allbaugh, told the National Guard chief to get the Bush file and make certain "there's not anything there that will embarrass the governor."Does anyone remember how the press went absolutely nuts with the lie about records being "shredded" at the Rose law firm, where Hillary Clinton had worked? Does anyone remember the Congressional investigations? How about Hillary's "missing billing records?" This was one subject of a special prosecutor investigation!
Col. Burkett said that a few days later at Camp Mabry in Austin, he saw Mr. Bush's file and documents from it discarded in a trash can. He said he recognized the documents as retirement point summaries and pay forms.
How is this different?
Here's how it is different: Bush is not a Democrat. That's all there is to it. That's all the press or the Congress needs.
Everyone...
needs one of these, right?
Boy, isn't this thing quite embarrassing given the current state of affairs?
Boy, isn't this thing quite embarrassing given the current state of affairs?
2/10/2004
George W. Bush and Truthslaughter
Just now over at Matt Yglesias's site, Daryl McCullough said "I agree with Bush defenders that 'lie' might be inappropriately harsh. The problem with Bush is not that he lies, but that he has a reckless disregard for the truth."
Now, that sounds exactly like the legal definition of manslaughter, as opposed to first and second degree murder. "Manslaughter" designates criminal homicide which results from a "reckless disregard for human life", but which is without intent to kill or premeditation.
So perhaps Bush isn't a liar after all. Little of what he says is true, but his intellectual recklessness and indifference to fact make one doubt that he is capable of forming the intent to lie. He just doesn't care -- he's guilty not of lying, but of truthslaughter.
If you think that Bush really is a liar you might object to this. But stop and think -- often prosecutors plea-bargain murder charges down to manslaughter just so they can get the conviction. The accusation of lying is a very serious one, and it's one which is hard to make stick. So let's just bargain it down a notch.
The way Bush has been going with his weapons of mass distraction and his wacky economic plans, I bet that even a lot of Republicans will agree by now that a lot of it does look quite a bit like truthslaughter.
(Edited to distinguish Jason from Daryl McCullough, who are both great guys, but not identical. Even the Scots suffer from stereotyping in this world of ours -- McCullough is a Scottish name, isn't it.....?)
Now, that sounds exactly like the legal definition of manslaughter, as opposed to first and second degree murder. "Manslaughter" designates criminal homicide which results from a "reckless disregard for human life", but which is without intent to kill or premeditation.
So perhaps Bush isn't a liar after all. Little of what he says is true, but his intellectual recklessness and indifference to fact make one doubt that he is capable of forming the intent to lie. He just doesn't care -- he's guilty not of lying, but of truthslaughter.
If you think that Bush really is a liar you might object to this. But stop and think -- often prosecutors plea-bargain murder charges down to manslaughter just so they can get the conviction. The accusation of lying is a very serious one, and it's one which is hard to make stick. So let's just bargain it down a notch.
The way Bush has been going with his weapons of mass distraction and his wacky economic plans, I bet that even a lot of Republicans will agree by now that a lot of it does look quite a bit like truthslaughter.
(Edited to distinguish Jason from Daryl McCullough, who are both great guys, but not identical. Even the Scots suffer from stereotyping in this world of ours -- McCullough is a Scottish name, isn't it.....?)
April Fools?
Is this, at Nathan Newman an April Fools joke?
So much of the press has become so completely career-minded, and they know that you write good stories about the Right or you don't HAVE a career, period. And then this. We might actually see the beginning of an awakening on the part of the people who write our news stories. The corporations that own the media will still be in control but I think we just might see the lap-dog attitude of the reporters changing soon.
Reuters is going a step further. It told its editorial employees in an electronic posting late last week that it planned to hire six journalists in Bangalore, India, to do basic financial reporting on 3,000 small to medium-size American companies...Nathan suggests that we're about to see a change in the way the financial press covers trade and jobs issues.
The reporters in Bangalore will mostly be responsible for extracting basic financial information from company news releases and quarterly earnings reports. Tasks like interviewing a company president, talking to analysts and covering breaking news, will continue to be done by more experienced journalists working in the countries where those companies operate, Mr. Schlesinger said.
While the pilot project is intentionally modest, it is related to a much larger effort, announced by Reuters late last year, that will send about 200 of its data-entry jobs to Bangalore from England and the United States.
So much of the press has become so completely career-minded, and they know that you write good stories about the Right or you don't HAVE a career, period. And then this. We might actually see the beginning of an awakening on the part of the people who write our news stories. The corporations that own the media will still be in control but I think we just might see the lap-dog attitude of the reporters changing soon.
This could get interesting...
WASHINGTON - The White House, facing election-year questions about President Bush (news - web sites)'s military service, is releasing pay records and other information intended to support his assertion that he fulfilled his duty as a member of the Air National Guard during the Vietnam war.You know it's a bad week when you're having to do stuff like this.
The material, to be released Tuesday, was to include pay records and annual retirement point summaries to show that Bush served.
"These records clearly document that the president fulfilled his duty," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.
The point summaries were released during the 2000 presidential campaign but the pay records were not obtained by the White House until late Monday from the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver, Colo., McClellan said. He said the center, apparently acting on its own, reviewed Bush's records and came up with the pay information.
"It was our impression from the Texas Air National Guard — they stated they didn't have them," he said. "It was also our impression those records didn't exist." Bush on Sunday authorized the release of his Guard records. McClellan said the latest material apparently is all of Bush's records.
The pay information documented the dates when Bush showed up for Guard duty, the spokesman said. "You are paid for the dates you served," McClellan added.
Of course, there's also this and this and this to respond to as well.
Not a good week for the administration.
Not a good week at all -- and it's only Tuesday.
Jobs
A comment I left, to this post at Eschaton:
Free-trade economists seem to ignore a very basic rule -- supply and demand. If you have a free market in JOBS, in a world with hundreds of millions of unemployed, then NECESSARILY wages must fall to the point where enough people starve off, and the remaining people work for a subsistence-only wage! DUH!So there.
We MUST impose policies that increase wages, not decrease wages. We MUST require tariffs on imports to protect wages here. The POINT of those tariffs is to pressure those countries to PAY THEIR WORKERS MORE SO THEY CAN BUY THINGS WE MAKE, TOO! Otherwise we are NECESSARILY in a "race to the bottom."
Mexico has been losing jobs to Vietnam. Vietnam is losing jobs to China. Even India is losing jobs to China. And in China you are put in jail if you try to form a union.
Yes, one day things WILL even out -- but not in our lifetimes, and not, at this rate, with an INCREASE in the living standards. They will even out at the bottom unless governments intervene with regulations that INCREASE wages.
2/09/2004
My goodness
I just now figured out that Yoshida is one of those wingnut trolls who is merely seeking attention -- any way he can get it.
I mean, heck folks, you can't write stuff like this and be sane after all:
Anyway, Yoshida must really be having a tough time right now, huh? What with his boy W apparently on the way down and all. I think I'll leave him alone in his agony.
Why oh why did I give this guy any attention? His insane musings were apparently discovered by folks like Jesse Taylor a couple of weeks after I retired my blog so I didn't realize he was just one of these living wingnut cartoon characters you hear about all the time.
If I'd have realized he was one of those guys, I really wouldn't have put up that last post. I really don't like to give folks like Yoshida the attention.
I'll stop it now.
I mean, heck folks, you can't write stuff like this and be sane after all:
If the Democrats were still in power today, Saddam Hussein would be as well. Period. The Democrats don’t have the stomach or the will to fight the terrorists, as they have shown us over a period of several decades. The Democrat Party is the party of appeasement, cowardice, and treason.(And I'm not getting into psycho-analyzing the Canadian guy who is apparently -- eek -- a David Frum "Republican-Canadian" wannabe -- that would just be too cruel of me.)
There is no moral difference now between giving money to Howard Dean and giving money to al-Qaeda. While the two have ideological differences, they have the same ultimate goal: the defeat of George W. Bush.
A vote for the Democrats is a vote for the victory of the terrorists. This is not meant as an insult, it is simply the truth. Just as a vote for the Democrats in 1864 was a vote for disunion, a vote for the Democrats today is a vote for the victory of the Islamists.
Anyway, Yoshida must really be having a tough time right now, huh? What with his boy W apparently on the way down and all. I think I'll leave him alone in his agony.
Why oh why did I give this guy any attention? His insane musings were apparently discovered by folks like Jesse Taylor a couple of weeks after I retired my blog so I didn't realize he was just one of these living wingnut cartoon characters you hear about all the time.
If I'd have realized he was one of those guys, I really wouldn't have put up that last post. I really don't like to give folks like Yoshida the attention.
I'll stop it now.
Is It Possible to Fight Back?
(Cross-posted at american street)
In the last couple of years I have researched and written about the massive communications “infrastructure” that the Right has built. Many of us bloggers refer to this infrastructure as the "Wurlitzer."
The Right's infrastructure is massively funded. One study, $1 Billion for Conservative Ideas, by David Callahan, showed that in the 1990s the Right's funders pumped more than $1 billion into this ideological indoctrination campaign.
A good description of this infrastructure can be found in my report The Attack on Trial Lawyers and Tort Law. This report is written to trial lawyers and their organizations, discussing how and why they are under attack from the Right. (The real fun of this report is following the footnotes and reading the online sources I used.)
I wrote this report because believe that we can -- and must -- recognize and fight back against the Right's machine, by building a counter-infrastructure or our own. But doing so takes money. Trial lawyers are a major source of funding for moderates and progressives, which is why they are being attacked by the Right. So I did the research and wrote the report, describing what is happening to trial lawyers, and how, and why, appealing to them to begin funding organizations to counter the Right’s machine. The report has been embraced by the American Trial Lawyers Association, and they have passed it along to the state trial lawyer organizations, and several of these have publicized (another example here) and/or sent the report to their members.
I am working on similar reports (if I can find the funding to continue) written for Organized Labor, School Employees, Mainstream Religious Organizations and Philanthropic Foundations, each describing the Right’s attack on their particular interests and making the case for funding a counter-infrastructure to counter the Right. Each of these groups have been major funders of moderate and progressive activities in the past (which is why they are under attack from the Right) and I am hoping that with enough information about the Right's efforts to attack their interests they can be persuaded direct their funding efforts toward a broad counter-attack. If you know of individuals or organizations that would be interested in assisting me with this effort by helping to fund these reports, please contact me.
Also, for your enjoyment and terror, I have collected what I think is the most complete collection of links to online sources of information about the "conservative movement" here. (Please let me know of any significant articles, reports, etc. that might be missing.)
So all of this is my humble attempt to help trigger an organized, funded response to the Right’s decades-long effort to swing the country toward their ideological belief system. It’s a dirty job, but…
It IS Possible to Fight Back
The beneficiaries of the Right’s efforts are the corporations, and the corporations have donated a lot of money to the Right’s efforts.
But the beneficiaries of OUR efforts are THE PEOPLE. And there are a LOT of people! In the last national election Al Gore received 51 million votes. (Actually, 50,999,897, but who’s counting -- especially in Florida.)
Howard Dean is on to something when he talks about raising $200 million from 2 million people, each giving $100. He is really, really on to something. I want to push this idea further. If each committed Progressive donated $100 each year toward fighting the Right, we would raise hundreds of millions of dollars – over the next decade this would add up to billions, far surpassing that $1 billion the Right spent in the 1990s on their organizations.
I think we should introduce a new ethic into Moderate and Progressive thinking. I think we need to see that it is our duty to donate money to help build and continue to fund organizations that will fight back against the Right. I think we can all see the need for this now. I think we can all feel the urgency. I propose a campaign to persuade every single Moderate and Progressive that it is their duty to donate at least $100 each per year to Moderate and Progressive organizations. We can call this effort something like "The Earth is Worth $100," or "The Fight-the-Right Tax is $100 Per Year." Think of it as cheap tithing.
If each Gore voter donated $100 this would raise more than $5 BILLION each year. This is not realistic, but I am demonstrating that even without the traditional funding sources – labor, foundations, etc. – it IS possible to raise the amounts of money necessary to take on the Right.
The site counter for this [american street] website shows that the average daily readership of the american street is 1470 individuals. If each of these readers gave $100 american street would raise $147,000. Yes, if our readers followed the $100 commitment principle, just this weblog alone could raise $147,000, which is almost enough for seed money to launch one organization. With this money an organization could begin hiring and start serious fundraising and PR efforts to reach another 10,000 people donating $100 each, raising $1,000,000 for operations. I'm not saying we should do this today -- I'm showing how the $100 principle would enable even small groups to start building an organization that works to counter the Right’s propaganda.
DailyKOS' hit counter says its average daily readership is 109,610. If each of those readers donated $100 that would raise $10,961,000, sufficient to launch and fund for a year three or four serious organizations. And those 109,000 people are still only a fraction of the number of Moderates and Progressives in the United States. This is serious money we're talking about.
Projecting an aura of defeat is one of the Right’s tactics against us. So many of us believe the fight is hopeless, that the RIght has all the money and it is useless to even try to respond. But never forget that there are more of us than them, and never forget that we are fighting AGAINST war, and FOR the earth, and FOR helping others, and that Progressive ideals of sustainability, and building community, and sharing, and cooperating and nurturing are healthier and stronger than the dark, negative, intolerant, fearful, materialistic, divisive, hateful, jealous and cultish ideology of the Right. We not only CAN win, we MUST win!
So what do YOU think? Is this an idea worth persuing? And if so, how? Are YOU giving at least $100 per year? Is a commitment to give $100 per year to Moderate and Progressive organizations too much to ask to take America back from the nightmare we find ourselves in?
In the last couple of years I have researched and written about the massive communications “infrastructure” that the Right has built. Many of us bloggers refer to this infrastructure as the "Wurlitzer."
The Right's infrastructure is massively funded. One study, $1 Billion for Conservative Ideas, by David Callahan, showed that in the 1990s the Right's funders pumped more than $1 billion into this ideological indoctrination campaign.
A good description of this infrastructure can be found in my report The Attack on Trial Lawyers and Tort Law. This report is written to trial lawyers and their organizations, discussing how and why they are under attack from the Right. (The real fun of this report is following the footnotes and reading the online sources I used.)
I wrote this report because believe that we can -- and must -- recognize and fight back against the Right's machine, by building a counter-infrastructure or our own. But doing so takes money. Trial lawyers are a major source of funding for moderates and progressives, which is why they are being attacked by the Right. So I did the research and wrote the report, describing what is happening to trial lawyers, and how, and why, appealing to them to begin funding organizations to counter the Right’s machine. The report has been embraced by the American Trial Lawyers Association, and they have passed it along to the state trial lawyer organizations, and several of these have publicized (another example here) and/or sent the report to their members.
I am working on similar reports (if I can find the funding to continue) written for Organized Labor, School Employees, Mainstream Religious Organizations and Philanthropic Foundations, each describing the Right’s attack on their particular interests and making the case for funding a counter-infrastructure to counter the Right. Each of these groups have been major funders of moderate and progressive activities in the past (which is why they are under attack from the Right) and I am hoping that with enough information about the Right's efforts to attack their interests they can be persuaded direct their funding efforts toward a broad counter-attack. If you know of individuals or organizations that would be interested in assisting me with this effort by helping to fund these reports, please contact me.
Also, for your enjoyment and terror, I have collected what I think is the most complete collection of links to online sources of information about the "conservative movement" here. (Please let me know of any significant articles, reports, etc. that might be missing.)
So all of this is my humble attempt to help trigger an organized, funded response to the Right’s decades-long effort to swing the country toward their ideological belief system. It’s a dirty job, but…
It IS Possible to Fight Back
The beneficiaries of the Right’s efforts are the corporations, and the corporations have donated a lot of money to the Right’s efforts.
But the beneficiaries of OUR efforts are THE PEOPLE. And there are a LOT of people! In the last national election Al Gore received 51 million votes. (Actually, 50,999,897, but who’s counting -- especially in Florida.)
Howard Dean is on to something when he talks about raising $200 million from 2 million people, each giving $100. He is really, really on to something. I want to push this idea further. If each committed Progressive donated $100 each year toward fighting the Right, we would raise hundreds of millions of dollars – over the next decade this would add up to billions, far surpassing that $1 billion the Right spent in the 1990s on their organizations.
I think we should introduce a new ethic into Moderate and Progressive thinking. I think we need to see that it is our duty to donate money to help build and continue to fund organizations that will fight back against the Right. I think we can all see the need for this now. I think we can all feel the urgency. I propose a campaign to persuade every single Moderate and Progressive that it is their duty to donate at least $100 each per year to Moderate and Progressive organizations. We can call this effort something like "The Earth is Worth $100," or "The Fight-the-Right Tax is $100 Per Year." Think of it as cheap tithing.
If each Gore voter donated $100 this would raise more than $5 BILLION each year. This is not realistic, but I am demonstrating that even without the traditional funding sources – labor, foundations, etc. – it IS possible to raise the amounts of money necessary to take on the Right.
The site counter for this [american street] website shows that the average daily readership of the american street is 1470 individuals. If each of these readers gave $100 american street would raise $147,000. Yes, if our readers followed the $100 commitment principle, just this weblog alone could raise $147,000, which is almost enough for seed money to launch one organization. With this money an organization could begin hiring and start serious fundraising and PR efforts to reach another 10,000 people donating $100 each, raising $1,000,000 for operations. I'm not saying we should do this today -- I'm showing how the $100 principle would enable even small groups to start building an organization that works to counter the Right’s propaganda.
DailyKOS' hit counter says its average daily readership is 109,610. If each of those readers donated $100 that would raise $10,961,000, sufficient to launch and fund for a year three or four serious organizations. And those 109,000 people are still only a fraction of the number of Moderates and Progressives in the United States. This is serious money we're talking about.
Projecting an aura of defeat is one of the Right’s tactics against us. So many of us believe the fight is hopeless, that the RIght has all the money and it is useless to even try to respond. But never forget that there are more of us than them, and never forget that we are fighting AGAINST war, and FOR the earth, and FOR helping others, and that Progressive ideals of sustainability, and building community, and sharing, and cooperating and nurturing are healthier and stronger than the dark, negative, intolerant, fearful, materialistic, divisive, hateful, jealous and cultish ideology of the Right. We not only CAN win, we MUST win!
So what do YOU think? Is this an idea worth persuing? And if so, how? Are YOU giving at least $100 per year? Is a commitment to give $100 per year to Moderate and Progressive organizations too much to ask to take America back from the nightmare we find ourselves in?
A Suggestion for Libertarians
I'm a liberal Democrat and all, but I have a bold and original suggestion for libertarians (including libertarian Republicans). Don't get mad until you hear what it is:
Maybe 2004 would be a good year for y'all to vote for the Libertarian candidate.
I realize that most of the time most of you vote for the Republican as the lesser evil. Usually that makes sense, but this year is it even true?
From your point of view, Bush is as about as bad as a Democrat on tariffs, government spending and "little government" issues. He's worse on fiscal responsibility, civil liberties, and privacy rights. And he gave us this godawful war.
Some of you might think you should support Bush during the present state of emergency, but we can be confident that this state of emergency is going last forever. (Who is our enemy, again? For a long time I thought this was The War on Terrorism, but now I'm hearing that it's really The War Against Evil. Somehow I think that either one of those wars will last awhile).
If you want to vote for the Democrat, of course that would be great. But I can see that Kerry, our likely nominee, is not your cup of tea, and granted that he supported both the war and the Patriot Act, I get your point. (Though changing his mind would be a lot easier for him than it would be for Bush).
There's never going to be a better time. If the Libertarians don't make a good showing this year, they never will. They might as well fold up their tents and quit.
P.S. So am I a fiendish operative throwing a monkey wrench into the Bush machine? Or am I just telling you that right at the moment you and I really have something in common?
Your call.
Maybe 2004 would be a good year for y'all to vote for the Libertarian candidate.
I realize that most of the time most of you vote for the Republican as the lesser evil. Usually that makes sense, but this year is it even true?
From your point of view, Bush is as about as bad as a Democrat on tariffs, government spending and "little government" issues. He's worse on fiscal responsibility, civil liberties, and privacy rights. And he gave us this godawful war.
Some of you might think you should support Bush during the present state of emergency, but we can be confident that this state of emergency is going last forever. (Who is our enemy, again? For a long time I thought this was The War on Terrorism, but now I'm hearing that it's really The War Against Evil. Somehow I think that either one of those wars will last awhile).
If you want to vote for the Democrat, of course that would be great. But I can see that Kerry, our likely nominee, is not your cup of tea, and granted that he supported both the war and the Patriot Act, I get your point. (Though changing his mind would be a lot easier for him than it would be for Bush).
There's never going to be a better time. If the Libertarians don't make a good showing this year, they never will. They might as well fold up their tents and quit.
P.S. So am I a fiendish operative throwing a monkey wrench into the Bush machine? Or am I just telling you that right at the moment you and I really have something in common?
Your call.
Nuh-uh
Adam Yoshida's response to Kevin's post is priceless.
Open mouth. Insert foot.
Yoshida's comment on Kevin's comment board was pretty funny too. I like this part:
BTW, I hadn't realized it but Hesiod had talked about this more than a year ago. This document shows that Bush had to sign a document acknowledging he was being re-assigned to this disciplinary guard unit.
So, well well well, the president lied about his draft record just yesterday morning.
I'm impressed. How about you?
Open mouth. Insert foot.
Yoshida's comment on Kevin's comment board was pretty funny too. I like this part:
This is more treasonous nonsense from a pack of liars and scumbags.How's that for a tempered intellectual response?
BTW, I hadn't realized it but Hesiod had talked about this more than a year ago. This document shows that Bush had to sign a document acknowledging he was being re-assigned to this disciplinary guard unit.
So, well well well, the president lied about his draft record just yesterday morning.
I'm impressed. How about you?
2/08/2004
Bush AWOL mystery solved?
Go here. Calpundit may have the goods on the Bush AWOL mystery.
Someone said that the reason Bush was letting the rumors fly is that the truth was worse than the rumor. Looks like they were right.
You heard it here second.
UPDATE:
Diana Moon of Letter From Gotham suggests two questions, the first one for Bush and second one for his war buddies:
"Mister President, can you give us the names of three National Guard Service colleagues who served with you between May 1972 and October 1973?"
and
"Any American who can document that he was in the National Guard between May 1972 and October 1973 and remembers serving with Bush during that period should contact the news departments of CNN, Fox, CBS, NBC, and ABC to verify that Bush wasn't AWOL. That way, we can stop refighting the Vietnam War and focus our attention on current issues."
Sounds like a plan.
Someone said that the reason Bush was letting the rumors fly is that the truth was worse than the rumor. Looks like they were right.
You heard it here second.
UPDATE:
Diana Moon of Letter From Gotham suggests two questions, the first one for Bush and second one for his war buddies:
"Mister President, can you give us the names of three National Guard Service colleagues who served with you between May 1972 and October 1973?"
and
"Any American who can document that he was in the National Guard between May 1972 and October 1973 and remembers serving with Bush during that period should contact the news departments of CNN, Fox, CBS, NBC, and ABC to verify that Bush wasn't AWOL. That way, we can stop refighting the Vietnam War and focus our attention on current issues."
Sounds like a plan.
Totalitarian Unanimity
American unanimity on the Iraqi threat before the second Iraq War can only be described as totalitarian. I remember thinking at the time that Saddam probably did not have a significant WMD capacity and that he was not a major threat to the U.S., but I just didn't think that it was worth saying so. I didn't have any special information, and almost all of the experts (and essentially all of the media) were supporting the Bush line. So mostly I argued for multilateralism and/or containment.
But Ritter wasn't the only expert who disagreed: Hans Blix also did. And even without a sex-crimes charge, he too was marginalized by what amounted to smear campaign -- as indeed were the French, the Germans and most of Old Europe. The unanimity of opinion on the WMD question was a local American phenomenon not to be found elsewhere in the world.
This kind of engineered unanimism is usually only seen in one-party states. Dissenting voices were swamped in a flood of coordinated, on-message repetitions of the Bush Administration's unfounded and false claims about the Iraqi threat. The vast majority of the major media were working for the administration, and only a few people with independent sources of information were in a position to know how weak the administration's case really was.
We obviously need a complete post-mortem. (Here and here are two tidbits from Atrios on how the media worked -- the point of the Pincus story is that it was a good story buried on page seventeen.) There really need to be some mea culpas, some resignations, and multiple apologies to Ritter and Blix. I really don't think that we'll see any of that, but until it happens, we're still really as bad off as we ever were, since the same corrupt media still control the airwaves.
We're really in Nader-Chomsky territory. The Democrats should have listened.
But Ritter wasn't the only expert who disagreed: Hans Blix also did. And even without a sex-crimes charge, he too was marginalized by what amounted to smear campaign -- as indeed were the French, the Germans and most of Old Europe. The unanimity of opinion on the WMD question was a local American phenomenon not to be found elsewhere in the world.
This kind of engineered unanimism is usually only seen in one-party states. Dissenting voices were swamped in a flood of coordinated, on-message repetitions of the Bush Administration's unfounded and false claims about the Iraqi threat. The vast majority of the major media were working for the administration, and only a few people with independent sources of information were in a position to know how weak the administration's case really was.
We obviously need a complete post-mortem. (Here and here are two tidbits from Atrios on how the media worked -- the point of the Pincus story is that it was a good story buried on page seventeen.) There really need to be some mea culpas, some resignations, and multiple apologies to Ritter and Blix. I really don't think that we'll see any of that, but until it happens, we're still really as bad off as we ever were, since the same corrupt media still control the airwaves.
We're really in Nader-Chomsky territory. The Democrats should have listened.
Comments on Meet the Press
Extreme softball. They didn't have to submit the questions in advance because Russert did not ask one question that was a surprise, in order to catch Bush unprepared so the country could see how he responds. Did he ask ANY follow-up questions? For example, on Bush's military record Russert did not follow up and ask why Bush refused to take his medical exam and stopped flying, after the government had spent over $1 million to train him as a pilot. That is a very important question and the public has the right to know the answer. The press has an obligation to ask, and Russert did not.
One thing for sure, the focus groups have found that "not going to trust a madman" is working better than other phrases. He used the word "madman" over and over again.
On the U.N., keep in mind that we're talking about a country that DID NOT HAVE weapons:
On free elections in Iraq -- simple evasion.
This guy is in way over his head.
One thing for sure, the focus groups have found that "not going to trust a madman" is working better than other phrases. He used the word "madman" over and over again.
On the U.N., keep in mind that we're talking about a country that DID NOT HAVE weapons:
"You mentioned "preemption." If I might, I went to the United Nations and said, Here is what we know, you know, at this moment, and you need to act. After all, you are the body that issued resolution after resolution after resolution, and he ignored those resolutions.But these were resolutions saying Iraq should disarm. DISARM WHAT? And of course, no follow up: "Mr. President, you made a terrible mistake and got us into a war. Now there are over 10,000 Iraqi dead, over 500 American dead, the country is flat broke, the military is dangerously overextended and the country has no credibility in the world. Shouldn't there be consequences for mistakes of such magnitude?"
So, in other words, when you say "preemption," it almost sounds like, Well, Mr. President, you decided to move. What I decided to do was to go to the international community and see if we could not disarm Saddam Hussein peacefully through international pressure.
You remember U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 clearly stated show us your arms and destroy them, or your programs and destroy them. And we said, there are serious consequences if you don't. That was a unanimous verdict. In other words, the worlds of the U.N. Security Council said we're unanimous and you're a danger. So, it wasn't just me and the United States. The world thought he was dangerous and needed to be disarmed.
And, of course, he defied the world once again.
In my judgment, when the United States says there will be serious consequences, and if there isn't serious consequences, it creates adverse consequences. People look at us and say, they don't mean what they say, they are not willing to follow through."
On free elections in Iraq -- simple evasion.
Russert: If the Iraqis choose, however, an Islamic extremist regime, would you accept that, and would that be better for the United States than Saddam Hussein?In other words, they won't choose an Islamist government because the people WE have chosen to set up the government aren't Islamists. No follow-up from Russert on what happens if the people of Iraq vote for different leaders than the ones we have set up.
President Bush: They're not going to develop that. And the reason I can say that is because I'm very aware of this basic law they're writing. They're not going to develop that because right here in the Oval Office I sat down with Mr. Pachachi and Chalabi and al Hakim, people from different parts of the country that have made the firm commitment, that they want a constitution eventually written that recognizes minority rights and freedom of religion.
I remember speaking to Mr. al Hakim here, who is a fellow who has lost 63 family members during the Saddam reign. His brother was one of the people that was assassinated early on in this past year. I expected to see a very bitter person. If 63 members of your family had been killed by a group of people, you would be a little bitter. He obviously was concerned, but he I said, you know, I'm a Methodist, what are my chances of success in your country and your vision? And he said, it's going to be a free society where you can worship freely. This is a Shiia fellow.
And my only point to you is these people are committed to a pluralistic society. And it's not going to be easy. The road to democracy is bumpy. It's bumpy particularly because these are folks that have been terrorized, tortured, brutalized by Saddam Hussein.
This guy is in way over his head.
2/07/2004
The Dirty Tricksters Win Again: More on Ritter
The post below made me take a walk through memory lane back to the pre-war anti-war days.
Anyway, here's a link to my post on the story about Ritter back in January of 2003.
If you recall, this whole thing sounded like something Nixon's Dirty Tricksters would do. I had forgotten that Thomas Spargo, the judge in the case, was likely the culprit -- the guy who broke the law in other words.
Here's a bit of the post:
You and I know the answer, don't we?
Anyway, here's a link to my post on the story about Ritter back in January of 2003.
If you recall, this whole thing sounded like something Nixon's Dirty Tricksters would do. I had forgotten that Thomas Spargo, the judge in the case, was likely the culprit -- the guy who broke the law in other words.
Here's a bit of the post:
The timing is, of course, very suspicious. On the eve of a war against Iraq this has all the appearances of an attempt to silence or at least discredit one of the more effective critics of the administration. First of all, the records in this case were sealed and whoever leaked them to the press was quite simply breaking the law. They have also violated Ritter's civil rights as well.Why haven't W and the "law and order" Republicans put someone in jail over this?
Now, also suspiciously, U.S. attorneys William Pericak and Thomas Spina, Jr. have decided the government may pursue federal charges against Ritter based on what they have heard in the press about Ritter's alleged rendezvous attempt. Pericak and Spina have received a copy of Ritter's file in the New York case just today it appears.
Of course, the most curious thing of all is who the judge in Ritter's case in 2001 was -- his judge was a fellow named Thomas J. Spargo. Spargo is not exactly a household name but, if you recall from a couple of years back, he's a well-known Republican lawyer and activist who played a role in the mob demonstration that shut down the vote-counting in Miami during the recount battle of 2000. In fact, I recall it was quite controversial that he took part in this disgraceful demonstration since he was serving as a judge at the same time in New York. Anyway, Spargo is the judge who put the seal on Ritter's record in 2001 and, presumably, was in charge of making sure that none of this information was made public.
You and I know the answer, don't we?
2/06/2004
Whatever Happened to Scott Ritter?
Right now one of the big Rove Administration talking points is that "Everyone thought Saddam had WMD's, not just Bush". This nicely supplements the main point dutifully being trotted around: "This was an intelligence failure, and Bush is going to get to the bottom of it".
However, before the war there was one guy who was quite vocal about his belief that Saddam did not have WMD's: Scott Ritter. And as a former U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq, Ritter was in a position to know what he was talking about. He was right, and almost everyone else was wrong. So where is he these days?
Well, he's not on TV. According to Bob Somerby of The Daily Howler, Ritter has been seen on national broadcast media exactly three times in the last six months -- and one of those times he was slimed by Gloria Borger. (My own Googling research turns up very little more since 2002). Meanwhile, the people who got us into this mess run from talk show to talk show and from interview to interview, explaining endlessly why it wasn't their fault and how they were basically right all along. Rumsfeld or Condoleezzea can make three national TV appearances in one day.
So why is it that we don't we see Ritter? Mostly because he was smeared. In January 2003 there was a leak of a story about a 2001 misdemeanor arrest for attempting (via the internet) to meet a minor for sexual purposes. The legal case was dropped and the records sealed -- but this was enough to permanently discredit Ritter in the eyes of the media. Since then he's been almost invisible: Ritter was disappeared.
The case shouldn't have been in the news in the first place, since court records were sealed, and in any case the sex-scandal story (a misdemeanor with the charges dropped) was never seen again after February 2003. But after the story came out, Ritter (the one guy who apparently knew what was going on in Iraq) got considerable ink in the foreign-language and British press, but almost no attention in the U.S.
We shouldn't be surprised. Sidney Blumenthal and Greg Palast can't get published in the American daily media either, and they aren't even kinky. You don't want to go overboard about this, but the controlled media we have now should bother everyone. What we're seeing goes far beyond the traditional domination of the media by centrist points of view, and approaches the situation to be found in one-party states.
UPDATE:
Moniker pointed out in the comments that many people worldwide doubted Saddam's WMD. That's correct, and I should have made it clear that what I was talking about was an engineered American unanimity. I will write more on this soon.
SECOND UPDATE Col. David Hackworth has proposed that Ritter be nominated to the MWD probe commission. Makes perfect sense, but somehow you doubt that it will happen.
P.S. I never did tell you whether Ritter was guilty or not, did I? The answer is, I don't know, and almost no one else does either. The normal presumption when charges are dropped on a misdemeanor case is that there wasn't much there in the first place. The few facts we have are consistent with a frameup, entrapment, or blackmail, though these are not the only possible explanations. And of course, if it was blackmail, then apparently Ritter did something un-nice -- even if it was also unprosecutable.
The real point is that Ritter was right when almost everyone else was wrong, and that the media have been ignoring him since February 2003.
LINKS: I have parked links to this story here. I have also added links to stories about the movie Ritter made in 2001 (before 9/11) with funding from an Iraqi businessmen. The film has also been used to discredit Ritter, but I think that the case against him is weak.
While checking up on the film story, I did find that Ritter is sort of an oaf, with rather odd mannerisms, and thus not the best spokesman for his case. Or at least, that's how slick media people feel about him.
However, before the war there was one guy who was quite vocal about his belief that Saddam did not have WMD's: Scott Ritter. And as a former U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq, Ritter was in a position to know what he was talking about. He was right, and almost everyone else was wrong. So where is he these days?
Well, he's not on TV. According to Bob Somerby of The Daily Howler, Ritter has been seen on national broadcast media exactly three times in the last six months -- and one of those times he was slimed by Gloria Borger. (My own Googling research turns up very little more since 2002). Meanwhile, the people who got us into this mess run from talk show to talk show and from interview to interview, explaining endlessly why it wasn't their fault and how they were basically right all along. Rumsfeld or Condoleezzea can make three national TV appearances in one day.
So why is it that we don't we see Ritter? Mostly because he was smeared. In January 2003 there was a leak of a story about a 2001 misdemeanor arrest for attempting (via the internet) to meet a minor for sexual purposes. The legal case was dropped and the records sealed -- but this was enough to permanently discredit Ritter in the eyes of the media. Since then he's been almost invisible: Ritter was disappeared.
The case shouldn't have been in the news in the first place, since court records were sealed, and in any case the sex-scandal story (a misdemeanor with the charges dropped) was never seen again after February 2003. But after the story came out, Ritter (the one guy who apparently knew what was going on in Iraq) got considerable ink in the foreign-language and British press, but almost no attention in the U.S.
We shouldn't be surprised. Sidney Blumenthal and Greg Palast can't get published in the American daily media either, and they aren't even kinky. You don't want to go overboard about this, but the controlled media we have now should bother everyone. What we're seeing goes far beyond the traditional domination of the media by centrist points of view, and approaches the situation to be found in one-party states.
UPDATE:
Moniker pointed out in the comments that many people worldwide doubted Saddam's WMD. That's correct, and I should have made it clear that what I was talking about was an engineered American unanimity. I will write more on this soon.
SECOND UPDATE Col. David Hackworth has proposed that Ritter be nominated to the MWD probe commission. Makes perfect sense, but somehow you doubt that it will happen.
P.S. I never did tell you whether Ritter was guilty or not, did I? The answer is, I don't know, and almost no one else does either. The normal presumption when charges are dropped on a misdemeanor case is that there wasn't much there in the first place. The few facts we have are consistent with a frameup, entrapment, or blackmail, though these are not the only possible explanations. And of course, if it was blackmail, then apparently Ritter did something un-nice -- even if it was also unprosecutable.
The real point is that Ritter was right when almost everyone else was wrong, and that the media have been ignoring him since February 2003.
LINKS: I have parked links to this story here. I have also added links to stories about the movie Ritter made in 2001 (before 9/11) with funding from an Iraqi businessmen. The film has also been used to discredit Ritter, but I think that the case against him is weak.
While checking up on the film story, I did find that Ritter is sort of an oaf, with rather odd mannerisms, and thus not the best spokesman for his case. Or at least, that's how slick media people feel about him.
Bush Appoints Silberman
Bush appointed Laurence Silberman to head the "independent" investigation of Iraq intelligence. This might be the one person even less independent than Kissinger.
He first shows up as one of the people from the Reagan campaign who met with the Iranians in the Iran Hostage Crisis:
Later he shows up as one of the main behind-the-scenes Clinton-haters:
He first shows up as one of the people from the Reagan campaign who met with the Iranians in the Iran Hostage Crisis:
"In September 1980, Allen got a call from Robert McFarlane, then an authority on Iran for the Senate Armed Services Committee. McFarlane told Allen that he knew a representative of the Iranian government who might be useful. `McFarlane wanted us to meet him; he was emphatic,' recalls Allen. `And against my better judgment, I agreed.' Allen asked another campaign advisor, Laurence Silberman, to accompany him."Then he's one of the judges who let Ollie North off the hook on a technicality.
Later he shows up as one of the main behind-the-scenes Clinton-haters:
Laurence Silberman, appointed by Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist to sit on the review panel, is known by many as an ally of the Federalist Society and the judge who overturned Oliver North's convictions.This appointment says all we need to know about the "independence" of this commission.
In "Blinded by the Right," David Brock suggests Silberman was a driving force behind the conservative muckraker's "The Real Anita Hill," which trashed the woman who challenged Clarence Thomas, and of the "troopergate" articles that eventually produced Paula Jones.
According to Brock,though he was a sitting federal judge who would rule on matters to which the Clinton administration was party, Larry strongly urged me to go forward. By now, after his almost daily dealings with me as I wrote "The Real Anita Hill," Larry must have known I always deferred to his judgment. He also had keen psychological insight. He wrapped his advice in an appeal to my ego. The trooper story would be much bigger than the Anita Hill book, he predicted. Clinton would be "devastated," and therefore the story could only greatly enhance my reputation. Sitting in his favorite tan leather club chair, scotch in hand, the judge told me he felt sure that if the same story had been written about Ronald Reagan, it would have toppled him from office. Clinton, he surmised, might be toppled as well. Of course, the liberal media might ignore the story to protect Clinton, but in conservative circles, I would be king. When I heard that I was over the fence.Later, as Brock indicates, Silberman ruled on Clinton matters, including whether Clinton's bodyguards could be compelled to testify in the Lewinsky case. He famously asked in an opinion, "Can it be said that the president of the United States has declared war on the United States," when he disagreed with the administration's tactics. His court also backed the leaks to the media from the office of his friend Ken Starr.
[. . .] Brock's account also alleges that Silberman was good at moving dirt behind the scenes, acting as a source, both on and off the record, for "The Real Anita Hill." Brock relates the story of his finishing a chapter alleging Sen. Paul Simon leaked confidential papers on Hill to the press. After Brock drops it through Silberman's mail slot, the judge and his wife call their young cub reporter.
"They were passing the phone to each other, marveling at my 'genius' at the top of their lungs," Brock says. "'You got him. You nailed him. You fucked him. You killed him,' they sang. The state of manic euphoria that gripped the Silbermans that evening is impossible to describe to a normal person."
2/05/2004
The Kerry Smear -- Spotted Again
I have been following a certain kind of smear that appears to be a tactic of the Republicans for the election. Anonymous callers to talk shows, anonymous letter writers, all with stories about how John Kerry is a nasty rich elitist who does thing like push in front of people in lines at supermarkets. I wrote about it here and, especially here. Now in Murdoch's NY Post (Murcoch owns Fox News), there's this (thanks to Atrios):
(Cross-posted at the american street.)
"ONE of the surest ways to get the phones ringing on any Massachusetts talk-radio show is to ask people to call in and tell their John Kerry stories. The phone lines are soon filled, and most of the stories have a common theme: our junior senator pulling rank on one of his constituents, breaking in line, demanding to pay less (or nothing) or ducking out before the bill arrives.It's time to write to your local papers, warning people of this tactic.
The tales often have one other common thread. Most end with Sen. Kerry inquiring of the lesser mortal: "Do you know who I am?"
(Cross-posted at the american street.)
Lies Lies Lies Yeah Part 2,357
From this bombshell UPI story:
Apparently, Libby and Hannah are the sacrificial lambs. But why did the White House lie about Libby's involvement? How did they think they could get away with that? I mean, heck folks, most of the people in that room KNEW for a fact that McClellan was lying. Surely they knew it was bound to come out that Libby was involved sooner or later, right?
However, I've got one eensy teensy (but important) question:
Who told Libby and Hannah that Plame was a CIA operative?
Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
Federal law-enforcement officials said that they have developed hard evidence of possible criminal misconduct by two employees of Vice President Dick Cheney's office related to the unlawful exposure of a CIA officer's identity last year. The investigation, which is continuing, could lead to indictments, a Justice Department official said.From an October 6, 2003 press conference by Scott McClellan:
According to these sources, John Hannah and Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, were the two Cheney employees. "We believe that Hannah was the major player in this," one federal law-enforcement officer said. Calls to the vice president's office were not returned, nor did Hannah and Libby return calls.
Q Scott, the President just expressed his desire to get to the bottom of this CIA leak issue. And he said he wanted to hold accountable whoever was responsible --From an October 10, 2003 press conference by Scott McClellan:
MR. McCLELLAN: Absolutely.
Q -- responsible for this. But can you confirm that the President would fire anyone on his staff found to have leaked classified information?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think I made that very clear last week. The topic came up, and I said that if anyone in this administration was responsible for the leaking of classified information, they would no longer work in this administration. This is a very serious matter. The President made it very clear just a short time ago in the East Room, and he has always said that leaking of classified information is a serious matter. And that's why he wants to get to the bottom of this. And the sooner we get to the bottom of it, the better.
Q Scott, earlier this week you told us that neither Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams nor Lewis Libby disclosed any classified information with regard to the leak. I wondered if you could tell us more specifically whether any of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?Now, explain to me why Scooter and Hannah still have jobs? Didn't the White House say they'd immediately fire any person who was involved in this?
MR. McCLELLAN: Those individuals -- I talked -- I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that's where it stands.
Q So none of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?
MR. McCLELLAN: They assured me that they were not involved in this.
Apparently, Libby and Hannah are the sacrificial lambs. But why did the White House lie about Libby's involvement? How did they think they could get away with that? I mean, heck folks, most of the people in that room KNEW for a fact that McClellan was lying. Surely they knew it was bound to come out that Libby was involved sooner or later, right?
However, I've got one eensy teensy (but important) question:
Who told Libby and Hannah that Plame was a CIA operative?
Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
The New Ad
The new ad is a dating service FOR PROGRESSIVES.
I can see the need for this. I went out with a Libertarian once. Ugh!
I can see the need for this. I went out with a Libertarian once. Ugh!
No One Remembers
Does anyone remember this, from Dec. 7, 2002? Iraq Delivers Arms Declaration to U.N.:
"BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq handed over its long-awaited arms declaration to the United Nations on Saturday, denying it has doomsday weapons, and President Saddam Hussein grudgingly apologized to Kuwait for his 1990 invasion.Of course, TODAY'S excuse is that Saddam didn't know that he didn't have WMD, and that's why Bush thought they did.
[. . .] The declaration will "answer all the questions,'' said Lt. Gen. Hossam Mohammed Amin, its chief author. If the United States "has the minimum level of fairness and braveness,'' it will accept it as the truth, he said.
[. . .]But new teams of U.N. arms inspectors are now crisscrossing Iraq in search of signs of weapons of mass destruction, and the Bush administration says it is sure Baghdad still has such weapons. It has threatened war to enforce Iraqi disarmament.
The huge Iraqi declaration, summarizing largely civilian industrial activity, was an anticlimax, since the Iraqi denial has been repeated endlessly, including by Gen. Amin on Saturday. ``I reiterate here Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction,'' he told reporters."
They're In Charge Now
From Dr. Strangelove:
"I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration , Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids... " -Base Commander RipperThis wingnut was modeled after the John Birch Society wingnuts. Well, people, now those wingnuts run the country.
July 2002
In one of my first Seeing the Forest posts I wrote:
"After this November's election the Democratic Party is going to have to start asking Democrats for money instead of hitting up corporate Republicans as they have been doing. They are used to getting large chunks of cash from corporations and now they have to raise lots of smaller chunks from actual Democrats. I think the changes they will have to make to tailor their message to actual Demcorats is going to make a huge difference in the message of the Democratic Party.And look what has happened! Taking away the corporate money HAS changed the party.
I've been to a few Democratic clubs and other meetings lately and have to say that the mood of the grass roots is nothing like the message that the Democratic Party has been putting out. Grass-roots Democrats are not at all happy with the way House and Senate Democrats have been voting for several years. I think we are likely to see a very strong populist resurgence."
W's Alternate Universe
Because we acted, nations of the Middle East no longer need to fear reckless aggression from a ruthless dictator who had the intent and capability to inflict great harm on his people and people around the world.That's true I guess.
Unfortunately, now the nations of the Middle East need to fear reckless agression from the United States.
And the people of Iraq have learned the United States has the capability to inflict great harm, haven't they?
Dean - Wisconsin Or Out
Dean says he must win Wisconsin or leave the race. He is asking supporters to donate $700,000 by Sunday to pay for ads. I have put "the bat" back up - click on it to give, even $5.
What do I think? I think he's being realistic. I also think he might be pretty sure he has a good chance of winning Wisconsin. If he does that helps propel him into the BIG March 2 primaries including California and New York. And it will be a very interesting time up to the convention, with FOUR candidates blasting Bush on the news every single night. YES!
Last night's Redwood City Meetup was surprising. About 1/3 of the people there were at their first Dean Meetup. I wonder what it was like in the rest of the country?
All I can say is, we'll see.
What do I think? I think he's being realistic. I also think he might be pretty sure he has a good chance of winning Wisconsin. If he does that helps propel him into the BIG March 2 primaries including California and New York. And it will be a very interesting time up to the convention, with FOUR candidates blasting Bush on the news every single night. YES!
Last night's Redwood City Meetup was surprising. About 1/3 of the people there were at their first Dean Meetup. I wonder what it was like in the rest of the country?
All I can say is, we'll see.
Ghostwriting Republican Trash Talk
(Matt Yglesias linked to a query from warblogger Tacitus asking for examples of "Bill Clinton's policy lies". Fun was had by all, especially by his resident trolls. This is a rewritten version of my contribution.)
I believe in the division of labor and comparative advantage. I'm sure that the Republicans have already found every lie Clinton ever told, along with a lot that he didn't tell -- as Reagan said, there's gotta be a pony somewhere in all that shit. As far as I'm concerned, our job is just to shovel away the shit.
Why we're running errands for Tacitus, I don't know. For people who need to believe that there's a decent conservative in the world, apparently he's the man. But from what I've read, he's just as nasty as the others -- he's just painfully trained himself to keep a civil tongue in his head. For the sake of the common good, Tacitus always demands that we meet him half way, but I have never seen him starting off by meeting us half way. He just struts over with a chip on his shoulder to make his demands.
I'm hardly a Clinton loyalist -- he double-crossed my wing of the party up one side and down the other -- but my doubts about Clinton aren't to be shared with Tacitus, who I'm sure enjoyed watching a Democrat do the Republicans' work.
During the Dukakis campaign, the Democrat's response was to stop campaigning for a minute to decide whether Boston Harbor was really that bad. When the Republicans insinuated that Clinton's mother was a whore -- yes, they really did do that -- the Democratic response was to ask if it was strictly true, and to hold a symposium on the role of women in today's world. So now we're ghost-writing trash-talk for Bush's Republican defenders.
Civility in American politics came to an end in the 1994 Congressional campaign, when one of the nastiest guys in American politics became Speaker of the House with the help of a ludicrous and vicious smear. The Republicans have done nothing since then to improve the situation, and they've held on to their gains.
Democrats play fair, and Republicans don't. Democrats are openminded and thoughtful, and Republicans aren't. We have the high moral ground, and they have the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court.
(Unnecessary personal references omitted. There are many fine people who still believe that dialogue with Republicans is possible, though when I visit their sites I wonder why they bother to try.)
Update:
I checked back on the Yglesias thread, and apparently the Tacitus thread was not trolling for "Clinton was just as bad" slime, but was straightforwardly intended.
Someone else has also given me evidence that my judgement of Tacitus (based on fifteen minutes at his site plus his comments here and there) was unfair.
On the other hand, by being an asshole I succeeded in drawing more attention to myself than I otherwise would have gotten. My self-promotion skills are improving, I guess.
I believe in the division of labor and comparative advantage. I'm sure that the Republicans have already found every lie Clinton ever told, along with a lot that he didn't tell -- as Reagan said, there's gotta be a pony somewhere in all that shit. As far as I'm concerned, our job is just to shovel away the shit.
Why we're running errands for Tacitus, I don't know. For people who need to believe that there's a decent conservative in the world, apparently he's the man. But from what I've read, he's just as nasty as the others -- he's just painfully trained himself to keep a civil tongue in his head. For the sake of the common good, Tacitus always demands that we meet him half way, but I have never seen him starting off by meeting us half way. He just struts over with a chip on his shoulder to make his demands.
I'm hardly a Clinton loyalist -- he double-crossed my wing of the party up one side and down the other -- but my doubts about Clinton aren't to be shared with Tacitus, who I'm sure enjoyed watching a Democrat do the Republicans' work.
During the Dukakis campaign, the Democrat's response was to stop campaigning for a minute to decide whether Boston Harbor was really that bad. When the Republicans insinuated that Clinton's mother was a whore -- yes, they really did do that -- the Democratic response was to ask if it was strictly true, and to hold a symposium on the role of women in today's world. So now we're ghost-writing trash-talk for Bush's Republican defenders.
Civility in American politics came to an end in the 1994 Congressional campaign, when one of the nastiest guys in American politics became Speaker of the House with the help of a ludicrous and vicious smear. The Republicans have done nothing since then to improve the situation, and they've held on to their gains.
Democrats play fair, and Republicans don't. Democrats are openminded and thoughtful, and Republicans aren't. We have the high moral ground, and they have the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court.
(Unnecessary personal references omitted. There are many fine people who still believe that dialogue with Republicans is possible, though when I visit their sites I wonder why they bother to try.)
Update:
I checked back on the Yglesias thread, and apparently the Tacitus thread was not trolling for "Clinton was just as bad" slime, but was straightforwardly intended.
Someone else has also given me evidence that my judgement of Tacitus (based on fifteen minutes at his site plus his comments here and there) was unfair.
On the other hand, by being an asshole I succeeded in drawing more attention to myself than I otherwise would have gotten. My self-promotion skills are improving, I guess.
2/04/2004
Why Bush Won't Allow His National Guard Records To Be Released
I suspect the reason Bush won't let his Service Records to be released is they will show he accepted pay for dates he did not show up.
I mean, we already know he never completed training to become a fighter pilot because he stopped flying rather than take a physical after they announced a new policy of drug testing. He already admits there was quite a bit of time he wasn't there. (He claims he made it up.) His "honorable discharge" papers show that he left a year early. So what does he still have to hide? Why won't he allow the records to be released?
I mean, we already know he never completed training to become a fighter pilot because he stopped flying rather than take a physical after they announced a new policy of drug testing. He already admits there was quite a bit of time he wasn't there. (He claims he made it up.) His "honorable discharge" papers show that he left a year early. So what does he still have to hide? Why won't he allow the records to be released?
Best
THIS at Billmon's Whiskey Bar is why I read weblogs, and read the professional pundits less and less often. Oh, wait, newspapers CAN'T do what bloggers do - because bloggers can link to stories, and you can leave comments!
On the deficits:
On the deficits:
""Gulp," says the House Republican Caucus. "You mean you want us to handle it?"Don't worry, their kids will cover the bill.
"Naturally," replies the president. "What other suckers would I have in mind?"
And so the Great Barbecue of 2003 finally reaches its greasy end. The meal has been devoured -- all those rich tax cuts and thick slices of pork, topped off by that enormous ice cream sundae of prescription drug benefits. The check is on the table. The guests are frantically trying to avoid eye contact."
Ask The Simple Question
I wish the press would ask Republicans why they didn't think it was "outrageous and baseless" to call President Clinton a "draft-dodger."
Republicans roared back on Tuesday, accusing Mr. Kerry of "smear tactics" for saying the president should answer questions about his service record.I wish someone would ask Republicans if they also think it was "smear tactics" to accuse President Clinton of ... jeeze, think of all the things they accused him of!
Ralph Reed, the Bush campaign's Southeast regional chairman, went even further. "It's gutter politics," Mr. Reed said in an interview. "We're absolutely convinced that the American people will reject these smear tactics."Did the American people reject the Republicans for their tactics against President Clinton? How did the Republicans fare, after years of the nastiest kind of sleazy attacks on Clinton? Oh yeah, I remember, now they countrol the House, they control the Senate, and they control the White House.
Taxpayer Money Paying For Bush Campaign Ads!
The government will be spending $9.5 million to run blatantly political pro-Republican election ads, in English and Spanish, promoting Bush's Medicare Destruction bill that was passed by a few votes.
From The Progress Report:
Call your Congressional Representative and demand these Bush campaign ads be taken down, and those responsible be sent to jail!
Also, read the whole thing at the Center for American Progress. There is a lot more, including reminding us how the government spent $30 million to mail a letter telling all Americans that Bush had provided "long-term tax relief for all Americans who pay income taxes" and that "you will be receiving a check [so] you need to take no additional steps." Remember how the term "tax relief" works for the Republicans.
And they just get away with this stuff! There is no accountability. Clinton would have gone to jail if he had even thought about doing anything like this. Are we approaching the time when we need to be in the streets demanding an end to this kind of corruption and destruction of our system?
From The Progress Report:
"THE AD'S DISTORTIONS: The new Medicare ads urge citizens to call 1-800-MEDICARE to hear more about the new law. And in 'Big Brother' style, when you call that number you have to actually say out loud 'Medicare improvement' in order to get information. The information you then receive is filled with distortions. The hotline claims the new Medicare 'is the same Medicare you have always counted on' -- failing to disclose that the law includes provisions which try to force more seniors into private HMOs. The hotline claims that seniors will be able to find 'immediate savings between 10% to 15% from a new drug discount card program.' But the cards, which were written into the bill by one of President Bush's closest business associates, actually do not guarantee any savings at all. The hotline also says the new prescription drug program under Medicare 'will provide significant savings for seniors.' But as the Center for Economic and Policy Research notes, 'seniors in the middle income quintile will pay an average of $1,650 a year in out-of-pocket expenses for prescription drugs in 2006 - a figure nearly 60% more than they paid in 2000.'"You have to SAY "Medicare Improvement." This is basic marketing -- repeat the message. Getting rid of Medicare is "improvement." And making you actually SAY it...
Call your Congressional Representative and demand these Bush campaign ads be taken down, and those responsible be sent to jail!
Also, read the whole thing at the Center for American Progress. There is a lot more, including reminding us how the government spent $30 million to mail a letter telling all Americans that Bush had provided "long-term tax relief for all Americans who pay income taxes" and that "you will be receiving a check [so] you need to take no additional steps." Remember how the term "tax relief" works for the Republicans.
And they just get away with this stuff! There is no accountability. Clinton would have gone to jail if he had even thought about doing anything like this. Are we approaching the time when we need to be in the streets demanding an end to this kind of corruption and destruction of our system?
2/03/2004
Is This For Real?
This post: Kerry Beat Dean in New Hampshire by Only 1.5% When Computers Weren't Doing the Counting says that where machines counted the votes, Kerry beat Dean by a big margin, but when the votes were counted by hand he did not. Read the post.
Is this for real, or is someone just making stuff up? Should Dean ask for a hand recount? (These are paper ballots - it was optical scan machines counting them v.s. hand counts.)
Is this for real, or is someone just making stuff up? Should Dean ask for a hand recount? (These are paper ballots - it was optical scan machines counting them v.s. hand counts.)
A Comment I Left At The Dean Blog
Here's a comment I just left at the Dean blog. What do you think?
Update - I guess it resonated. Other people are copying and reposting my message in the comments. (Repetition works.)
Update - Exit polls confirm what I'm saying.
"The number one question about your candidacy is “Can you be elected?” The public is asking it, the press is asking it, and your supporters are asking it.I heard they actually read the blog comments. (And STF.)
Answer it. Don’t talk about anything else until this is answered.
You should be starting every single sentence with “I will beat George Bush because…” and not saying anything else. You need to have this as your message, and nothing else, until it is no longer a question that people ask. You should have no other message because THERE IS NO OTHER QUESTION. Period.
Short message. Answer the number one question. Repeat and repeat – that’s basic marketing.
Answer this question and all the people who “support Dean, but,” will be back voting for you!
Update - I guess it resonated. Other people are copying and reposting my message in the comments. (Repetition works.)
Update - Exit polls confirm what I'm saying.
In Command
The Republican Drudge Report site has the big headline "In Command" up again, with a picture of Kerry. (No, I won't provide a link to Drudge.)
And, I hate to get into this game, but I saw Kerry interviewed on CNN, and his forehead and eyebrows did not move at all, not once, not even a little bit, not even when he blinked. No question about it -- Drudge was right.
And, I hate to get into this game, but I saw Kerry interviewed on CNN, and his forehead and eyebrows did not move at all, not once, not even a little bit, not even when he blinked. No question about it -- Drudge was right.
Bobby Knight makes a fool of himself again
Bob Knight has done it again. If you recall, I went to IU for my doctorate and I've commented on this before:
It really is about time for him to go, don't you think?
Strangely, my parents went to Texas Tech and have now begun to cheer for Knight's Tech squad. I keep telling them that it's only a matter of time before he goes ballistic there. And, with what appears to be another coddling university administration that is catering to Knight's every whim, the explosion is actually likely to come sooner rather than later. Of course, like a ticking time bomb, we all can't help but watch, fascinated, waiting for the inevitable.Apparently, yesterday it did.
For his players' sake, I really hope it doesn't happen.
Unfortunately, we all know it will, don't we?
It really is about time for him to go, don't you think?
Hullabaloo, on Kerry
Go read Hullabaloo:
Even MORE great Dibgy here:
"Kerry had better get his rhetoric together and stop with the 'IIIII led the fight against the Dingell-Daschle compromise in 1986 when my goooood friend the Senatooor from Delawaaaare and I stood firm for working women and the Contras in the funding for the Omnibus Spending bill 227 that offered nothing for the nuclear freeze under the Salt III treaty banning all long range ballistic child care vouuuuchers. I stoooood firrrrrm then and I'll stand firrrrm agaaaain!'He nails it.
The Republicans are going to reply, 'When America was attacked, George Bush knew what to do. He kept you safe.' "
Even MORE great Dibgy here:
"Whining about the media's unfairness or RNC cheating or primary voter's laziness or the Supreme Court stopping the vote count is useless. It does not matter how it happens, the end justifies the means. If you can't make it happen, you don't deserve to win, even if the deck is stacked, the media are useless lemmings or the other side hacks into the Diebold voting machines. If the game is rigged a true winner would make sure it's rigged in his favor. That's the American Way."And,
"By drawing out the primaries the way they did, the Democrats had far too much time to think about who they were voting for and they often voted for someone who wasn't a winner. If Bill Clinton couldn't win Iowa and New Hampshire, he had no business being the nominee. But, nobody told the voters or the press (who were fixated on Ross Perot at the time) so he managed to eke out the nomination when it was obvious that either Tom Harkin or Paul Tsongas should have run against George Bush."Heh.
More Smears
Does this sound a LOT like what I wrote about hearing on the radio the other day?
You're going to hear a LOT of this sort of thing in the coming months. And you're NOT going to hear about even more of it, because it will be "under the radar." Every single local newspaper, church newsletter, radio call-in show, local music radio DJ anecdote, internet mailing list, e-mail chain-letter, and EVERY OTHER SOURCE of information that most Americans have. THIS is where Bush will be spending a good chunk of his $2-300 million.
What do we do about it?
You're going to hear a LOT of this sort of thing in the coming months. And you're NOT going to hear about even more of it, because it will be "under the radar." Every single local newspaper, church newsletter, radio call-in show, local music radio DJ anecdote, internet mailing list, e-mail chain-letter, and EVERY OTHER SOURCE of information that most Americans have. THIS is where Bush will be spending a good chunk of his $2-300 million.
What do we do about it?
The Media are Playing for the Other Team
The Democrats have four good candidates in the Presidential race. Any one of them can be elected, any one of them would be a far better President than George W. Bush, and whichever one runs will be slimed by the combined efforts of the RNC and the national media.
That's why I don't think that we should put a lot of energy into thinking about the various candidates' different vulnerabilities. If Max Cleland can be slimed, anyone can be. The Democratic candidate is going to have to run over the media, because the great majority of the media are going to be playing for the other team.
Cases in point: the Bush AWOL issue, the Bush budget, and the recent attempts to blame the intelligence failures leading up to Iraq War II on the CIA.
The facts about Bush's military service have been readily available for a couple of years. There is room for differences of opinion, but there's unquestionably a real issue here. But the major media either ignore the issue, claim that Bush has been vindicated, or claim that no one really knows. Any of them could educate himself by clicking on one of the following links and spending half an hour, but none of them has bothered. (Links: DeLong, Daily Howler, and Orcinus.)
Second, there's the Bush budget. For months Brad DeLong has been commenting on the disastrous Bush fiscal policies and the compliant coverage it's been getting in the press. Here's his recent piece on the budget just presented. This budget is massively fraudulent, simply leaving out information normally included in budgets whenever that information happens to be embarassing to the Bush Administration. But the Post doesn't tell you that. Outrageous and impossible assertions are presented as if they make sense. (DeLong's followup).
Finally, the Iraq intelligence fiasco. People who read the papers and have a memory that goes back two years know that the CIA was more cautious than the White House about connecting WMD and Al Qaeda to Saddam. At the time, the CIA was blamed harshly for this, and a free-lance amateur intelligence service was set up in Cheney's office to doctor the evidence to administration specifications. (Slacktivist has collected the relevant stories here. And here's a neo-com book arguing the previous administration line in great detail: Laurie Mylroie's "How the CIA and the State Department Tried to Stop the War on Terror".)
The new story, though, is that the Bush Administration overestimated the Iraqi threat because it had been misled by the CIA-- exactly the opposite of the truth! So many columnists have agreed upon exactly the same cover story that it's difficult to believe that it hasn't been a coordinated effort.
And here's where we get to the interesting part. David Brooks, who used to be widely-respected as a conservative commentator, now works for the "liberal New York Times". But here he simply repeats the Bush Administration spin on the intelligence fiasco, right on schedule.
Think about it. As a conservative ideologue, Brooks was not thought of as a partisan hack. But since he moved to the Times, he seems to have become one. (There are many other examples). Doesn't this tell us that the fix is on, and that we are playing against the entire media -- even the liberal New York Times? I really don't think that there's an innocent explanation for the major media's failure to get these three stories right.
Oddly enough, there still are many don't trust anything they read on the internet. (As I have said elsewhere, we are not gentlemen.) But there's really been an inversion. Increasingly it's the "reliable sources" which can't be trusted.
PS: Maybe something's changing. Here's Dan Froomkin on the National Guard story. I'd love to be wrong about all this!
That's why I don't think that we should put a lot of energy into thinking about the various candidates' different vulnerabilities. If Max Cleland can be slimed, anyone can be. The Democratic candidate is going to have to run over the media, because the great majority of the media are going to be playing for the other team.
Cases in point: the Bush AWOL issue, the Bush budget, and the recent attempts to blame the intelligence failures leading up to Iraq War II on the CIA.
The facts about Bush's military service have been readily available for a couple of years. There is room for differences of opinion, but there's unquestionably a real issue here. But the major media either ignore the issue, claim that Bush has been vindicated, or claim that no one really knows. Any of them could educate himself by clicking on one of the following links and spending half an hour, but none of them has bothered. (Links: DeLong, Daily Howler, and Orcinus.)
Second, there's the Bush budget. For months Brad DeLong has been commenting on the disastrous Bush fiscal policies and the compliant coverage it's been getting in the press. Here's his recent piece on the budget just presented. This budget is massively fraudulent, simply leaving out information normally included in budgets whenever that information happens to be embarassing to the Bush Administration. But the Post doesn't tell you that. Outrageous and impossible assertions are presented as if they make sense. (DeLong's followup).
Finally, the Iraq intelligence fiasco. People who read the papers and have a memory that goes back two years know that the CIA was more cautious than the White House about connecting WMD and Al Qaeda to Saddam. At the time, the CIA was blamed harshly for this, and a free-lance amateur intelligence service was set up in Cheney's office to doctor the evidence to administration specifications. (Slacktivist has collected the relevant stories here. And here's a neo-com book arguing the previous administration line in great detail: Laurie Mylroie's "How the CIA and the State Department Tried to Stop the War on Terror".)
The new story, though, is that the Bush Administration overestimated the Iraqi threat because it had been misled by the CIA-- exactly the opposite of the truth! So many columnists have agreed upon exactly the same cover story that it's difficult to believe that it hasn't been a coordinated effort.
And here's where we get to the interesting part. David Brooks, who used to be widely-respected as a conservative commentator, now works for the "liberal New York Times". But here he simply repeats the Bush Administration spin on the intelligence fiasco, right on schedule.
Think about it. As a conservative ideologue, Brooks was not thought of as a partisan hack. But since he moved to the Times, he seems to have become one. (There are many other examples). Doesn't this tell us that the fix is on, and that we are playing against the entire media -- even the liberal New York Times? I really don't think that there's an innocent explanation for the major media's failure to get these three stories right.
Oddly enough, there still are many don't trust anything they read on the internet. (As I have said elsewhere, we are not gentlemen.) But there's really been an inversion. Increasingly it's the "reliable sources" which can't be trusted.
PS: Maybe something's changing. Here's Dan Froomkin on the National Guard story. I'd love to be wrong about all this!
Another Thought On Dean
Reading yet another article on what went wrong with the Dean campaign, I realize I haven't seen a single one that addresses what I think went wrong. Putting it simply: Dean did not efectively address the "electability" question.
I think any volunteer who had been working at the street level could tell you that the number one question asked was, "Can he be elected?" And the Iowa caucuses proved that this was the number one question on Democrats' minds. And it certainly was a question being asked by the press. You can't blame the press for asking the question if the candidate is not answering it effectively. And if he were answering it effectively, maybe they would stop asking.
I used to think that Dean is the most electable of the candidates, because he understands how the Republicans are going to campaign, and was going to fight back effectively. He is a centrist, endorsed by the NRA, clearly able to build a movement of activated, enthusiastic volunteers, ready to go door-to-door and donate money as necessary.
My opinion has, of course, changed. First, the campaign did not effectively respond to "the scream." I think this was an example of "Photoshopping" a candidate. They enhanced the sound in that tape, filtered out the crowd noise, and made is seem that Dean was just going nuts, when in fact he was raising his voice because the crowd was going wild. I'm not complaining here that he was unfairly smeared, I'm complaining that the candidate who had said he was ready to fight back WASN'T ready, when it came down to it. I had counted on Dean to assemble an effective response team, ready to respond to smears and tricks like this, and this did not happen.
Second, Dean never effectively addressed the big issue - electability! An effective ad would say, "A centrist governor, endorsed by the NRA, etc., etc." and would lay out the case that he IS electable. Such an ad should have been the ONLY thing running for weeks in Iowa.
Come to think of it, there's still time. Governor, if you really ARE electable, tell us why, over and over, and don't talk about anything else until that question is settled. We'll vote for you if you prove you really can beat Bush!
I think any volunteer who had been working at the street level could tell you that the number one question asked was, "Can he be elected?" And the Iowa caucuses proved that this was the number one question on Democrats' minds. And it certainly was a question being asked by the press. You can't blame the press for asking the question if the candidate is not answering it effectively. And if he were answering it effectively, maybe they would stop asking.
I used to think that Dean is the most electable of the candidates, because he understands how the Republicans are going to campaign, and was going to fight back effectively. He is a centrist, endorsed by the NRA, clearly able to build a movement of activated, enthusiastic volunteers, ready to go door-to-door and donate money as necessary.
My opinion has, of course, changed. First, the campaign did not effectively respond to "the scream." I think this was an example of "Photoshopping" a candidate. They enhanced the sound in that tape, filtered out the crowd noise, and made is seem that Dean was just going nuts, when in fact he was raising his voice because the crowd was going wild. I'm not complaining here that he was unfairly smeared, I'm complaining that the candidate who had said he was ready to fight back WASN'T ready, when it came down to it. I had counted on Dean to assemble an effective response team, ready to respond to smears and tricks like this, and this did not happen.
Second, Dean never effectively addressed the big issue - electability! An effective ad would say, "A centrist governor, endorsed by the NRA, etc., etc." and would lay out the case that he IS electable. Such an ad should have been the ONLY thing running for weeks in Iowa.
Come to think of it, there's still time. Governor, if you really ARE electable, tell us why, over and over, and don't talk about anything else until that question is settled. We'll vote for you if you prove you really can beat Bush!
2/02/2004
North Korea
Read about what's going on in North Korea. And this is coming from the BBC, so the Bush problem doesn't come into play, does it?
Why Kerry Instead Of Dean?
I have a post over at the american street, discussing my thoughts about why so many voters went for Kerry instead of Dean in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Update - A comment over at that post points to this, and says, "When is somebody going to point out that John Kerry is going to get reamed in the general election because of the book cover for "The New Soldier"? There on the cover is his name above a group of men mimicing the revered Iwo Jima memorial for WW2 vets with an upside down flag. [. . .] This is why the conservative media has been soft on Kerry and it's the Democrats who are going to have to pay for not alerting voters to the kinds of problems that this candidate will have to face if he becomes our nominee."
Read the whole page. It shows what's coming if Kerry is the nominee. If you think his status as a Vietnam Vet is going to help... read it. I'm not knocking Kerry for anything here. What I'm saying is that Vietnam Vet isn't going to be a plus for him. Remember how Clinton was accused of being unpatriotic for protesting against the war? Well, Kerry threw his medals away, and posed for pictures like this with upside-down flags. I think he was right to do so, but you KNOW what the Right is going to do with this. Remember Max Cleland - and he never protested against the war.
Update - A comment over at that post points to this, and says, "When is somebody going to point out that John Kerry is going to get reamed in the general election because of the book cover for "The New Soldier"? There on the cover is his name above a group of men mimicing the revered Iwo Jima memorial for WW2 vets with an upside down flag. [. . .] This is why the conservative media has been soft on Kerry and it's the Democrats who are going to have to pay for not alerting voters to the kinds of problems that this candidate will have to face if he becomes our nominee."
Read the whole page. It shows what's coming if Kerry is the nominee. If you think his status as a Vietnam Vet is going to help... read it. I'm not knocking Kerry for anything here. What I'm saying is that Vietnam Vet isn't going to be a plus for him. Remember how Clinton was accused of being unpatriotic for protesting against the war? Well, Kerry threw his medals away, and posed for pictures like this with upside-down flags. I think he was right to do so, but you KNOW what the Right is going to do with this. Remember Max Cleland - and he never protested against the war.
Who Were the Suckers?
Calpundit tells us about a new blog for liberal hawks called "Iraq'd". The guy (Spencer Ackerman) pretty much takes the bull by the horns and admits that he and his friends had been conned.
I know that recriminations and fingerpointing are very wrong and bad, but couldn't we at least get an acknowledgement that this time around it was the naive, unrealistic, lost-in-the-Sixties ideologues who called it right, and the sharp, realistic, tough-minded wonks who got suckered? Some of us left-wing Dems have been at the receiving end of TNR's snarky disdain for more than two decades now, and it really should be our turn now.
"It's not false just because George Bush says it". That was one of the liberal hawks' main arguments, and it turned out to be a very poor one. From 9/11 onward it's been clear that Bush was going to capitalize on the crisis for all kinds of unrelated political purposes, and there always were plenty of reasons to believe that his Iraq war plan itself was riddled with fraud.
Even if Iraq War II had been a great triumph, I don't think that the liberal hawks would have gained much from their stand. They probably would have improved their position within the weakened Democratic Party, but Bush wouldn't have needed them anymore for anything, and they would have found themselves discarded like used Kleenex.
I know that recriminations and fingerpointing are very wrong and bad, but couldn't we at least get an acknowledgement that this time around it was the naive, unrealistic, lost-in-the-Sixties ideologues who called it right, and the sharp, realistic, tough-minded wonks who got suckered? Some of us left-wing Dems have been at the receiving end of TNR's snarky disdain for more than two decades now, and it really should be our turn now.
"It's not false just because George Bush says it". That was one of the liberal hawks' main arguments, and it turned out to be a very poor one. From 9/11 onward it's been clear that Bush was going to capitalize on the crisis for all kinds of unrelated political purposes, and there always were plenty of reasons to believe that his Iraq war plan itself was riddled with fraud.
Even if Iraq War II had been a great triumph, I don't think that the liberal hawks would have gained much from their stand. They probably would have improved their position within the weakened Democratic Party, but Bush wouldn't have needed them anymore for anything, and they would have found themselves discarded like used Kleenex.
People Still Think...
Counterspin Central has results of a Newsweek poll:
"'Do you think Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was DIRECTLY involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, or not?'The good news is, this can only go down.
Jan. 29-30, 2004
Was -- 49%
Was Not -- 39%
Don't Know -- 16%'"
2/01/2004
Kerry?
Let me open this up for discussion before I go to bed. I think it's obvious that Kerry was and is the GOP choice for who they want to run against. Look at the level of attacks on Dean compared to the lack of attacks on Kerry. Lots of the anti-Dean stuff originated at places like Drudge, meaning from the Republicans, and I saw a "Kerry in Command" headline at Drudge the other day. There are few press attacks on Kerry -- even a 60 Minutes puff-piece last week. They have tons of oppo research on him, and he has plenty of votes they can twist into an anti-American fervor. He is married to an extremely wealthy woman, which they will find SO many ways to use as a model of hypocrisy. AND his voting record is very close to Ted Kennedy. On national security they can neutralize him, and on domestic issues they can tear him apart. Where Dean was the Centrist (endorsed by the NRA) who was cast as a liberal, Kerry is the liberal they can cast as ... well, think about it. This one really IS a liberal from New England.
Not to mention that his style is, to say the least, NOT one that most Americans are going to warm up to.
In my opinion the Republicans have been absolutely rejoicing at the prospect of running against another liberal from Massachusetts. What do you think? Was Kerry the GOP's plan all along?
Monday Update - Calpundit notices, too.
Not to mention that his style is, to say the least, NOT one that most Americans are going to warm up to.
In my opinion the Republicans have been absolutely rejoicing at the prospect of running against another liberal from Massachusetts. What do you think? Was Kerry the GOP's plan all along?
Monday Update - Calpundit notices, too.
Americans Deserve a Profound Apology...
Imagine that you are the parent, or the brother or sister, or the wife, husband or child of a young man or woman killed in Iraq - one of the 138 who died in the march on Baghdad, or one of the 384 who have died there since May 1, when major combat was pronounced over.Indeed.
Imagine, for that matter, that your loved one is among the almost 3,000 men and women who have been wounded in Iraq since the war began - many of whom will forever bear their horrible injuries as a reminder of where they were and why.
The why of it was torn apart last week.
Now, imagine how appalled the friends and the beloved of Iraq's casualties must have been last week to hear David Kay, the recently retired chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq tell the world, "It turns out we were all wrong."
Or to hear President Bush - who ordered the war in Iraq on the basis of "wrong" intelligence - changing his story, saying now that it was still a justified war because Saddam Hussein was such a bad guy and just the sort who would have developed and used weapons of mass destruction as only he could have.
Or Sen. John W. Warner of Virginia, the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, badgering Kay into acknowledging the very remote possibility that some day, somewhere, someone just may find evidence that Iraq had some sort of weapons program to justify the invasion and the cost in American lives and resources.
Or Vice President Dick Cheney still handing out the baloney about some trailers found in Iraq being tied to production of weapons of mass destruction even though Kay and all others have said it isn't so.
Imagine how the loved ones of the dead may feel as they watch the spectacle of political jockeying over who should take the blame for a war being started on the basis of flawed intelligence, over whether there will be an investigation, and over the effect the timing of such an investigation may have on Bush's campaign to get himself re-elected.
If I were such a parent, or spouse, or child, or wounded soldier, I expect my fury would be visceral and overwhelming. I would not let these men forget what they had done to my family. Blood is on their hands.
Read the rest of it.
A Smear
Today, driving to the store to buy a lightbulb, about 2:35pm Pacific time, I listened to a caller to the Bob Brinker radio show - a financial advice call-in show - someone calls in to talk about how "5 years ago" John Kerry came to California to tour the defense contractor plant where she works, and that night there was a company dinner. Employees were asked to contribute to his campaign, she says. One secretary she knows was afraid to not contribute because she was sure she would be fired. The host, Brinker, says of course she would have been fired, this is how it works, pure intimidation. Unnamed caller, unnamed company.
I will bet a week's pay this was a planted call from the Republicans, designed to smear Kerry. The call got past the producer, even though the call was not asking for financial advice. This is a national radio show with a large audience. I have no doubt that calls like this are showing up on talk shows all across the country, national and local. (Bush has already spent even more than Dean on his "primary" campaign, even though he is unopposed.)
Republicans ALWAYS accuse the opposition of things they are themselves doing. Intimidating employees to contribute is what Republicans do, not Democrats. Executives are "asked" to contribute the max to the Republicans. Of course anyone that isn't "on the same page" doesn't fit in at that company, etc...
I will bet a week's pay this was a planted call from the Republicans, designed to smear Kerry. The call got past the producer, even though the call was not asking for financial advice. This is a national radio show with a large audience. I have no doubt that calls like this are showing up on talk shows all across the country, national and local. (Bush has already spent even more than Dean on his "primary" campaign, even though he is unopposed.)
Republicans ALWAYS accuse the opposition of things they are themselves doing. Intimidating employees to contribute is what Republicans do, not Democrats. Executives are "asked" to contribute the max to the Republicans. Of course anyone that isn't "on the same page" doesn't fit in at that company, etc...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)