Arianna writes about the Republican Palace in Iraq.
I call it the Republican Crony Club.
4/09/2004
Rice's testimony supports Clarke
In her testimony before the 9/11 Commission, Condoleezza Rice spoke repeatedly about "structural and legal impediments", "structiral problems", "structural inability", etc., etc. The basic idea is that the failure to respond to warnings about terrorism was because of problems in the bureaucracy, and that the Bush administration was working on these problems when 9/11 hit.
Richard Clarke knew all about structural problems. When Clinton's National Security Adviser Sandy Berger "convened the Principals [Cabinet-level officials] in crisis mode", he was taking steps to get all of the top people in the Clinton Administration to work at overcoming the structural problems of the system.
In the Clinton Administration the top people worked to overcome the structural problems. In the Bush administration, they didn't. The bureaucrats were the same in both cases.
The problem wasn't structure, but leadership. The ones responsible are Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Cheney, Bush -- and above all, Rice.
Richard Clarke knew all about structural problems. When Clinton's National Security Adviser Sandy Berger "convened the Principals [Cabinet-level officials] in crisis mode", he was taking steps to get all of the top people in the Clinton Administration to work at overcoming the structural problems of the system.
In the Clinton Administration the top people worked to overcome the structural problems. In the Bush administration, they didn't. The bureaucrats were the same in both cases.
The problem wasn't structure, but leadership. The ones responsible are Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Cheney, Bush -- and above all, Rice.
We need more partisanship
Mild-mannered Kevin Drum (now writing for the insanely-moderate Washington Monthly) has linked to a wonkish yet fluffy article which bemoans America's increasing partisanship and suggests some nice bipartisan reasons for it. (One of the reasons was people becoming more partisan in a heavily partisan environment just to fit in).
The viciousness that has won the Republicans a lot of elections during the last decade or so is not mentioned, of course, nor is the stolen 2000 Presidential election.
Here's my slightly-edited comment, which was a response to a poster named Carl:
Carl is right. The article didn't mention people becoming LESS partisan (perhaps by making remarks about "pandering to the core constituency") in order to be accepted. I mean the various counter-intuitive, DLC Democrats -- for example, the leadership of the Democratic Party.
While I have been harsh in the past about the wimpiness of the Democratic leaders, I now grudgingly admit that to a degree it is a reasonable response to a situation in which you are not the majority party and you have to work with the majority to get anything done, combined with the fact that a considerable proportion of the Dems are personally half-Republican and will cave in a showdown.
But Democratic leadership should be thinking a lot harder of ways to take back the majority, rather than resigning themselves to minority status. Their main leadership strategy that I've seen is to wait for the Republicans to move even further right so that the Dems can pick up "moderate" Republicans of the McCain type (thus moving further right themselves.)
I am also convinced that Peretz and a number of other significant voices in the party (i.e., his stable of punks) are much more intent on destroying the left wing of the party than they are in putting the Democrats in power.
The partisanship seen on the left is mostly anger at the 2000 election and the generally vicious trend of the Republicans, especially over the last decade. In other words, Democratic partisanship is a belated response to vicious Republican partisanship (a response which is replacing the DLC "submissive wetting" strategy).
Some of the demographic and other wonk explanations in the article might be partly true, but overall I think that it is fundamentally misleading.
The more partisan the Democrats get, and the more partisan Democrats there are, the happier I'll be. The two-party system only works if there are plenty of partisans, as the Republicans very well know. We have to learn to play the game the way it's played.
The viciousness that has won the Republicans a lot of elections during the last decade or so is not mentioned, of course, nor is the stolen 2000 Presidential election.
Here's my slightly-edited comment, which was a response to a poster named Carl:
Carl is right. The article didn't mention people becoming LESS partisan (perhaps by making remarks about "pandering to the core constituency") in order to be accepted. I mean the various counter-intuitive, DLC Democrats -- for example, the leadership of the Democratic Party.
While I have been harsh in the past about the wimpiness of the Democratic leaders, I now grudgingly admit that to a degree it is a reasonable response to a situation in which you are not the majority party and you have to work with the majority to get anything done, combined with the fact that a considerable proportion of the Dems are personally half-Republican and will cave in a showdown.
But Democratic leadership should be thinking a lot harder of ways to take back the majority, rather than resigning themselves to minority status. Their main leadership strategy that I've seen is to wait for the Republicans to move even further right so that the Dems can pick up "moderate" Republicans of the McCain type (thus moving further right themselves.)
I am also convinced that Peretz and a number of other significant voices in the party (i.e., his stable of punks) are much more intent on destroying the left wing of the party than they are in putting the Democrats in power.
The partisanship seen on the left is mostly anger at the 2000 election and the generally vicious trend of the Republicans, especially over the last decade. In other words, Democratic partisanship is a belated response to vicious Republican partisanship (a response which is replacing the DLC "submissive wetting" strategy).
Some of the demographic and other wonk explanations in the article might be partly true, but overall I think that it is fundamentally misleading.
The more partisan the Democrats get, and the more partisan Democrats there are, the happier I'll be. The two-party system only works if there are plenty of partisans, as the Republicans very well know. We have to learn to play the game the way it's played.
Time to cut some brush
The Washington Post via Josh Micah Marshall:
"Bush has spent all or part of 500 days in office at one of his three retreats, or more than 40 percent of his presidency."
The whole Bush family has always taken the whole month of August off. If you want an image of The Bosses, forget about top hats and cigars and the other cartoonist's cliches. Just think of every member of a large family being able to say "Oh, by the way, I'm taking August off".
That's not the common American experience. Few workers can schedule their vacations whenever they want to, and few indeed get a whole month off. On my mother's 80th birthday we moved heaven and earth so that finally 20 out of 22 children, inlaws, and grandchildren were able to be there at some point during the same week.
In France, of course, because of a strong labor movement and strong labor laws, most people do get a full month off (often in August). And any good Republican can tell you how terrible a thing that is, when it's workers who are able to do it. And the Republicans have done a good job of making sure that that kind of thing doesn't happen here.
Supposedly Bush "works from home". Most people have heard that one before too. Sometimes the people working at home actually do work, and sometimes you're pretty sure they don't, but almost always you know that they're able to do it because they're the boss. As Bush says about himself, they're the boss and don't have to answer any questions.
Of course, we can also ask ourselves whether Bush has ever really been management either. Harken and Arbusto seem mainly to have been shell companies used to launder funds being transferred from one mysterious entity to another, like a Mafia-owned cafe. And with the Texas Rangers, Bush lent his name and face as a front, but otherwise was a silent partner.
Of course, there's a standard troll answer to this: "Work smarter, not harder! Look how hard Jimmy Carter worked, and look at the terrible results he got!"
Which might be fine, except that the wheels are coming off Bush's cart. The biggest job loss since Hoover, and a lose-lose war of attrition in Iraq. Bush's campaign only has two things to run on: first, smears against Kerry, and second (if things improve slightly) talk about how "He turned things around". Which amounts to running against himself, because he can't afford to compare himself to Clinton. "Things are a lot better now than they were during my first 3 1/2 years!"
Sounds like a good time for the trolls to be spending some time with their families. I bet there's a lot of brush to cut on those little troll ranches.
"Bush has spent all or part of 500 days in office at one of his three retreats, or more than 40 percent of his presidency."
The whole Bush family has always taken the whole month of August off. If you want an image of The Bosses, forget about top hats and cigars and the other cartoonist's cliches. Just think of every member of a large family being able to say "Oh, by the way, I'm taking August off".
That's not the common American experience. Few workers can schedule their vacations whenever they want to, and few indeed get a whole month off. On my mother's 80th birthday we moved heaven and earth so that finally 20 out of 22 children, inlaws, and grandchildren were able to be there at some point during the same week.
In France, of course, because of a strong labor movement and strong labor laws, most people do get a full month off (often in August). And any good Republican can tell you how terrible a thing that is, when it's workers who are able to do it. And the Republicans have done a good job of making sure that that kind of thing doesn't happen here.
Supposedly Bush "works from home". Most people have heard that one before too. Sometimes the people working at home actually do work, and sometimes you're pretty sure they don't, but almost always you know that they're able to do it because they're the boss. As Bush says about himself, they're the boss and don't have to answer any questions.
Of course, we can also ask ourselves whether Bush has ever really been management either. Harken and Arbusto seem mainly to have been shell companies used to launder funds being transferred from one mysterious entity to another, like a Mafia-owned cafe. And with the Texas Rangers, Bush lent his name and face as a front, but otherwise was a silent partner.
Of course, there's a standard troll answer to this: "Work smarter, not harder! Look how hard Jimmy Carter worked, and look at the terrible results he got!"
Which might be fine, except that the wheels are coming off Bush's cart. The biggest job loss since Hoover, and a lose-lose war of attrition in Iraq. Bush's campaign only has two things to run on: first, smears against Kerry, and second (if things improve slightly) talk about how "He turned things around". Which amounts to running against himself, because he can't afford to compare himself to Clinton. "Things are a lot better now than they were during my first 3 1/2 years!"
Sounds like a good time for the trolls to be spending some time with their families. I bet there's a lot of brush to cut on those little troll ranches.
4/08/2004
What Really Happened Today
What really happened today is we learned about "the memo." You're going to be hearing a lot about this memo.
Bush Administration Warned 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States' - Center for American Progress:
I think this is going to sink in. The title of the memo makes it too easy to see that they just blew it off. And the things they have been saying - that they were never warned, even that the only things in this memo were in obscure footnotes... AND that they have been doing everything in their power to block the public from learning about this memo. Now we know why.
Meanwhile, Bush is on vacation again, while Iraq falls apart. As of the last time I turned on the news (a few hours ago) at least 41 American soldiers dead in combat so far this week.
Today may have been it for Bush.
Bush Administration Warned 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States' - Center for American Progress:
"Two and a half years after 9/11, the American public learned today that President Bush received explicit warnings that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack the United States -- including activities 'consistent with preparations for hijacking.' Yet, there was no domestic follow-up by the Bush administration. No high level meetings. No sense of urgency. No warnings to FBI agents across the country.OK, on August 6, 2001, Bush gets a CIA briefing memo titled 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States'. It says they're going to hijack airplanes. The next day Bush left on the longest vacation any President had taken and the administration ignores the warning. (Read this one for a real kick - but look at the date first.)
- We now know why the Bush administration has been hiding the Aug. 6, 2001, intelligence briefing for the president, called 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.' All of the 9/11 Commission members -- Republicans and Democrats -- have asked the Bush administration to declassify this document. There are precedents for releasing presidential daily briefings and the American public deserves to know what President Bush knew and when."
I think this is going to sink in. The title of the memo makes it too easy to see that they just blew it off. And the things they have been saying - that they were never warned, even that the only things in this memo were in obscure footnotes... AND that they have been doing everything in their power to block the public from learning about this memo. Now we know why.
Meanwhile, Bush is on vacation again, while Iraq falls apart. As of the last time I turned on the news (a few hours ago) at least 41 American soldiers dead in combat so far this week.
Today may have been it for Bush.
You've Probably Heard It
An e-mail I just received:
Have you heard of the No-Carb Diet for 2004?
NO C-heney
NO A-shcroft
NO R-umsfeld
NO B-ush
and absolutely NO RICE!
Have you heard of the No-Carb Diet for 2004?
NO C-heney
NO A-shcroft
NO R-umsfeld
NO B-ush
and absolutely NO RICE!
Why Are We In Iraq?
A simple question. Why are we in Iraq now? There is no threat to the U.S. No weapons of mass destruction. Saddam and his sons no longer run the country.
The people in our military did not sign up and put their lives on the line to defend Iraq or to build democracy in the Middle East (a cover story for going and getting the oil -- watch what they DO, not what they SAY; putting Chalabi in charge in Iraq has NOTHING to do with building democracy. NOTHING.) These people signed up and put their lives on the line to defend America, their families, you, and me. That might sound extremely self-centered, but we're when talking about asking people to do and die I don't think America's youth signed up to lay their lives down for reasons having so little to do with the defense of America.
I think that being self-centered about lives might be a good idea. It is supposed to keep us from doing stupid things like starting wars.
So now we are in Iraq BECAUSE we are in Iraq. Now that we have invaded we can't leave. It's a fact on the ground now. As Chalabi said, with a smug smile, what happened in the past doesn't matter because we're in Baghdad now.
Bush wants to cut and run, starting June 30. Great. Leave the place a mess, like Afghanistan. Put corrupt cronies in charge to keep the oil flowing our way, and bug out, timed perfectly for the election. Elections in Afghanistan in October, troops out of Iraq by October, too. Chaos delayed until December but the past won't matter because we're in the White House for good now.
But we have a "we broke it, we fix it" situation. Now we have to stay because if we leave now the country descends into chaos -- and it will be our fault if that happens. The Geneva Convention says we are responsible because we invaded. AND the country could actually become what Bush said it was. It could become a cauldron of terrorism directed at the United States -- developing weapons of mass destruction, with terrorist training camps in the country and financing terrorist activities around the world. So we have to stay.
None of us signed up or this. I think the country is going to start realizing this. I think the people in the military are realizing it already. I think the people who were thinking of joining the military are realizing that, too -- so I think the draft is inevitable now.
I think Bush has created the terrorist nightmare. It's only just beginning now. And we can't leave.
Update - A comment I left somewhere:
A cousin's son is in the Marines. He's in Recon and went into Iraq BEFORE the war started. People with relatives or friends over there don't talk so much about the strategic benefits or higher meanings of all of this, they talk about their relatives and friends and worry that they'll be OK. Strategery and higher meaning I guess is for the country's leaders - NONE of whom have relatives at risk. I guess that's why they're our leaders? Because they can strategize and move chess pieces around the world without worrying about it hitting home.
I think about all the people in the military who signed up and put their lives on the line to DEFEND AMERICA. I don't know when there has ever been such a betrayal of them as this. It could be reasoned that Vietnam was about defending America, but not this. No way this.
Yes, it's late. I can't sleep tonite for some reason.
More here. Mindblowing.
The people in our military did not sign up and put their lives on the line to defend Iraq or to build democracy in the Middle East (a cover story for going and getting the oil -- watch what they DO, not what they SAY; putting Chalabi in charge in Iraq has NOTHING to do with building democracy. NOTHING.) These people signed up and put their lives on the line to defend America, their families, you, and me. That might sound extremely self-centered, but we're when talking about asking people to do and die I don't think America's youth signed up to lay their lives down for reasons having so little to do with the defense of America.
I think that being self-centered about lives might be a good idea. It is supposed to keep us from doing stupid things like starting wars.
So now we are in Iraq BECAUSE we are in Iraq. Now that we have invaded we can't leave. It's a fact on the ground now. As Chalabi said, with a smug smile, what happened in the past doesn't matter because we're in Baghdad now.
Bush wants to cut and run, starting June 30. Great. Leave the place a mess, like Afghanistan. Put corrupt cronies in charge to keep the oil flowing our way, and bug out, timed perfectly for the election. Elections in Afghanistan in October, troops out of Iraq by October, too. Chaos delayed until December but the past won't matter because we're in the White House for good now.
But we have a "we broke it, we fix it" situation. Now we have to stay because if we leave now the country descends into chaos -- and it will be our fault if that happens. The Geneva Convention says we are responsible because we invaded. AND the country could actually become what Bush said it was. It could become a cauldron of terrorism directed at the United States -- developing weapons of mass destruction, with terrorist training camps in the country and financing terrorist activities around the world. So we have to stay.
None of us signed up or this. I think the country is going to start realizing this. I think the people in the military are realizing it already. I think the people who were thinking of joining the military are realizing that, too -- so I think the draft is inevitable now.
I think Bush has created the terrorist nightmare. It's only just beginning now. And we can't leave.
Update - A comment I left somewhere:
A cousin's son is in the Marines. He's in Recon and went into Iraq BEFORE the war started. People with relatives or friends over there don't talk so much about the strategic benefits or higher meanings of all of this, they talk about their relatives and friends and worry that they'll be OK. Strategery and higher meaning I guess is for the country's leaders - NONE of whom have relatives at risk. I guess that's why they're our leaders? Because they can strategize and move chess pieces around the world without worrying about it hitting home.
I think about all the people in the military who signed up and put their lives on the line to DEFEND AMERICA. I don't know when there has ever been such a betrayal of them as this. It could be reasoned that Vietnam was about defending America, but not this. No way this.
Yes, it's late. I can't sleep tonite for some reason.
More here. Mindblowing.
4/07/2004
Expect a Terror Alert
President Bush is vacationing today, after a pleasant day yesterday joking around on the campaign trail.
Meanwhile the nightmare in Iraq has started to unfold. The Shias and the Sunnis are working together, there is fighting in seven or more different cities, and some of the Iraqi police we trained are joining the rebels.
Nothing Bush has said about the war has been true, and the planning for the occupation was insanely optimistic and unbelievably sloppy. How can anyone still support the guy?
In the Washington Post, Meyerson says what we've all been saying -- dump Bush. Even George Will seems shaken, as if he's starting to realize how worthless our President is. (Though all he really recommends is a delay in the fake transfer of sovereignty).
Bush has to counterattack, but he's running out of tricks. Expect the worst.
Meyerson -- Washington Post:
"The only unequivocally good policy option before the American people is to dump the president who got us into this mess, who had no trouble sending our young people to Iraq but who cannot steel himself to face the Sept. 11 commission alone."
George Will in the Washington Post:
"Not much else having gone as planned since the fall of Baghdad, a delay in the transfer of sovereignty, scheduled for June 30, should not be unthinkable. A delay would trigger violence. But, then, the transfer on schedule probably would be preceded by an offensive by the insurgents. The transfer is to be from the Coalition Provisional Authority, whose authority does not extend throughout the country. A U.S. official in Baghdad says Sadr will be arrested if he appears "any place that we control."
Meanwhile the nightmare in Iraq has started to unfold. The Shias and the Sunnis are working together, there is fighting in seven or more different cities, and some of the Iraqi police we trained are joining the rebels.
Nothing Bush has said about the war has been true, and the planning for the occupation was insanely optimistic and unbelievably sloppy. How can anyone still support the guy?
In the Washington Post, Meyerson says what we've all been saying -- dump Bush. Even George Will seems shaken, as if he's starting to realize how worthless our President is. (Though all he really recommends is a delay in the fake transfer of sovereignty).
Bush has to counterattack, but he's running out of tricks. Expect the worst.
Meyerson -- Washington Post:
"The only unequivocally good policy option before the American people is to dump the president who got us into this mess, who had no trouble sending our young people to Iraq but who cannot steel himself to face the Sept. 11 commission alone."
George Will in the Washington Post:
"Not much else having gone as planned since the fall of Baghdad, a delay in the transfer of sovereignty, scheduled for June 30, should not be unthinkable. A delay would trigger violence. But, then, the transfer on schedule probably would be preceded by an offensive by the insurgents. The transfer is to be from the Coalition Provisional Authority, whose authority does not extend throughout the country. A U.S. official in Baghdad says Sadr will be arrested if he appears "any place that we control."
4/06/2004
Pandagon: Corporate Taxation
I left a comment to this post: Pandagon: Corporate Taxation about whether companies pass taxes along to their customers: (ETMMLB)
What think you?
Taxes are not a COST. You don't even know your taxes until the end of the year, after you figure your costs and revenues. THEN you compute your taxes. So you can't pass on your taxes to customers.And now thinking about it, the people who really ARE taxed when corporations are taxed are the rich clucks who own most of the stock in corporations. So by convincing people not to tax corporations they're convincing the public to give the rich clucks a break and tax themselves instead. Nice work if you can get it.
AND, if you did add something for taxes, what about your competitors? They don't have to, and that makes them more competitive because they aren't tacking on some extra price, so why would you add to the price?
AND if you are not optimally pricing your product... I mean, if you are not charging what you can get ALREADY you are n't doing a good job.
This argument that companies pass on their taxes to their customers is so silly.
A corporation SHOULD be taxed. Otherwise there is no reason for us to charter them. We let corporations do business (and give the stockholders benefits like limited liability) IN ORDER TO BENEFIT US. So if they make money, we tax them and have schools and stuff. Jeeze. How far have we been pushed by this right-wing stuff?
What think you?
Iraq seems to be falling apart
I know that no one comes here for late-breaking news, but it's Tuesday afternoon and all hell has broken loose in Iraq. At least 20 coalition troops have died in the last 24 hours, and the uprisings seem to be by many different groups in at least 4 different places -- and the Fallujah offensive is continuing.
Juan Cole has speculated (and mild-mannered Kevin Drum seems to agree) that hawkish elements in the administration, sensing confusion (!!) at the top, have deliberately escalated military action in order to leave the relative doves in the State Department a fait accompli which would be hard to withdraw from -- Ariel Sharon's old "facts on the ground" trick.
I have never gone wrong so far in expecting the worst from the Bush administration. The worst we can see here would be continued escalation (with each American death being used as a reason for further escalation) coordinated with vicious domestic attacks on the patriotism of any American who criticizes or opposes the Bush plan. War is going to be the only thing Bush has to sell this fall, and a hot war of revenge would be easier to sell than the piecemeal war of attrition we have been seeing up until today.
I don't see any possible positive outcome in Iraq itself, but I can easily imagine that if the killing continues the Bush propaganda machine might be able to spin his disastrous failure into a heroic defense of freedom -- and re-election.
I was not active in the last three anti-war movements, and I only really opposed the second Iraq War. However, if we see Bush continuing to escalate the killing while demonizing his opponents and supercharging his election campaign, I think that the time to take to the streets wil have come.
Even if you never call your Congressman, call him now.
Marshall
Cole
Drum
Juan Cole has speculated (and mild-mannered Kevin Drum seems to agree) that hawkish elements in the administration, sensing confusion (!!) at the top, have deliberately escalated military action in order to leave the relative doves in the State Department a fait accompli which would be hard to withdraw from -- Ariel Sharon's old "facts on the ground" trick.
I have never gone wrong so far in expecting the worst from the Bush administration. The worst we can see here would be continued escalation (with each American death being used as a reason for further escalation) coordinated with vicious domestic attacks on the patriotism of any American who criticizes or opposes the Bush plan. War is going to be the only thing Bush has to sell this fall, and a hot war of revenge would be easier to sell than the piecemeal war of attrition we have been seeing up until today.
I don't see any possible positive outcome in Iraq itself, but I can easily imagine that if the killing continues the Bush propaganda machine might be able to spin his disastrous failure into a heroic defense of freedom -- and re-election.
I was not active in the last three anti-war movements, and I only really opposed the second Iraq War. However, if we see Bush continuing to escalate the killing while demonizing his opponents and supercharging his election campaign, I think that the time to take to the streets wil have come.
Even if you never call your Congressman, call him now.
Marshall
Cole
Drum
4/05/2004
The Truth Really IS "Out There"
Cross-posted at The American Street.
The Bush campaign is marketing a candidate as a consumer product. Where Senator Kerry talks of "issues" and "has positions" the Bush campaign talks about "feelings and values" and avoids specifics. As a person with a marketing background I understand that the Bush approach is very effective. After all, his campaign is handled by the kind of people who sell tobacco, convincing people to kill themselves and hand over their money while doing it; they are very good at what they do. But as a citizen I blanch.
bl
Sales and marketing is not about "truth," it's about forming an emotional attachment with a "brand." Consumers tend to make purchases seeking short-term emotional satisfaction rather than long-term value. They buy "brands" based on emotional things like a "new car smell" or because "nothing says loving like something form the oven." (Psychological studies show that this ad's target demographic -- homemakers -- feel they best express their love for their families by cooking or baking things for them. So instead of selling taste or ease-of-baking or other attributes, they sell "says loving.")
When we hear that Bush is trying to "define" Kerry, it means he is trying to establish a "brand identity" and an emotional attachment in the consumers' mind. (Negative emotions for Kerry, positive for Bush.) Bush is selling himself as the "low taxes, leadership" brand. Here's the key: in branding you only have to repeat it over and over, not actually be it, for the brand identity to stick. "Compassionate Conservative" is a great example of this. By repeating over and over that he was a "compassionate conservative" Bush BECAME that in the public mind. You don't have to BE it, you just have to SAY you're it. It works.
Unfortunately segments of the American public are increasingly trained to see themselves as consumers rather than citizens, so there we are. Bush blasts out another $10 million in ads funded by corporate special interests, and we see poll numbers move in his favor. (Bush is the "low taxes and leadership brand." Can you tell me what brand Kerry is?)
Just this morning in a Washington Post article about the Republican National Committee’s Ed Gillespie, we read the following:
Most of us see Bush ads saying Kerry will raise taxes, or won’t protect us from terrorists, and we are insulted, and we wonder how anyone can be stupid enough to believe this stuff. We know lies when we hear them, and we resent that they would think we are stupid enough to be tricked by such deceptions. (We know that the Bush smell is anything but "new car" -- not by a long, long shot.) But unfortunately many, many people are not as well-informed as we are, and are busy, and don't know much about Kerry or about politics in general, so these ads do have an effect. Keep this in mind: polls show that most people STILL believe that Iraq was responsible for 9/11! Meanwhile Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the Right are telling people not to believe any news other than FOX.
So the question is: How do we -- informed online blog-readers -- fight this? How do we do our part? We fight it with information. There is a tremendous power that comes from lots and lots of people with good information. And there are lots and lots of us. We must get more and more people connected to information and news sources that are willing to tell it like it is. There is a list of weblogs on the left side of this page, and every one of them is a great resource. (Start with BuzzFlash and go there every day.) Then we take our information out there and talk to people, and persuade them.
Note – I’m talking about us here, the well-informed, online, active people. In hi-tech marketing we would be called the "early adaptors" and "influencers." We still need -- more than ever -- the short, condensed, focus-group-tested sound-bytes that convey our message in a few words, designed to be repeated over and over. That must also be there for the general public, and for US to use as talking points. And that's the job of the professionals. (I hope they're working on this -- where's my talking points?)
Air America Radio is off to a great start, and I can feel the positive effect it has on our morale and our courage to FINALLY hear a counter to the incessant 24-hour 7-day right-wing pro-Republican propaganda. It is just so refreshing and I hope you are listening, too. (You can listen online from anywhere in the world by visiting their website.) One thing that I find very encouraging is that I am hearing them using bloggers as their pundits! Last week I heard Atrios, and Kos, and Josh Marshall on the air! This is a significant development because it further legitimizes what we are doing here, offering an alternative voice.
The Bush campaign is marketing a candidate as a consumer product. Where Senator Kerry talks of "issues" and "has positions" the Bush campaign talks about "feelings and values" and avoids specifics. As a person with a marketing background I understand that the Bush approach is very effective. After all, his campaign is handled by the kind of people who sell tobacco, convincing people to kill themselves and hand over their money while doing it; they are very good at what they do. But as a citizen I blanch.
bl
Sales and marketing is not about "truth," it's about forming an emotional attachment with a "brand." Consumers tend to make purchases seeking short-term emotional satisfaction rather than long-term value. They buy "brands" based on emotional things like a "new car smell" or because "nothing says loving like something form the oven." (Psychological studies show that this ad's target demographic -- homemakers -- feel they best express their love for their families by cooking or baking things for them. So instead of selling taste or ease-of-baking or other attributes, they sell "says loving.")
When we hear that Bush is trying to "define" Kerry, it means he is trying to establish a "brand identity" and an emotional attachment in the consumers' mind. (Negative emotions for Kerry, positive for Bush.) Bush is selling himself as the "low taxes, leadership" brand. Here's the key: in branding you only have to repeat it over and over, not actually be it, for the brand identity to stick. "Compassionate Conservative" is a great example of this. By repeating over and over that he was a "compassionate conservative" Bush BECAME that in the public mind. You don't have to BE it, you just have to SAY you're it. It works.
Unfortunately segments of the American public are increasingly trained to see themselves as consumers rather than citizens, so there we are. Bush blasts out another $10 million in ads funded by corporate special interests, and we see poll numbers move in his favor. (Bush is the "low taxes and leadership brand." Can you tell me what brand Kerry is?)
Just this morning in a Washington Post article about the Republican National Committee’s Ed Gillespie, we read the following:
"Gillespie's mission is stripped-down simple: He has a presidential election to win. You do that by having the most votes (okay, usually). To get the most votes, you expand your party. To expand your party, you make your message very clear, distilling policy until a voter can throw it down like a shot of whiskey."And, of course, you repeat it over and over. And again.
Most of us see Bush ads saying Kerry will raise taxes, or won’t protect us from terrorists, and we are insulted, and we wonder how anyone can be stupid enough to believe this stuff. We know lies when we hear them, and we resent that they would think we are stupid enough to be tricked by such deceptions. (We know that the Bush smell is anything but "new car" -- not by a long, long shot.) But unfortunately many, many people are not as well-informed as we are, and are busy, and don't know much about Kerry or about politics in general, so these ads do have an effect. Keep this in mind: polls show that most people STILL believe that Iraq was responsible for 9/11! Meanwhile Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the Right are telling people not to believe any news other than FOX.
So the question is: How do we -- informed online blog-readers -- fight this? How do we do our part? We fight it with information. There is a tremendous power that comes from lots and lots of people with good information. And there are lots and lots of us. We must get more and more people connected to information and news sources that are willing to tell it like it is. There is a list of weblogs on the left side of this page, and every one of them is a great resource. (Start with BuzzFlash and go there every day.) Then we take our information out there and talk to people, and persuade them.
Note – I’m talking about us here, the well-informed, online, active people. In hi-tech marketing we would be called the "early adaptors" and "influencers." We still need -- more than ever -- the short, condensed, focus-group-tested sound-bytes that convey our message in a few words, designed to be repeated over and over. That must also be there for the general public, and for US to use as talking points. And that's the job of the professionals. (I hope they're working on this -- where's my talking points?)
Air America Radio is off to a great start, and I can feel the positive effect it has on our morale and our courage to FINALLY hear a counter to the incessant 24-hour 7-day right-wing pro-Republican propaganda. It is just so refreshing and I hope you are listening, too. (You can listen online from anywhere in the world by visiting their website.) One thing that I find very encouraging is that I am hearing them using bloggers as their pundits! Last week I heard Atrios, and Kos, and Josh Marshall on the air! This is a significant development because it further legitimizes what we are doing here, offering an alternative voice.
What've I Been Saying?
Ed the Quipper, about the head of the Republican National Committee:
"To get the most votes, you expand your party. To expand your party, you make your message very clear, distilling policy until a voter can throw it down like a shot of whiskey."Bush is the "lower taxes, leadership" brand. Can anyone tell me what Kerry's short, simple message is?
Who Gets the Money?
Today columnist Bob Herbert writes, We're More Productive. Who Gets the Money?: "American workers have been remarkably productive in recent years, but they are getting fewer and fewer of the benefits of this increased productivity. "
Or, as I like to put it, Who is our economy FOR, anyway?
Or, as I like to put it, Who is our economy FOR, anyway?
4/04/2004
The Other Side of the Story
People complain that we at STF don't give the opposition a chance to be heard, so I've decided to offer equal time to "Al" (none@none.com), who diligently defends our President on The Washington Monthly comments board and elsewhere. The topic is the claim that the Republicans have been demanding that Bush and Cheney be questioned together because they're worried that Bush will embarass himself if he doesn't have a handler present.
I have deleted an unfortunate personal attack on Kevin Drum who, whatever he is, is a happily married man and in no sense a "fucking" liar.
Al speaks:
"This can easily be dealt with, and I'm confident that the President will do so in his usual masterful fashion.
Get Bush's toughest press critics together (yes, even the fearsome David Broder -- Bush isn't afraid of anyone.) Bring out the gum, pass it around so everyone knows that it's really gum. Have him put the gum in his mouth in such a way that everyone can clearly see it. Then have [him] walk across the room and back without falling down, and the whole controversy is over and done with.
And for a clincher, he can confidently and unerringly reach around and grab his butt with both hands, looking all of those bastards straight in the eye. A lot of people are going to have egg on their faces.
And the whole story will disappear. Just like the fake Plame controversy, and the fake WMD conbtroversy, and the fake cocaine controversy, and the fake AWOL controversy, and the fake drug bill controversy, and the fake "jobless recovery" controversy, and the fake Harken controversy, and the fake Halliburton controversy, and the fake Florida election controversy, and all the other BS that the Democratic conspiracy theorists have dreamed up in order to cripple a lawfully elected President who is proudly supported by over two-thirds of the American voters.
People say that Cheney is worried about the results of the gum-chewing photo-op and wants to videotape it just in case, but that's complete lying bullshit......"
I have deleted an unfortunate personal attack on Kevin Drum who, whatever he is, is a happily married man and in no sense a "fucking" liar.
Al speaks:
"This can easily be dealt with, and I'm confident that the President will do so in his usual masterful fashion.
Get Bush's toughest press critics together (yes, even the fearsome David Broder -- Bush isn't afraid of anyone.) Bring out the gum, pass it around so everyone knows that it's really gum. Have him put the gum in his mouth in such a way that everyone can clearly see it. Then have [him] walk across the room and back without falling down, and the whole controversy is over and done with.
And for a clincher, he can confidently and unerringly reach around and grab his butt with both hands, looking all of those bastards straight in the eye. A lot of people are going to have egg on their faces.
And the whole story will disappear. Just like the fake Plame controversy, and the fake WMD conbtroversy, and the fake cocaine controversy, and the fake AWOL controversy, and the fake drug bill controversy, and the fake "jobless recovery" controversy, and the fake Harken controversy, and the fake Halliburton controversy, and the fake Florida election controversy, and all the other BS that the Democratic conspiracy theorists have dreamed up in order to cripple a lawfully elected President who is proudly supported by over two-thirds of the American voters.
People say that Cheney is worried about the results of the gum-chewing photo-op and wants to videotape it just in case, but that's complete lying bullshit......"
4/03/2004
I Haven't Been Posting Much
I haven't been posting much because I am working on a union research contract. We've got John Emerson and Richard and sometimes Thomas, and I'm looking for guest bloggers (any volunteers?) to fill the slack as well.
4/02/2004
Boring
The word all the wingnuts must use to describe Air America Radio is "boring". On Crossfire yesterday, Tucker Carlson took care of his obligations to the talking points right off the bat. But he wasn't quite ready for Franken's answer. The whole place cracked up, even Bowtie Boy himself.
CARLSON: Al Franken, thanks for joining us.
Like all good liberals I spent a good part of my day listening to your show, "The O'Franken Factor." And I want to read back to you an exchange that took place between you and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
This is your pretty hard-hitting question. You said, quote, "Senator, you went to Iraq and Afghanistan right after Thanksgiving, right?"
"During Thanksgiving," said Mrs. Clinton.
Quote from you, "Tell us about that a bit."
Now here's my question. You're not simply liberal, but you're a partisan Democrat. Doesn't an exchange like this give people the impression that you're not going to be tough on Democrats, that you're essentially part of the establishment? That you're playing for a team and not for an idea? And isn't the result boring?
FRANKEN: I think that you took that out of context, because I said, I think you would have liked this better, because I think you left out, I said "Tell us a little bit about that, bitch."
Everything has changed
Avedon deconstructs:
While Journalistan was roaming around the dictionary after 9/11 declaring that "everything has changed," the administration, more than anyone, was acting like nothing had - nothing had changed even since 1987.
But Journalistan, too, was letting the Bushistas get away with this refusal to understand that terrorism is terrorism. "Everything has changed," apparently meant, "We don't have to make sense anymore." 9/11 didn't mean we could no longer make ICBMs our principal (and maybe only) fear, or that terrorism was independent of individual states, or that 9/11 could happen - oh, no. "Everything has changed" was never meant to apply to the means of warfare that might be used against us or what we understood about the way the world sees us. It didn't apply to anything outside of the purest partisan politics. It only meant that our attitudes toward George W. Bush were supposed to have changed - that suddenly we were supposed to believe he was a great president.
Bush's reputation has taken a hit
An earlier poll made it seem that the Clarke revelations were having no real effect on public opinion. This more recent CBS poll shows the opposite, and I think that the other poll was taken before the news had had time to sink in.
Counter-terrorism is really one of the few things Bush has to sell, and he really needs overwhelming support on this issue if he's going to be reelected.
"The latest CBS News poll, conducted Tuesday through Thursday, shows declines in the president's approval ratings in a number of policy areas, but especially changes in the evaluation of the president's handling of terrorism.
Six in ten Americans are following the hearings closely; 56 percent say the administration is cooperating with the panel. But what the administration is saying does not receives high marks: 59 percent say it is hiding something it knew before Sept. 11, and 11 percent even say it is lying. Only one in four think the administration is telling the entire truth.....
When asked whether Bush administration policies have made the U.S. safer from terrorism, 53 percent say they have – but that is a decline of nine points in two weeks."
Counter-terrorism is really one of the few things Bush has to sell, and he really needs overwhelming support on this issue if he's going to be reelected.
"The latest CBS News poll, conducted Tuesday through Thursday, shows declines in the president's approval ratings in a number of policy areas, but especially changes in the evaluation of the president's handling of terrorism.
Six in ten Americans are following the hearings closely; 56 percent say the administration is cooperating with the panel. But what the administration is saying does not receives high marks: 59 percent say it is hiding something it knew before Sept. 11, and 11 percent even say it is lying. Only one in four think the administration is telling the entire truth.....
When asked whether Bush administration policies have made the U.S. safer from terrorism, 53 percent say they have – but that is a decline of nine points in two weeks."
4/01/2004
I just sent my 2 cents to Air America Radio.
Subject: Two words
Mike Malloy.
OK, more than two words. Randi is great. The "stars" are marginal. You need something hot, talented and radio-competent, and there's only one other (besides Randi) host in the country who can bring what you need.
Do this: Kill the awful (sorry, but I don't know of anyone who can stand it) 7-8 show. Start Janeane at 7:00. Put on Mike for three hours at 10:00.
Are you serious or not?
Jobs in Portland Oregon?
I've been looking for a part-time job for the last while. I'd especially like a job doing writing, internet research or some kind of Democratic political work, but if I don't find that I will take almost anything. I need to earn $500-$1,000 / month one way or another.
Details here.
Details here.
3/31/2004
9/11 survivors' partisan anti-Clarke letter
In an open letter published in the New York Post (story), about forty 9/11 survivors have accused Clarke of profiteering and divisiveness. They accuse of him of partisanship -- a charge for which there is no real evidence -- but then themselves come up with these Republican talking points:
"[N]o one could have known that 19 terrorists already in the United States would hijack domestic aircraft and fly them in to the World Trade Center and Pentagon..... In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, it was President Bush who helped unite America and guide us through that devastating time. Since 9/11, he has taken the fight to the terrorists abroad. He recognizes that America is at war and has made the difficult choices necessary to destroy the terrorists and confront those who harbor them."
In an earlier story about Bush's 9/11 political ads in the Washington Times, one of the Post letter's signers, Rosemary Cain, is quoted as follows: "Anything that memorializes the victims of 9/11 is right and good," said Mrs. Cain, adding that "it angers me that they are flapping over" the imagery in the Bush ads. "President Bush displayed courage and tenacity. He brought this city together and this country together," she said. "He deserves to be able to speak on September 11th."
In the same Times story, another signer of the Post letter, Ernest Strada (the Republican mayor of Westbury, New York -- and if you read the story, apparently not a very good one) said that he was "really disappointed — appalled — at some elected officials for the attacks on the president for the way he feels about the importance of us remembering" September 11. "We're not only here to support our son, we're here to support the president and to feel good about ourselves."
Another signer, Frank Siller, donated money from the foundation founded in his brother Stephen's memory to Oliver North's Freedom Alliance.
Another, Arlene Howard, is featured on the White House website since Sept. 14, 2001, when she gave her son's badge to President Bush at a memorial in New York.
Three of the signers, including Boyle and Strada, also show up in this story about 9/11 and Iraq War survivors' ambivalence about President Bush.
Nothing in the letter says anything at all about the truth of what Clarke was saying; it merely calls his motives into question. (This is characteristic of attacks on Clarke). There seems to have been very little real non-partisanship in this open letter decrying Clarke's supposed partisanship (for which there is no real evidence anyway). It looks more as if they, by attacking Clarke, were giving their own partisan support to Bush. My guess is, that with a little more research, we'd find that other signers had their own axes to grind.
P.S. (from comments): If you look at the three stories, Mayor Strada appears in all of them, and he brought along six members of his family to sign the letter. My guess is that this is his baby, though Boyle's position at the top of the signers may mean that he was the one who actually wrote or circulated the letter.
Before someone jumps on me, I should say that Oliver North's foundation seems to be a genuine charitable group, and not explicitly political. But one suspects that someone who donates to an Oliver North charity is on North's wavelength otherwise too.
There's nothing wrong with the letter per se. Except for the claim to be opposing politicization, when the letter is itself political and written to support the politician Bush. And you could add, except for the attack on Clarke's motives. (Republicans love money, but when other people have it, it's sinful). And except for the ungrounded claims about Bush's performance -- the letter addresses none of Clarkes' substantive points. And then, the letter is presumably part of the coordinated effort to disparage the "partisan" activities of Kristin Breitweiser and the other anti-Bush survivors.....
Note that the Newsday editors didn't let Strada's speech pass. What they print has obviously been edited down from a longer canned speech: "I’m appalled at what [other politicians ] are doing to Bush. . . . I’m sure that despite political differences, everyone supported the president at that time. Caught in the frenzy of the political season . . . their memories are cloudy."
Certainly it originally read "I’m appalled at what the politicians are doing to Bush".
"[N]o one could have known that 19 terrorists already in the United States would hijack domestic aircraft and fly them in to the World Trade Center and Pentagon..... In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, it was President Bush who helped unite America and guide us through that devastating time. Since 9/11, he has taken the fight to the terrorists abroad. He recognizes that America is at war and has made the difficult choices necessary to destroy the terrorists and confront those who harbor them."
In an earlier story about Bush's 9/11 political ads in the Washington Times, one of the Post letter's signers, Rosemary Cain, is quoted as follows: "Anything that memorializes the victims of 9/11 is right and good," said Mrs. Cain, adding that "it angers me that they are flapping over" the imagery in the Bush ads. "President Bush displayed courage and tenacity. He brought this city together and this country together," she said. "He deserves to be able to speak on September 11th."
In the same Times story, another signer of the Post letter, Ernest Strada (the Republican mayor of Westbury, New York -- and if you read the story, apparently not a very good one) said that he was "really disappointed — appalled — at some elected officials for the attacks on the president for the way he feels about the importance of us remembering" September 11. "We're not only here to support our son, we're here to support the president and to feel good about ourselves."
Another signer, Frank Siller, donated money from the foundation founded in his brother Stephen's memory to Oliver North's Freedom Alliance.
Another, Arlene Howard, is featured on the White House website since Sept. 14, 2001, when she gave her son's badge to President Bush at a memorial in New York.
Three of the signers, including Boyle and Strada, also show up in this story about 9/11 and Iraq War survivors' ambivalence about President Bush.
Nothing in the letter says anything at all about the truth of what Clarke was saying; it merely calls his motives into question. (This is characteristic of attacks on Clarke). There seems to have been very little real non-partisanship in this open letter decrying Clarke's supposed partisanship (for which there is no real evidence anyway). It looks more as if they, by attacking Clarke, were giving their own partisan support to Bush. My guess is, that with a little more research, we'd find that other signers had their own axes to grind.
P.S. (from comments): If you look at the three stories, Mayor Strada appears in all of them, and he brought along six members of his family to sign the letter. My guess is that this is his baby, though Boyle's position at the top of the signers may mean that he was the one who actually wrote or circulated the letter.
Before someone jumps on me, I should say that Oliver North's foundation seems to be a genuine charitable group, and not explicitly political. But one suspects that someone who donates to an Oliver North charity is on North's wavelength otherwise too.
There's nothing wrong with the letter per se. Except for the claim to be opposing politicization, when the letter is itself political and written to support the politician Bush. And you could add, except for the attack on Clarke's motives. (Republicans love money, but when other people have it, it's sinful). And except for the ungrounded claims about Bush's performance -- the letter addresses none of Clarkes' substantive points. And then, the letter is presumably part of the coordinated effort to disparage the "partisan" activities of Kristin Breitweiser and the other anti-Bush survivors.....
Note that the Newsday editors didn't let Strada's speech pass. What they print has obviously been edited down from a longer canned speech: "I’m appalled at what [other politicians ] are doing to Bush. . . . I’m sure that despite political differences, everyone supported the president at that time. Caught in the frenzy of the political season . . . their memories are cloudy."
Certainly it originally read "I’m appalled at what the politicians are doing to Bush".
More "Under the Radar" Bush Lies
A friend wrote to me about the Kerry campaign's response to something he is hearing. He was reading something from a guy and:
1) I wonder if the Kerry campaign KNOWS that the Bush people are circulating "under the radar" the lie that Kerry is talking about people making more then $40,000 when he talks about tax cuts on "the rich." (This corresponds exactly to what I hear on right-wing radio, by the way.)
2) The Kerry campaign should have their finger on this stuff, and have places on their website with information that refutes what the Right is claiming. They don't.
Update -
"He claimed that his accountant told him that it was well-known that Kerry was planning to tax rich people, but he defined rich people as anyone making more than $40,000!So what I get from this is:
This is important. This is what's being stated EVERWHERE. THAT is what I wanted to find a rebuttal to on Kerry's site. Couldn't find it. More important, couldn't find an issue tab called TAXES. It is crucial to be absolutely STRAIGHTFORWARD about these issues. If Kerry is going to be afraid that he'll be Walter Mondale, then he WILL BE Walter Mondale."
1) I wonder if the Kerry campaign KNOWS that the Bush people are circulating "under the radar" the lie that Kerry is talking about people making more then $40,000 when he talks about tax cuts on "the rich." (This corresponds exactly to what I hear on right-wing radio, by the way.)
2) The Kerry campaign should have their finger on this stuff, and have places on their website with information that refutes what the Right is claiming. They don't.
Update -
"I'm saying a little more. I'm saying what you just said. But also I suspect that they don't already have an issues tab called TAXES because they are consciously or unconsciously afraid to even say the word. You and I know that Repugs win on two issues: (alleged) low taxes and keeping the you-know-who down. If you want to beat them you have to say as clearly as you possibly can that you know this and that you are on to them and here's what is good for the country and here's what you're going to do. Be proud of it.
That's the deeper observation, but superficially, yeah, the web site needs to be much more DIRECTLY responsive to the repugs. And that cannot be done with NEWS sections or ANSWERING THEM sections. It needs to be done with top-level, ISSUES tabs. Right at the top of the site. The tabs I want are there, but they are not AGGRO enough."
Air America Radio
Air America Radio is on the air now. Click to listen live online.
Update - Their server appears absolutely swamped. I had it for a while, heard Al Franken's voice, then it went down. Trying to reconnect...
Update - Did you hear Randi Rhodes telling Ralph Nader what she thought? Randi is now my hero forever. This is great.
Update - Their server appears absolutely swamped. I had it for a while, heard Al Franken's voice, then it went down. Trying to reconnect...
Update - Did you hear Randi Rhodes telling Ralph Nader what she thought? Randi is now my hero forever. This is great.
It's Working
Surprise, surprise, Bush's ads are working. Bush Scores Points By Defining Kerry:
But maybe this is because I am in California, so I don't see the ads or read the papers from the battleground states where things are happening. As it is I just don't see a high degree of consumer marketing awareness -- which is where the tobacco marketers handling the Bush campaign are at.
Update - I just left the following comment to this post talking about Bush's flip-flops over at Angry Bear:
"Since the end of the Democratic primaries, attacks on John F. Kerry by President Bush and Vice President Cheney, backed by millions of dollars in negative ads, have wiped out the narrow lead Kerry enjoyed at the beginning of the month and damaged his public image.Everyone knew this is what the Bush people would do. Yet I haven't seen the Kerry campaign doing much (in marketing terms) to counter this. If they let Bush "define" him among many voters as "too liberal" and as someone who changes his mind or says what he thinks voters want to hear, it will be very difficult for him to find his way back.
[. . .] A month later, more voters see Kerry as "too liberal," and a solid majority says he is someone who has changed his positions on issues for political reasons -- both charges leveled by the Bush campaign's daily attacks through ads and public statements."
But maybe this is because I am in California, so I don't see the ads or read the papers from the battleground states where things are happening. As it is I just don't see a high degree of consumer marketing awareness -- which is where the tobacco marketers handling the Bush campaign are at.
Update - I just left the following comment to this post talking about Bush's flip-flops over at Angry Bear:
Fine, but this isn't how marketing works. Bush is out there with ads that say Kerry flip-flops. Kerry is not out there with ads that say Bush does. So Bush wins.Bush is the "low tax, leadership" brand. Can you tell me what the Kerry brand is? If not, why not?
It's called "defining." In consumer marketing it's called "branding." Bush is the "low tax, leadership" brand. Can you tell me what the Kerry brand is?
I saw Kerry speak Monday. He was all about issues and positions. But Bush is all about feelings and values. He has simple phrases that he repeats over and over. That is marketing. That is what works. Bush has tobacco marketing people handling his ads. Kerry appears to have 80's Democrat political marketing people handling his campaign.
Just to cheer everyone up
Kevin Drum has linked to this graph of Bush's 10-poll average approval ratings. It's really beautiful. Since his 9/11 85% rating, his approval has descended to about 48%. There have been two wartime spikes on the way, but after each spike the approval drops again.
The wartime spikes tell us, of course, that Bush will make security his main issue. The only other issues he's got are low taxes and the social issues, and most people have made up their minds about those. The poll also tells us why they will do anything whatever to destroy Clarke, and why, even if they didn't really want to (JOKE!), the republicans would be forced to run a negative campaign. Bush really can't run on his record.
Past experience tells us that poll results don't ultimately mean anything. The Republicans are masters at spreading large amounts of confusion at the last minute, and my belief is that they actually do not want landslides. For them, political capital is something to spend in order to ram their policies through, and if they had 65% approval they would just take that as justification for pushing an unpopular part of their agenda a little bit harder.
But still -- Bush is NOT "a popular President".
The wartime spikes tell us, of course, that Bush will make security his main issue. The only other issues he's got are low taxes and the social issues, and most people have made up their minds about those. The poll also tells us why they will do anything whatever to destroy Clarke, and why, even if they didn't really want to (JOKE!), the republicans would be forced to run a negative campaign. Bush really can't run on his record.
Past experience tells us that poll results don't ultimately mean anything. The Republicans are masters at spreading large amounts of confusion at the last minute, and my belief is that they actually do not want landslides. For them, political capital is something to spend in order to ram their policies through, and if they had 65% approval they would just take that as justification for pushing an unpopular part of their agenda a little bit harder.
But still -- Bush is NOT "a popular President".
3/30/2004
Mormons Breaking Law?
At the american street: Are the Mormons sharing lists with the GOP? If so, it would be illegal. Of course, who's gonna do anything about it?
A Joke, Right?
The terms, if the 9/11 Commission falls for the White House's "deal" for Rice to testify:
"Second, the commission must agree in writing that it will not request additional public testimony from any White House official, including Dr. Rice."That would include, for example, Bush. And from CNN:
Commissioners said they accepted those terms and would work to schedule a session "promptly."Suckers. Fell for it completely. What a joke - we're trying to look at what weaknesses in the country led to 9/11, and this is what we get from our own Administration and Commission.
3/29/2004
The Band At The Fundraiser
I went to a fundraiser in San Francisco this evening. The band that played consisted of Boz Skaggs, Ray Manzarek (from the Doors), Phil Lesh and Mickey Hart (from the Dead), and Norton Buffalo and Roy Rogers. I first saw The Dead with my mother when I was 13 or 14 at a small free concert in Ann Arbor. My hair started growing. Then I saw them at Woodstock. But I never saw the Doors and have always wanted to see Ray Manzarek perform, so tonite was a big occasion for me!
I didn't know until I looked that up on Google that Norton Buffalo and Roy Rogers are on Blind Pig records! Many years ago I used to hang around at The Blind Pig in Ann Arbor! I even drove down to Chicago for a Zappa concert once with the guy who owned the place (and the record company.) Before the concert we were hanging around with the drummer, Terry Bozio, because someone with us knew him. (I wound up sitting behind the bass amp holding it in place through the entire concert because it was sliding around.) After the concert we all went to a party where The Who showed up.
Update - OH YEAH! John Kerry spoke too. He was great. And they raised $3 million!
I didn't know until I looked that up on Google that Norton Buffalo and Roy Rogers are on Blind Pig records! Many years ago I used to hang around at The Blind Pig in Ann Arbor! I even drove down to Chicago for a Zappa concert once with the guy who owned the place (and the record company.) Before the concert we were hanging around with the drummer, Terry Bozio, because someone with us knew him. (I wound up sitting behind the bass amp holding it in place through the entire concert because it was sliding around.) After the concert we all went to a party where The Who showed up.
Update - OH YEAH! John Kerry spoke too. He was great. And they raised $3 million!
Kerry's Lead Drops 8 Points
The poll says Bush Support Steady in Wake of Clarke Criticisms: but actually, "He [Bush] is now running even with Sen. John Kerry in a head-to-head match-up among registered voters (47% Kerry- 46% Bush) after trailing Kerry by 52%-43% in mid-March."
Simple messages, repeated over and over. "Kerry will raise your taxes." "Kerry will not protect your children." "Kerry waffles on issues." And one thing I think is a big factor, under the radar smears being circulated over the internet.
Simple messages, repeated over and over. "Kerry will raise your taxes." "Kerry will not protect your children." "Kerry waffles on issues." And one thing I think is a big factor, under the radar smears being circulated over the internet.
Bring It Back To Bush
I'm wondering if all the controversey over Rice refusing to testify isn't just a cover for that fact that Bush also won't? After all, it did happen ON HIS WATCH.
3/28/2004
Now It Really Starts
Now the attack on Clarke is really getting started.
In Murdoch's (owner of Fox News) New York Post NYERS: CLARKE'S GAIN, OUR PAIN it's the "9/11 families fuming" at Clarke. Some samples:
The whole article is like that - a simple phrase, repeated often. Note, it comes a day after a top Republican used the same phrase. And, in case you don't understand about a simple phrase, repeated over and over, the headline at Drudge Report blares: SOURCES: CLARKE 'TO EARN OVER $1 MILLION FOR BOOK'; CONTRACT: BONUSES ADDED
Something tells me we're going to hear variations on this theme repeated all week. That, and the charge that the Democrats are politicizing 9/11.
In Murdoch's (owner of Fox News) New York Post NYERS: CLARKE'S GAIN, OUR PAIN it's the "9/11 families fuming" at Clarke. Some samples:
"'We believe it inappropriate for [him] to profit from and politicize 9/11 and further divide America by his testimony before the 9/11 commission.'Wow, signed by more than 36 people!
Retired FDNY firefighter Jim Boyle, who lent his name to the letter, ripped into Clarke, who served as a counterterrorism adviser to the past four presidents.
'Richard Clarke is doing all of this to sell his book,' said Boyle, whose Bravest son, Michael Boyle, died in the WTC. 'What he's doing isn't right. He's trying to make money off our pain. This was all orchestrated to benefit him,' Boyle told The Post.
Retired FDNY Capt. John Vigiano Sr. said he's 'incensed' with Clarke.
'He's all about promoting his book, plain and simple,' said Vigiano Sr., whose sons John, a firefighter, and Joseph, a police officer, died in the WTC attacks. 'It's all about greed. He shouldn't be doing this. He's showing a lack of loyalty to the president. It's awful.'
The blistering letter, signed by more than 36 people who lost loved ones in the WTC, came a day after the Senate's top Republican, Bill Frist, accused Clark of an 'appalling act of profiteering.' "
The whole article is like that - a simple phrase, repeated often. Note, it comes a day after a top Republican used the same phrase. And, in case you don't understand about a simple phrase, repeated over and over, the headline at Drudge Report blares: SOURCES: CLARKE 'TO EARN OVER $1 MILLION FOR BOOK'; CONTRACT: BONUSES ADDED
Something tells me we're going to hear variations on this theme repeated all week. That, and the charge that the Democrats are politicizing 9/11.
Randi Rhodes!
Atrios posted a reminder to listen to Air America when it starts up on Wednesday. This kicked off a big thread of comments about Air America, its schedule, whether it would stream, its staff, etc., etc. Nobody mentioned the best thing about the new network (to me, shockingly!), so I added this comment:
Listen to Randi, dammit!
Unless my browser's search missed it, within all these comments nobody has mentioned RANDI RHODES!
I too miss Mike Malloy and I agree that the network should have focused less on BIG NAMES and more on BIG RADIO TALENT. I fear they made a big mistake. We'll see.
But one thing they did absolutely right is give Randi Rhodes a national voice. She is the best left of center radio host going.
So listen to Franken, but BE SURE to listen to Randi after Franken from 3:00-7:00 ET (her old West Palm time slot).
Listen to Randi, dammit!
Richard Clarke: Perjurer?
Frist, Goss and other Republicans are floating the idea that Richard Clarke might have perjured himself. They're working on declassifying sworn testimony given to Congress when Clarke worked for Bush in 2002 (testimony thought to be similiar to that in the unclassified briefing released by Fox) so that they can compare it to the recent sworn testimony he gave to the 9/11 commission.
This administration plays an amazingly creative game with regard to sworn, classified, confidential, secret, and public testimony. Condi is on TV all weekend, but she can't testify to the 9/11 commission publicly or under oath -- she wants to be able to debunk Clarke's public sworn testimony with secret unsworn testimony. Richard Wilson displeased the President, and his wife Valerie Plame's CIA identity was leaked. Paul O'Neill displeased the President, and he was threatened with prosecution for releasing classified documents. Now they want to declassify information selectively to use to discredit Clarke. Bob Woodward got access to reams of classified material to write a sycophantic book, but Bush's 9/10 briefing remains top secret, as do the records of Cheney's energy task force.
I can't see Frist's hysterical rampage coming to anything. Clarke has already admitted that when he worked for Bush, he put the best spin he could on Bush's performance. Paul O'Neill has released documentary evidence showing that he was encouraged to mislead the public about Saudi cooperation in tracing terrorist finances, and we also have recently found out that Bush administration officials instructed their actuary, Rick Foster, to mislead Congress about the cost of Bush's prescription drug plan.
At the least, Clarke will easily be able to escape the perjury charge. Beyond that, he will probably be able to show that the lies he told in 2002 were the ones he was ordered to tell. You have to wonder what Frist was thinking.
Josh Micah Marshall has the story (note Sen. Graham's suggestion that they release everything, and not just the parts that help them).
Frist's speech
Powell doesn't join in, and Sen Graham supports Clarke. (And was Clarke really under oath before Congress?)
Washington Post
CNN
Rick Foster directed to lie about prescription drug costs
Foster II
Briefing released to Fox by Bush Administration
O'Neill coached to lie (he was NOT pleased with the Saudis, who had scarcely cooperated at all).
O'Neill II
This administration plays an amazingly creative game with regard to sworn, classified, confidential, secret, and public testimony. Condi is on TV all weekend, but she can't testify to the 9/11 commission publicly or under oath -- she wants to be able to debunk Clarke's public sworn testimony with secret unsworn testimony. Richard Wilson displeased the President, and his wife Valerie Plame's CIA identity was leaked. Paul O'Neill displeased the President, and he was threatened with prosecution for releasing classified documents. Now they want to declassify information selectively to use to discredit Clarke. Bob Woodward got access to reams of classified material to write a sycophantic book, but Bush's 9/10 briefing remains top secret, as do the records of Cheney's energy task force.
I can't see Frist's hysterical rampage coming to anything. Clarke has already admitted that when he worked for Bush, he put the best spin he could on Bush's performance. Paul O'Neill has released documentary evidence showing that he was encouraged to mislead the public about Saudi cooperation in tracing terrorist finances, and we also have recently found out that Bush administration officials instructed their actuary, Rick Foster, to mislead Congress about the cost of Bush's prescription drug plan.
At the least, Clarke will easily be able to escape the perjury charge. Beyond that, he will probably be able to show that the lies he told in 2002 were the ones he was ordered to tell. You have to wonder what Frist was thinking.
Josh Micah Marshall has the story (note Sen. Graham's suggestion that they release everything, and not just the parts that help them).
Frist's speech
Powell doesn't join in, and Sen Graham supports Clarke. (And was Clarke really under oath before Congress?)
Washington Post
CNN
Rick Foster directed to lie about prescription drug costs
Foster II
Briefing released to Fox by Bush Administration
O'Neill coached to lie (he was NOT pleased with the Saudis, who had scarcely cooperated at all).
O'Neill II
Fake Kerry Pizza Story
Some of you may have seen an internet story attributed to one Hal Cranmer about Kerry being a jerk in Vietnam. (It gets about 300 Google hits). I contacted one of the people whose email address has been attached to the story, and he's pretty sure it's fake. Attempts to contact Cranmer have been unsuccessful so far, though he seems to exist.
Story
Refutation
Story
Refutation
Is Condi history?
One of the things going on these days is a battle between the Bush administration and the intelligence pros. Neither one is willing to be the fall guy for the Iraq invasion. Bush tried to stick Tenet with it, and he's been getting flak ever since. It looks now as if Rice is going to be the sacrificial lamb.
Hiring Rice (and Powell) was good politics. Knowing that nice liberals will be hesitant to attack them personally, the Bush administration can use either one to front for them. Republicans know very well that smears and personal insults are effective political tools, and this way they take a valuable weapon out of the Democrats' hands. Thus, whenever there has been bad news, Rice or Powell has been sent out instead of Rumsfeld, Cheney, or Bush.
Now Rice is on the hot seat, though, and it looks like she's being hung out to dry. Various things she's said in the last few days don't make sense, contradicting either other statements of hers or statements by Cheney and others in the administration. She's doing her job all right -- catching flak -- but she shouldn't expect to be thanked for it. Dick, Don, and George will let her twist in the wind awhile longer before they cut her loose.
NOTE: A friend doesn't like to hear people saying that Rice is an affirmative-action token. That's not really what I'm saying, though. I think that Rice is competent enough, but she chose the wrong administration to work for, and I doubt that she has the reptilian infighting skills of Rumsfeld, Perle, and Cheney. It's really no insult to say that -- and besides, she's still young, with her whole future ahead of her.
My guess is that Wolfowitz is next. Yeah, sure, I'm all anti-Semitic and shit.
UPDATE: Frist is now signalling that he wants Rice's testimony. Very possibly he is carrying water for the executive branch. So it looks to me that she'll be taking the fall sooner rather than later.
Some Bush Supporters Want Rice to Testify
SECOND UPDATE: It doesn't seem that I was ahead of the curve at all:
Time Magazine: Is Condi The Problem?
**********
Two of the creepiest Republican operatives accuse Democrats attacking Rice of racism and sexism.
Rice won't testify publicly or under oath, but she's showing up all over the place on TV:
http://www.detnews.com/2004/politics/0403/27/politics-104861.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25177-2004Mar25.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4601195/
Hiring Rice (and Powell) was good politics. Knowing that nice liberals will be hesitant to attack them personally, the Bush administration can use either one to front for them. Republicans know very well that smears and personal insults are effective political tools, and this way they take a valuable weapon out of the Democrats' hands. Thus, whenever there has been bad news, Rice or Powell has been sent out instead of Rumsfeld, Cheney, or Bush.
Now Rice is on the hot seat, though, and it looks like she's being hung out to dry. Various things she's said in the last few days don't make sense, contradicting either other statements of hers or statements by Cheney and others in the administration. She's doing her job all right -- catching flak -- but she shouldn't expect to be thanked for it. Dick, Don, and George will let her twist in the wind awhile longer before they cut her loose.
NOTE: A friend doesn't like to hear people saying that Rice is an affirmative-action token. That's not really what I'm saying, though. I think that Rice is competent enough, but she chose the wrong administration to work for, and I doubt that she has the reptilian infighting skills of Rumsfeld, Perle, and Cheney. It's really no insult to say that -- and besides, she's still young, with her whole future ahead of her.
My guess is that Wolfowitz is next. Yeah, sure, I'm all anti-Semitic and shit.
UPDATE: Frist is now signalling that he wants Rice's testimony. Very possibly he is carrying water for the executive branch. So it looks to me that she'll be taking the fall sooner rather than later.
Some Bush Supporters Want Rice to Testify
SECOND UPDATE: It doesn't seem that I was ahead of the curve at all:
Time Magazine: Is Condi The Problem?
**********
Two of the creepiest Republican operatives accuse Democrats attacking Rice of racism and sexism.
Rice won't testify publicly or under oath, but she's showing up all over the place on TV:
http://www.detnews.com/2004/politics/0403/27/politics-104861.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25177-2004Mar25.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4601195/
3/26/2004
War
Cross-posted at Daily News Online.
The Wrong War:
More than that, I wonder about the families of the dead. And I wonder about the injured. I wonder how they feel -- or will feel when the truth is accepted -- having sacrificed so much for the wrong war, for a trick, for an election gimmick, for a far-right ideology. And when the troops return, and the truth is known, how will they react? What will they say about this period of their lives, spent away in Iraq, seeing what they have seen and for some of them having done what they did in the course of a war and the year following that war.
I wonder how will we ever ask others to sacrifice? Now that our country has done this, how will we be able to ask people to sacrifice when it really IS necessary, really IS about defending the country, and really IS about fighting for freedom?
This betrayal is beyond politics, beyond impeachment, beyond resolution by law, certainly beyond a swinging left-right pendulum of national attitudes that naturally resolves itself back to some center. America was hijacked, politics was hijacked, our law was hijacked, our SYSTEM was hijacked, international law was hijacked, morality was hijacked...
There is nothing worse than war. When this is all over (if we do come to our senses) we must -- MUST -- repair our system and put in place oversight and accountability mechanisms to prevent anything like this from happening again. And I mean a lot more than just preventing a war -- I mean all the steps that led up to this, from the one-dollar-one-vote campaign system that let them get a foothold, to the repeal of the equal time doctrine that allowed them to turn our radio and TV stations into full-time right-wing propaganda outlets, even to indirect-but-related activities to consolidate their power over our institutions of morality like their taking over the Southern Baptist Church. That's part of the whole equation, and we need to look at every little piece of how they accomplished the takeover that led to this terrible, unforgivable war.
The Wrong War:
"Mr. Clarke, President Bush's former counterterrorism chief, writes in his book, "Against All Enemies," that despite clear evidence the attacks had been the work of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, top administration officials focused almost immediately on the object of their obsession, Iraq.I have a cousin who went to Iraq. He was in a Marine recon unit that went in before the war. He's very gung-ho about "defending America" and retaliating against the terrorists for 9/11, so we don't talk about this. But I wonder what he's going to think about this later, when he realizes that he was NOT "defending America" or avenging 9/11.
He remembers taking a short break for a bite to eat and a shower, then returning to the White House very early on the morning of Sept. 12. He writes:'I expected to go back to a round of meetings examining what the next attacks could be, what our vulnerabilities were. . . . Instead, I walked into a series of discussions about Iraq. At first I was incredulous that we were talking about something other than getting Al Qaeda. Then I realized with almost a sharp physical pain that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were going to try to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote their agenda about Iraq.'"
More than that, I wonder about the families of the dead. And I wonder about the injured. I wonder how they feel -- or will feel when the truth is accepted -- having sacrificed so much for the wrong war, for a trick, for an election gimmick, for a far-right ideology. And when the troops return, and the truth is known, how will they react? What will they say about this period of their lives, spent away in Iraq, seeing what they have seen and for some of them having done what they did in the course of a war and the year following that war.
I wonder how will we ever ask others to sacrifice? Now that our country has done this, how will we be able to ask people to sacrifice when it really IS necessary, really IS about defending the country, and really IS about fighting for freedom?
This betrayal is beyond politics, beyond impeachment, beyond resolution by law, certainly beyond a swinging left-right pendulum of national attitudes that naturally resolves itself back to some center. America was hijacked, politics was hijacked, our law was hijacked, our SYSTEM was hijacked, international law was hijacked, morality was hijacked...
There is nothing worse than war. When this is all over (if we do come to our senses) we must -- MUST -- repair our system and put in place oversight and accountability mechanisms to prevent anything like this from happening again. And I mean a lot more than just preventing a war -- I mean all the steps that led up to this, from the one-dollar-one-vote campaign system that let them get a foothold, to the repeal of the equal time doctrine that allowed them to turn our radio and TV stations into full-time right-wing propaganda outlets, even to indirect-but-related activities to consolidate their power over our institutions of morality like their taking over the Southern Baptist Church. That's part of the whole equation, and we need to look at every little piece of how they accomplished the takeover that led to this terrible, unforgivable war.
Free Trade Again
Matt and Kevin are posting about free trade again, so I'm being the free trade skeptic again. (How about you? Anything new with you?)
As always, I'll start off by saying that free trade is in many respects a good thing, etc., etc., and that under certain circumstances it might have been a very good thing.
Free trade defenders always point to the formal economic principle of comparative advantage and claim that it proves that with free trade, everyone is always better off. Even at best, though, it doesn't prove that; the most it can prove is that, on the average, free trade between two countries makes both countries better off. Not "everybody".
One major American product is labor, and Indian and Chinese labor, by and large, have an enormous comparative advantage over American labor. So perhaps America should reduce its production of labor, and stress products for which we do have a comparative advantage.
Problem solved, except that most Americans have nothing to sell but labor. What then? Well, they collect unemployment for a few months, and then they hunt for work for another few months, and then they become "discouraged workers". And then -- voila! -- they disappear from the statistics, and everything is fine again.
It is dogmatically asserted by all free traders that the tradeoff is even -- one job exported, one job imported. There may be some formal tendency of the system to gravitate that way, but isn't this an empirical question? What has actually been happening?
On the one hand, maybe our big partners like China and India aren't playing the game the same way we are. There is, after all, an enormous trade deficit. And on the other, maybe our exporting firms are exporting products which are less labor-intensive. So what are the facts? (I don't know, but I don't think we can get them by extrapolating from the formulae in our Economics 101 textbook).
From the point of view of labor, free trade tends to force labor producers (i.e. workers) to compete with overseas workers whose pay is much lower. And even these workers (e.g., in China and India) have to compete with workers elsewhere who are paid still less (e.g., in Egypt and Bangla Desh). And maybe this is a good thing on the whole, but it's certainly not good for everyone. Specifically not American workers.
Kevin Drum points out that if one job is lost and one gained, the loser will be angrier than the winner is happy (what's called "prospect theory"). This again assumes a parity that may not exist, but even if there is a one-for-one exchange, and even if the jobs are equally good, there's no real advantage in breaking even like that -- certainly no advantage big enough to justify the messianism about free trade. You really need a better than one-for-one ratio. So maybe prospect theory is a good guide -- if you're only going to break even with free trade, you better not do it.
As usual, I will conclude that free trade might have been a good thing. (Yes, I've failed to mention some of its benefits here). But combined with our present economic slump with its jobless recovery, and the relentless long-term reduction in public amenities (especially medical insurance, pension plans, and access to education), and finally the lack of real commitment to the various proposals floated to soften the impact for displaced workers, I find it hard to be sure that free trade was a good thing.
And certainly the Democrats made a big political mistake by sacrificing a chunk of their core constituency in the name of the global general welfare. Clinton's allies in the free-trade battles were mostly Republicans -- and most Republicans are anti-labor pure and simple. With free trade, the Republicans won, and both the free-trade Democrats and the protectionist Democrats lost -- to say nothing of labor.
And the Democratic party is now that much weaker, and the Republican Party that much stronger.
As always, I'll start off by saying that free trade is in many respects a good thing, etc., etc., and that under certain circumstances it might have been a very good thing.
Free trade defenders always point to the formal economic principle of comparative advantage and claim that it proves that with free trade, everyone is always better off. Even at best, though, it doesn't prove that; the most it can prove is that, on the average, free trade between two countries makes both countries better off. Not "everybody".
One major American product is labor, and Indian and Chinese labor, by and large, have an enormous comparative advantage over American labor. So perhaps America should reduce its production of labor, and stress products for which we do have a comparative advantage.
Problem solved, except that most Americans have nothing to sell but labor. What then? Well, they collect unemployment for a few months, and then they hunt for work for another few months, and then they become "discouraged workers". And then -- voila! -- they disappear from the statistics, and everything is fine again.
It is dogmatically asserted by all free traders that the tradeoff is even -- one job exported, one job imported. There may be some formal tendency of the system to gravitate that way, but isn't this an empirical question? What has actually been happening?
On the one hand, maybe our big partners like China and India aren't playing the game the same way we are. There is, after all, an enormous trade deficit. And on the other, maybe our exporting firms are exporting products which are less labor-intensive. So what are the facts? (I don't know, but I don't think we can get them by extrapolating from the formulae in our Economics 101 textbook).
From the point of view of labor, free trade tends to force labor producers (i.e. workers) to compete with overseas workers whose pay is much lower. And even these workers (e.g., in China and India) have to compete with workers elsewhere who are paid still less (e.g., in Egypt and Bangla Desh). And maybe this is a good thing on the whole, but it's certainly not good for everyone. Specifically not American workers.
Kevin Drum points out that if one job is lost and one gained, the loser will be angrier than the winner is happy (what's called "prospect theory"). This again assumes a parity that may not exist, but even if there is a one-for-one exchange, and even if the jobs are equally good, there's no real advantage in breaking even like that -- certainly no advantage big enough to justify the messianism about free trade. You really need a better than one-for-one ratio. So maybe prospect theory is a good guide -- if you're only going to break even with free trade, you better not do it.
As usual, I will conclude that free trade might have been a good thing. (Yes, I've failed to mention some of its benefits here). But combined with our present economic slump with its jobless recovery, and the relentless long-term reduction in public amenities (especially medical insurance, pension plans, and access to education), and finally the lack of real commitment to the various proposals floated to soften the impact for displaced workers, I find it hard to be sure that free trade was a good thing.
And certainly the Democrats made a big political mistake by sacrificing a chunk of their core constituency in the name of the global general welfare. Clinton's allies in the free-trade battles were mostly Republicans -- and most Republicans are anti-labor pure and simple. With free trade, the Republicans won, and both the free-trade Democrats and the protectionist Democrats lost -- to say nothing of labor.
And the Democratic party is now that much weaker, and the Republican Party that much stronger.
March Madness and Budget Watch
Posted by Tom Manatos
Advisor to House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi
Check out the right kind of humor/cleverness to use these days, as opposed to President Bush's poor taste humor.....Leader Pelosi is tying in the "March Madness" theme into the Republican Madness recently. See site for first round of "Republican March Madness" and vote for the most outrageous Republican priority.
Speaking of outrageous Republican action, the Republican budget just passed on the House floor last night and it will now go to conference committee with whatever was passed in the Senate. See fact sheets on how the Republican Budget affects different issues: Education, Homeland Security, the Environment, Veterans and Armed Forces and Health Care. Also, definitely check out the House Democrats central site for everything regarding the budget including actual video of Republicans voting against protecting social security and veterans benefits, "Budget Watch."
For information like this or any information pertaining to House Democrats please feel free to contact me at Tom.Manatos@mail.house.gov.
Advisor to House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi
Check out the right kind of humor/cleverness to use these days, as opposed to President Bush's poor taste humor.....Leader Pelosi is tying in the "March Madness" theme into the Republican Madness recently. See site for first round of "Republican March Madness" and vote for the most outrageous Republican priority.
Speaking of outrageous Republican action, the Republican budget just passed on the House floor last night and it will now go to conference committee with whatever was passed in the Senate. See fact sheets on how the Republican Budget affects different issues: Education, Homeland Security, the Environment, Veterans and Armed Forces and Health Care. Also, definitely check out the House Democrats central site for everything regarding the budget including actual video of Republicans voting against protecting social security and veterans benefits, "Budget Watch."
For information like this or any information pertaining to House Democrats please feel free to contact me at Tom.Manatos@mail.house.gov.
Lying Liars Update
Awhile back my buddy Dave posted a piece on the Bush-Rove strategy of lying all the time. More recently, mind-mannered neoliberal Josh Micah Marshall said about the same thing, and for Brad DeLong's opinion just google "Brad + DeLong + these + liars" for the ongoing series. (Dave's piece is now the #1 google for "They just lie".)
The Rove-Bush strategy doesn't seem to work as well overseas, and deception still can be an issue for Spanish voters and also for Polish leaders. But here in America we're all California fuzzy-logic situational ethics: "That was then -- it doesn't really make any difference any more -- it's water over the dam -- we're positive people who look forward -- solutions are more important than fingerpointing." Or at least Rove and Bush hope so, judging by Bush's recent lame WMD jokes.
For my Polish and Spanish readers, however, with their naive enthusiasm for their recently-won democracy, here's a collection of links about the Bush administration's lies, Chalabi's lies, and the circulation of lies through the American media. (The Knight-Ridder pieces are of special interest: throughout the Iraq War, reporters for this chain consistently did actual reporting, instead of just typing up administration handouts the way the deteriorating New York Times and Washington Post did. Perhaps market forces will eventually propel one of the Knight-Ridder newspapers to national status to fill the journalistic gap.)
237 misleading administration statements about Iraq (pdf file complied by Rep. Waxman, of the House minority)
Knight-Ritter: Exiles plant fake stories in media
Knight-Ridder II
Editor and Publisher: Fake Iraqi exile stories planted in media
Editor and Publisher II
Chalabi: "So what if we lied?"
Chalabi family has cashed in for $400 million so far
Google cache of Royce story
The two Chalabi stories got very little coverage in the U.S. media, and the second story has apparently been pulled from the internet by Newsday, which originated it. I saved the Google cache.
The Rove-Bush strategy doesn't seem to work as well overseas, and deception still can be an issue for Spanish voters and also for Polish leaders. But here in America we're all California fuzzy-logic situational ethics: "That was then -- it doesn't really make any difference any more -- it's water over the dam -- we're positive people who look forward -- solutions are more important than fingerpointing." Or at least Rove and Bush hope so, judging by Bush's recent lame WMD jokes.
For my Polish and Spanish readers, however, with their naive enthusiasm for their recently-won democracy, here's a collection of links about the Bush administration's lies, Chalabi's lies, and the circulation of lies through the American media. (The Knight-Ridder pieces are of special interest: throughout the Iraq War, reporters for this chain consistently did actual reporting, instead of just typing up administration handouts the way the deteriorating New York Times and Washington Post did. Perhaps market forces will eventually propel one of the Knight-Ridder newspapers to national status to fill the journalistic gap.)
237 misleading administration statements about Iraq (pdf file complied by Rep. Waxman, of the House minority)
Knight-Ritter: Exiles plant fake stories in media
Knight-Ridder II
Editor and Publisher: Fake Iraqi exile stories planted in media
Editor and Publisher II
Chalabi: "So what if we lied?"
Chalabi family has cashed in for $400 million so far
Google cache of Royce story
The two Chalabi stories got very little coverage in the U.S. media, and the second story has apparently been pulled from the internet by Newsday, which originated it. I saved the Google cache.
THE UNMAKING OF A PRESIDENT-2004
[... this is a little bit old, but well worth thinking about. I couldn't find an "original" posting site via Google, and found all sorts of copies reposted, so I think I'm o.k. in posting the full text. The theory espoused is provactive, at the very least, and the information included re: relative levels of positive/negative coverage is disturbing (although, admittedly, Dean's campaign, in challenging conventional wisdom, was bound to provoke more reaction, positive and negative, than that of his opponents). --Thomas Leavitt]
THE UNMAKING OF A PRESIDENT-2004
By Carl Jensen
Howard Dean supporters across the country were surprised when they
woke up Tuesday morning, January 19, to read reports of Dean's
unexpected third place finish in the Iowa caucuses.
What happened?
Gov. Dean started 2003 with little name recognition and even less
campaign funding. Through the summer he spread the old familiar theme
of power to the people, mostly through the Internet, and Americans by
the hundreds of thousands responded with their support and dollars. We
wanted to take our country and the Democratic Party back.
Then in late 2003, the media, which had anointed Dean as the front
runner, started to attack him. By the time of the Iowa caucuses, the
polls showed him plummeting and the media's new darling, Senator John
Kerry, soaring.
Kerry's remarkable overnight turnaround even surprised the candidate
himself who gleefully declared he was the "Comeback Kerry."
Meanwhile, the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA), a
nonpartisan, nonprofit research organization in Washington, DC, which
conducts scientific studies of the news media, was monitoring the
nightly network news broadcasts that are the source of news and
information for most Americans.
The results of the CMPA study, released January 15, 2004, revealed that
Gov. Dean received significantly more negative criticism on the
network broadcasts while his Democratic presidential competitors
received significantly more positive comments. The research examined
187 stories broadcast on the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news in 2003.
Only 49 percent of all on-air evaluations of Gov. Dean in 2003 were
positive while the other Democratic contenders received 78 percent
favorable coverage.
In a follow-up study by CMPA, of the network coverage of the
candidates from January 1 to January 18, the night before
the Iowa caucuses, revealed that the networks selected Kerry and Senator
John Edwards before the Iowa voters did. As you may recall, Kerry
finished first with 38% of the vote; Edwards ranked second, just below
Kerry, with 32%; and Dean managed only a poor third with 18% of the
vote. During the two-and-a-half week period leading up to the Iowa
caucuses, there had not been a single negative word uttered about
Edwards by the three networks (100% favorable coverage) while nearly
all, 96%, of the comments about Kerry were positive.
However, Gov. Dean's coverage during those first 18 days of January
was significantly less glowing with 42% unfavorable on-air
evaluations.
What happened in the campaign that inspired the media to turn on Dean
and throw their support to uninspiring Kerry?
A clue may be found in a story published in the Washington Post on
November 19, 2003.
The Post reported that, "In an interview Monday night (11/17/03), Dean
unveiled his idea to 're-regulate' utilities, large media companies
and businesses offering employee stock options. He also favors broad
protections for workers, including the right to unionize."
Also on November 19, the Associated Press reported, "Dean, the
former Vermont governor, said Tuesday that if elected president, he
would move to re-regulate business sectors such as utilities and media
companies to restore faith after corporate scandals such as Enron and
WorldCom."
Dean's idea of re-regulating two out-of-control business sectors
produced criticism from some of his competitors and surely struck a
raw nerve within monopolistic utilities and mega-media companies.
I believe Dean's progressive attack on monopolies helps explain why
the corporate media started piling on Dean, portraying him with the
pejorative term of the "angry candidate."
But while this helps explain why the media went after Dean, it doesn't
explain why they suddenly anointed Kerry as their Golden Boy.
However, it would appear that Kerry would not pose a threat to
corporate America while Dean would obviously challenge their
monopolistic control.
First, a search of Lexis Nexis, a comprehensive computer databank of
news and information, failed to find a single comment by Kerry
supporting re-regulation of media companies. In fact, Gov. Dean was
the only major candidate who ventured into no-man's-land to criticize
media monopolies and even threaten to break them up when elected
president.
We then discovered a newly published book by the Center for Public
Integrity(CPI), a nonprofit, nonpartisan group that does investigative
reporting and research on public policy issues. The book is titled,
"The Buying of the President 2004: Who's Really Bankrolling Bush and
his Democratic Challengers - and What They Expect in Return, (Harper
Collins, 2004)
According to CPI, the three largest fundraisers in the presidential
campaign at this time are Howard Dean with more than $25 million; John
Kerry with more than $20 million; and, of course, President George W.
Bush with $85.2 million (as of Sept. 30, 2003).
As has been reported, Bush plans to build a war chest of some $200
million for the election. His top major donors include financial firms
Merrill Lynch & Co., Credit Suisse First Boston, UBS Paine Webber, and
Goldman Sachs Group. The President's top career donor is the
scandal-ridden Enron Corp.
Kerry's top donors include Fleet Boston Financial Corp., Time Warner,
and a variety of major law firms. Time Warner, as we know, is the
world's largest media conglomerate. Among a variety of media outlets,
it also owns Internet giant America On Line and CNN - a virtual
cheerleader for Kerry.
The research Center does not cite any major donors for Dean. As we
know, the majority of his contributors are ordinary citizens who
donate an average of $77 dollars. Dean's "special interest group" is
the American people.
Finally, we come to a January 28, 2004, report from "The Campaign
Desk," which produces a daily analysis of the 2004 campaign and is
sponsored by the Columbia Journalism Review at Columbia University.
The non-partisan "Campaign Desk" reported that it is concerned "when
the press singles out one candidate for the kind of mauling and piling
on by exaggeration and distortion that Dean has endured in the past
week.
"On CNN last night, Judy Woodruff joined the mob at 10:42 p.m. when
she suggested that perhaps Dean's lower-key post-election address in
New Hampshire means that he was 'preparing his minions, all of his
supporters, for the fact that he may not win this nomination?'
"That's neither fair nor journalism," "The Campaign Desk" concluded.
There may be a limit to the piling on. When Wolf Blitzer polled his
CNN viewers on January 25, "Are the media unfairly characterizing
Howard Dean's post-Iowa loss rally?" 89% said "Yes."
Carl Jensen, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus,
Sonoma State University,
Founder of Project Censored
THE UNMAKING OF A PRESIDENT-2004
By Carl Jensen
Howard Dean supporters across the country were surprised when they
woke up Tuesday morning, January 19, to read reports of Dean's
unexpected third place finish in the Iowa caucuses.
What happened?
Gov. Dean started 2003 with little name recognition and even less
campaign funding. Through the summer he spread the old familiar theme
of power to the people, mostly through the Internet, and Americans by
the hundreds of thousands responded with their support and dollars. We
wanted to take our country and the Democratic Party back.
Then in late 2003, the media, which had anointed Dean as the front
runner, started to attack him. By the time of the Iowa caucuses, the
polls showed him plummeting and the media's new darling, Senator John
Kerry, soaring.
Kerry's remarkable overnight turnaround even surprised the candidate
himself who gleefully declared he was the "Comeback Kerry."
Meanwhile, the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA), a
nonpartisan, nonprofit research organization in Washington, DC, which
conducts scientific studies of the news media, was monitoring the
nightly network news broadcasts that are the source of news and
information for most Americans.
The results of the CMPA study, released January 15, 2004, revealed that
Gov. Dean received significantly more negative criticism on the
network broadcasts while his Democratic presidential competitors
received significantly more positive comments. The research examined
187 stories broadcast on the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news in 2003.
Only 49 percent of all on-air evaluations of Gov. Dean in 2003 were
positive while the other Democratic contenders received 78 percent
favorable coverage.
In a follow-up study by CMPA, of the network coverage of the
candidates from January 1 to January 18, the night before
the Iowa caucuses, revealed that the networks selected Kerry and Senator
John Edwards before the Iowa voters did. As you may recall, Kerry
finished first with 38% of the vote; Edwards ranked second, just below
Kerry, with 32%; and Dean managed only a poor third with 18% of the
vote. During the two-and-a-half week period leading up to the Iowa
caucuses, there had not been a single negative word uttered about
Edwards by the three networks (100% favorable coverage) while nearly
all, 96%, of the comments about Kerry were positive.
However, Gov. Dean's coverage during those first 18 days of January
was significantly less glowing with 42% unfavorable on-air
evaluations.
What happened in the campaign that inspired the media to turn on Dean
and throw their support to uninspiring Kerry?
A clue may be found in a story published in the Washington Post on
November 19, 2003.
The Post reported that, "In an interview Monday night (11/17/03), Dean
unveiled his idea to 're-regulate' utilities, large media companies
and businesses offering employee stock options. He also favors broad
protections for workers, including the right to unionize."
Also on November 19, the Associated Press reported, "Dean, the
former Vermont governor, said Tuesday that if elected president, he
would move to re-regulate business sectors such as utilities and media
companies to restore faith after corporate scandals such as Enron and
WorldCom."
Dean's idea of re-regulating two out-of-control business sectors
produced criticism from some of his competitors and surely struck a
raw nerve within monopolistic utilities and mega-media companies.
I believe Dean's progressive attack on monopolies helps explain why
the corporate media started piling on Dean, portraying him with the
pejorative term of the "angry candidate."
But while this helps explain why the media went after Dean, it doesn't
explain why they suddenly anointed Kerry as their Golden Boy.
However, it would appear that Kerry would not pose a threat to
corporate America while Dean would obviously challenge their
monopolistic control.
First, a search of Lexis Nexis, a comprehensive computer databank of
news and information, failed to find a single comment by Kerry
supporting re-regulation of media companies. In fact, Gov. Dean was
the only major candidate who ventured into no-man's-land to criticize
media monopolies and even threaten to break them up when elected
president.
We then discovered a newly published book by the Center for Public
Integrity(CPI), a nonprofit, nonpartisan group that does investigative
reporting and research on public policy issues. The book is titled,
"The Buying of the President 2004: Who's Really Bankrolling Bush and
his Democratic Challengers - and What They Expect in Return, (Harper
Collins, 2004)
According to CPI, the three largest fundraisers in the presidential
campaign at this time are Howard Dean with more than $25 million; John
Kerry with more than $20 million; and, of course, President George W.
Bush with $85.2 million (as of Sept. 30, 2003).
As has been reported, Bush plans to build a war chest of some $200
million for the election. His top major donors include financial firms
Merrill Lynch & Co., Credit Suisse First Boston, UBS Paine Webber, and
Goldman Sachs Group. The President's top career donor is the
scandal-ridden Enron Corp.
Kerry's top donors include Fleet Boston Financial Corp., Time Warner,
and a variety of major law firms. Time Warner, as we know, is the
world's largest media conglomerate. Among a variety of media outlets,
it also owns Internet giant America On Line and CNN - a virtual
cheerleader for Kerry.
The research Center does not cite any major donors for Dean. As we
know, the majority of his contributors are ordinary citizens who
donate an average of $77 dollars. Dean's "special interest group" is
the American people.
Finally, we come to a January 28, 2004, report from "The Campaign
Desk," which produces a daily analysis of the 2004 campaign and is
sponsored by the Columbia Journalism Review at Columbia University.
The non-partisan "Campaign Desk" reported that it is concerned "when
the press singles out one candidate for the kind of mauling and piling
on by exaggeration and distortion that Dean has endured in the past
week.
"On CNN last night, Judy Woodruff joined the mob at 10:42 p.m. when
she suggested that perhaps Dean's lower-key post-election address in
New Hampshire means that he was 'preparing his minions, all of his
supporters, for the fact that he may not win this nomination?'
"That's neither fair nor journalism," "The Campaign Desk" concluded.
There may be a limit to the piling on. When Wolf Blitzer polled his
CNN viewers on January 25, "Are the media unfairly characterizing
Howard Dean's post-Iowa loss rally?" 89% said "Yes."
Carl Jensen, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus,
Sonoma State University,
Founder of Project Censored
(un)Common Sense discussion of public policy in re: the economy.
[Read the whole article. This guy is dead on target with his analysis. Another gem from Dave Farber's IP list. -Thomas]
The Economy Summed Up: Pay Any Price, Bear Any Burden, to Avoid Creating Jobs-http://markschmitt.typepad.com/decembrist/2004/03/the_economy_sum.html
The political analyst Charlie Cook's weekly column, available by e-mail
subscription http://nationaljournal.com/about/cookcolumn.htm is a real
treasure, and usually offers much more than just the horserace. There's a
single paragraph in today's column that I think sums up what we need to
know about the economy and jobs better than anything I've read:
In December, the CEO of a California-based high tech firm told me that
"there is no amount of overtime that we will not pay, there is no level of
temporary services that we will not use, there is no level of outsourcing
or offshoring that we will not do, in order to prevent us from having to
hire one new, permanent worker in the U.S." As I travel around the country,
meeting with business leaders, I hear similar, though less succinct
thoughts in almost every sector and every part of the country. U.S. wages,
health care, and other benefit costs have gotten so high -- and the press
by investors for high stock prices is so great -- that the premium is on
wringing every last bit of work out of as few employees as possible, to do
anything but incur the costs of adding permanent employees. [emphasis added]
[see url above for full article]
The Economy Summed Up: Pay Any Price, Bear Any Burden, to Avoid Creating Jobs-http://markschmitt.typepad.com/decembrist/2004/03/the_economy_sum.html
The political analyst Charlie Cook's weekly column, available by e-mail
subscription http://nationaljournal.com/about/cookcolumn.htm is a real
treasure, and usually offers much more than just the horserace. There's a
single paragraph in today's column that I think sums up what we need to
know about the economy and jobs better than anything I've read:
In December, the CEO of a California-based high tech firm told me that
"there is no amount of overtime that we will not pay, there is no level of
temporary services that we will not use, there is no level of outsourcing
or offshoring that we will not do, in order to prevent us from having to
hire one new, permanent worker in the U.S." As I travel around the country,
meeting with business leaders, I hear similar, though less succinct
thoughts in almost every sector and every part of the country. U.S. wages,
health care, and other benefit costs have gotten so high -- and the press
by investors for high stock prices is so great -- that the premium is on
wringing every last bit of work out of as few employees as possible, to do
anything but incur the costs of adding permanent employees. [emphasis added]
[see url above for full article]
3/25/2004
Bush has lost
I don't see how our comedian President is going to be able to survive this:
"Political pundits recently showcased on National Public Radio's "Talk of the Nation" said the outcome of this year's election may rely on the swing votes of undecided voters in states like Oregon. Voters like me.
I'm a registered Republican who is loath to vote for a Democrat. But if President Bush doesn't act swiftly to get our sons and daughters out of this hand-picked war of his, he won't get my vote.
Those of us who lost fathers in Vietnam have spent a lifetime debating the wrongs of that war. We shouldn't have to spend our futures distraught over the sacrifices of our offspring, too -- sons like Joel K. Brattain, who gave his life this month while fighting to help free the oppressed people of Iraq."
"A swing voter's plea: Get them out of Iraq, and soon"
"Political pundits recently showcased on National Public Radio's "Talk of the Nation" said the outcome of this year's election may rely on the swing votes of undecided voters in states like Oregon. Voters like me.
I'm a registered Republican who is loath to vote for a Democrat. But if President Bush doesn't act swiftly to get our sons and daughters out of this hand-picked war of his, he won't get my vote.
Those of us who lost fathers in Vietnam have spent a lifetime debating the wrongs of that war. We shouldn't have to spend our futures distraught over the sacrifices of our offspring, too -- sons like Joel K. Brattain, who gave his life this month while fighting to help free the oppressed people of Iraq."
"A swing voter's plea: Get them out of Iraq, and soon"
Richard Clarke may still be a Republican
To the Editor, Portland Oregonian:
Both today and yesterday you printed columns disparaging Richard Clarke's testimony about 9/11 preparedness. Debra Saunders claims that Clarke is part of "the Clinton machine" and explains that 9/11 was all Clinton's fault. David Reinhard says that it's impossible to take Clarke seriously because his friend Rand Beers now works for John Kerry.
Beers and Clarke both worked for Bush as experts on counter-terrorism – Beers took over when Clarke resigned. Neither was a Democrat then, and Clarke isn't one now. They resigned because they were dissatisfied with Bush's counter-terrorism performance -- Clarke is now giving us the details.
Contra Saunders, Clarke does not exonerate either Clinton or himself. Contra Reinhard, Clarke's book is being published now because of a three-month security-review delay – not because of the upcoming election.
Reinhard and Saunders are trying to discredit Clarke because they think his book will hurt Bush. Aren't they the ones being political?
John Emerson
(150 words -- count 'em.)
**********
They don't usually print my letters; we'll see.
(UPDATE: They did: Friday, March 26)
Here are some links about Clarke. Clarke has the Republicans terrified -- Bush's anti-terrorist leadership is one of the very few positive things they had to run on, and without it they're doomed. They're scarcely contesting his facts at all, and are mostly just trying to discredit him.
Talking Points Memo: just read everything.
Brad Delong: Republican Attack Monkeys
Billmon: Clarke will be hard to discredit
Conason interview of Clarke
Sketch of Clarke's career
Summary of administration smears against Clarke
Daniel Benjamin ("The Age of Sacred Terror") backs Clarke
Clarke and Beers are only two of many professionals to resign from the Bush administration
Both today and yesterday you printed columns disparaging Richard Clarke's testimony about 9/11 preparedness. Debra Saunders claims that Clarke is part of "the Clinton machine" and explains that 9/11 was all Clinton's fault. David Reinhard says that it's impossible to take Clarke seriously because his friend Rand Beers now works for John Kerry.
Beers and Clarke both worked for Bush as experts on counter-terrorism – Beers took over when Clarke resigned. Neither was a Democrat then, and Clarke isn't one now. They resigned because they were dissatisfied with Bush's counter-terrorism performance -- Clarke is now giving us the details.
Contra Saunders, Clarke does not exonerate either Clinton or himself. Contra Reinhard, Clarke's book is being published now because of a three-month security-review delay – not because of the upcoming election.
Reinhard and Saunders are trying to discredit Clarke because they think his book will hurt Bush. Aren't they the ones being political?
John Emerson
(150 words -- count 'em.)
**********
They don't usually print my letters; we'll see.
(UPDATE: They did: Friday, March 26)
Here are some links about Clarke. Clarke has the Republicans terrified -- Bush's anti-terrorist leadership is one of the very few positive things they had to run on, and without it they're doomed. They're scarcely contesting his facts at all, and are mostly just trying to discredit him.
Talking Points Memo: just read everything.
Brad Delong: Republican Attack Monkeys
Billmon: Clarke will be hard to discredit
Conason interview of Clarke
Sketch of Clarke's career
Summary of administration smears against Clarke
Daniel Benjamin ("The Age of Sacred Terror") backs Clarke
Clarke and Beers are only two of many professionals to resign from the Bush administration
3/23/2004
George W. Bush Coloring Book
[Got this in my inbox at SavageStupidity.com today. Looks amusing. Anything that helps spread the word about the "alternative reality" that this president and his administration operate within is a good thing. --Thomas Leavitt]
New Book by Publisher of Temp Slave
Drawing from the imaginative quotes President Bush has uttered over the
years, the George W. Bush Coloring Book illustrates Bush's very own words
in the form of a coloring book. Illustrator Karen Ocker lends her visually
distinct style to on-the-record quotes such as "It's amazing I won. I was
running against peace, prosperity and incumbency," and "I know the human
being and fish can coexist peacefully." The coloring book includes an essay
on Bush by Joley Wood. Wood has written on numerous Irish writers,
including essays on James Joyce, George Bernard Shaw, William Butler Yeats,
and a preface for Shaw's "Saint Joan" (Penguin).
Examples at: http://www.gcpress.com/gwbush/
Available through INGRAM.
ISBN: 1891053949
The George W. Bush Coloring Book
8.95
release date March 28, 2004
Contact:
G.K. Darby
Garrett Ct. Press
http://www.gcpress.com/
504.598.4685
New Book by Publisher of Temp Slave
Drawing from the imaginative quotes President Bush has uttered over the
years, the George W. Bush Coloring Book illustrates Bush's very own words
in the form of a coloring book. Illustrator Karen Ocker lends her visually
distinct style to on-the-record quotes such as "It's amazing I won. I was
running against peace, prosperity and incumbency," and "I know the human
being and fish can coexist peacefully." The coloring book includes an essay
on Bush by Joley Wood. Wood has written on numerous Irish writers,
including essays on James Joyce, George Bernard Shaw, William Butler Yeats,
and a preface for Shaw's "Saint Joan" (Penguin).
Examples at: http://www.gcpress.com/gwbush/
Available through INGRAM.
ISBN: 1891053949
The George W. Bush Coloring Book
8.95
release date March 28, 2004
Contact:
G.K. Darby
Garrett Ct. Press
http://www.gcpress.com/
504.598.4685
The Brian
Brought to you by the People's Front of Judea, uh, or the Judean People's Front, or, uh, oh bugger!
Rallying
Just a quick comment about Bush and 9/11. It is conventional wisdom that Bush did a good job leading the nation after the 9/11 attack.
Here's what I say. (So listen up.) After 9/11 Bush did not rally the nation under his leadership. The Democrats rallied under Bush because that was the patriotic and sensible thing to do -- we're under attack, we need one leader, etc. Immediately Bush began abusing that patriotic sentiment for political purposes. Immediately they began steering that unity towards more tax cuts, invading Iraq, and the rest of their far-right agenda. AND they used 9/11 to instill a sense of fear and intimidation in the press, the political opposition, and the public. So enough about Bush being an excellent leader. Why should BUSH get credit because WE "rallied 'round the flag?" (So there.)
Here's what I say. (So listen up.) After 9/11 Bush did not rally the nation under his leadership. The Democrats rallied under Bush because that was the patriotic and sensible thing to do -- we're under attack, we need one leader, etc. Immediately Bush began abusing that patriotic sentiment for political purposes. Immediately they began steering that unity towards more tax cuts, invading Iraq, and the rest of their far-right agenda. AND they used 9/11 to instill a sense of fear and intimidation in the press, the political opposition, and the public. So enough about Bush being an excellent leader. Why should BUSH get credit because WE "rallied 'round the flag?" (So there.)
3/22/2004
The Spanish Election and Democracy
The reaction to the Spanish election, in which the party of Bush's ally Aznar was voted out of office, was a litmus test of attitudes toward democracy, and the message I'm getting is not encouraging.
David Brooks: "It was crazy to go ahead with an election a mere three days after the Madrid massacre..... But I do know that reversing course in the wake of a terrorist attack is inexcusable."
Now, Brooks obviously would not have said this if the Spanish voters had voted correctly -- in Israel, terrorist attacks have thrown the election to Likud several times. Since, as Matt Yglesias astutely pointed out, the conservative attacks on the cowardly Spanish voters were just dry runs for attacks at some later date on cowardly Kerry voters, Brooks' speculation about cancelling or postponing the Spanish election makes you wonder whether a terrorist attack might also lead to an attempt to postpone this year's Presidential election -- especially if it seems that voters might vote "wrong".
After the tainted 2000 election, and granted what we know about the Bush machine, I think that we should insist in advance that the 2004 election be held, no matter what. Not only that, we should insist that the prescribed Constitutional procedures for recounts and challenges be followed to the letter next time, without an ad hoc Supreme Court intervention. (Considering that the problematic Diebold machines apparently will be used in many states, a contested election seems very likely unless there's a real landslide, and one wonders whether a post-election struggle -- which worked so well for them last time -- might not be part of the Republican plan.)
The standard right-wing interpretation of the Spanish vote is that the cowardly Spaniards caved in to terrorism. A more reasonable interpretation (based on the facts) is that the Spaniards rejected the Aznar government's strategy on terrorism, and especially the dishonesty of the Aznar government's attempt to convince the voters that the bombing was done by the Basques. In other words, as Krugman said -- in the Spanish election, democracy worked: "By voting for a new government, in other words, the Spaniards were enforcing the accountability that is the essence of democracy."
However, there is an anti-popular theory of democracy which says that democracy cannot be allowed to be harmed by the wrongheadedness of "temporary majorities", and I think that that is what is going on with the conservative commentators. This theory also says that, by and large, the electorate really is not able to understand the larger issues and really do not need to be told the truth.
Fortunately, the Spanish do not believe that, nor do the Poles (judging by some things their President said). But perhaps this is because they are new to democracy, and thus overenthusiastic and lacking in sophistication.
In America, the official conservative story is that what Bush said before the war doesn't make any difference any more. That was then. When they figure out what they were trying to do and why they did it, they'll tell us. Or something like that.
In the U.S., everything works against popular democracy: media concentration, money in politics, experts at "engineering consent" like Karl Rove, and the anti-democratic convictions of the elite. We're definitely fighting an uphill battle. Demanding the truth might be the place to start.
(Documentation here, including a bunch of links about the Iraq lies.)
David Brooks: "It was crazy to go ahead with an election a mere three days after the Madrid massacre..... But I do know that reversing course in the wake of a terrorist attack is inexcusable."
Now, Brooks obviously would not have said this if the Spanish voters had voted correctly -- in Israel, terrorist attacks have thrown the election to Likud several times. Since, as Matt Yglesias astutely pointed out, the conservative attacks on the cowardly Spanish voters were just dry runs for attacks at some later date on cowardly Kerry voters, Brooks' speculation about cancelling or postponing the Spanish election makes you wonder whether a terrorist attack might also lead to an attempt to postpone this year's Presidential election -- especially if it seems that voters might vote "wrong".
After the tainted 2000 election, and granted what we know about the Bush machine, I think that we should insist in advance that the 2004 election be held, no matter what. Not only that, we should insist that the prescribed Constitutional procedures for recounts and challenges be followed to the letter next time, without an ad hoc Supreme Court intervention. (Considering that the problematic Diebold machines apparently will be used in many states, a contested election seems very likely unless there's a real landslide, and one wonders whether a post-election struggle -- which worked so well for them last time -- might not be part of the Republican plan.)
The standard right-wing interpretation of the Spanish vote is that the cowardly Spaniards caved in to terrorism. A more reasonable interpretation (based on the facts) is that the Spaniards rejected the Aznar government's strategy on terrorism, and especially the dishonesty of the Aznar government's attempt to convince the voters that the bombing was done by the Basques. In other words, as Krugman said -- in the Spanish election, democracy worked: "By voting for a new government, in other words, the Spaniards were enforcing the accountability that is the essence of democracy."
However, there is an anti-popular theory of democracy which says that democracy cannot be allowed to be harmed by the wrongheadedness of "temporary majorities", and I think that that is what is going on with the conservative commentators. This theory also says that, by and large, the electorate really is not able to understand the larger issues and really do not need to be told the truth.
Fortunately, the Spanish do not believe that, nor do the Poles (judging by some things their President said). But perhaps this is because they are new to democracy, and thus overenthusiastic and lacking in sophistication.
In America, the official conservative story is that what Bush said before the war doesn't make any difference any more. That was then. When they figure out what they were trying to do and why they did it, they'll tell us. Or something like that.
In the U.S., everything works against popular democracy: media concentration, money in politics, experts at "engineering consent" like Karl Rove, and the anti-democratic convictions of the elite. We're definitely fighting an uphill battle. Demanding the truth might be the place to start.
(Documentation here, including a bunch of links about the Iraq lies.)
John O'Neill
Don't forget about John O'Neill, the FBI's terrorism expert who quit in disgust at the Bush administration's lack of response to bin Laden. More here.
Divisions
Cross-posted at american street.
The White House response to Clarke's interview and book reveals a lot about their thinking. From Former Terrorism Official Criticizes White House on 9/11:
2) The timing? Since timing of activities to coincide with elections seems to be on the White House's mind, let's talk about timing of events to coincide with campaigns. In September of 2002 the White House rolled out what it called a "marketing campaign" to "sell" the Iraq war. They launched their campaign on Labor Day -- the traditional beginning of campaign season. The Iraq War campaign was EXACTLY timed for the 2002 elections. In this White House politics is everything.
Bush's father waited until AFTER the election to hold a vote on getting Iraq out of Kuwait because he did not want to introduce such a potentially divisive issue -- a war vote -- during a campaign. That would have been bad for the country, and he cared about that. But THIS Bush forced the vote DURING the campaign BECAUSE he wanted to divide the country. And he brought up theFather Mother Homeland Security vote, after opposing it -- and threw in an anti-union provision that would force some Democrats to oppose it, to further divide the country and politicize the issue of terrorism and national security.
WE, blog readers, all knew about the things Clarke talked about on 60 Minutes last night, because we are informed. But now, after last night's 60 Minutes, this is out there in the mainstream. And the number of people who supported Bush's war can't go up. It can only go down. There are facts, and they are not going to change, and eventually facts can break through fog. Iraq did not attack us on 9/11 is a fact. Iraq was not working on weapons of mass destruction is a fact. Iraq was not supporting al-Queda is a fact. Iraq was not a threat to us is a fact. So there is only one direction this can go with the public. Support for the Iraq war CAN NOT increase.
But we are informed and also have seen that this Bush crowd is capable of ANYTHING and THAT is what we have to worry about between now and the election. It has become painfully obvious that this crowd cares more about politics and Party than the good of country and most of the people in it. Another fact. I have seen people like this before, in business. I'm talking about people who only understand their own desires and who have learned that PR can be a magic potion. People who believe that marketing and money can accomplish ANYthing -- and who will turn to marketing and money with no consideration of actually delivering real value to the customer. It's a game of using the power of marketing and money to change the customer -- making the customer believe that what you are already delivering IS what the customer wanted.
It has become so blatant that one has to either see it for what it is or form a cognitive dissonance around it. We're forced to choose "sides." I have observed that those "moderates" among us informed-people-who-read-weblogs, etc. have started to change their views. One can not look at the Bush campaign ads and tactics without realizing that they are just lies and smears. Just lies and smears. It is pretty hard not to see that at this point. And I think the "moderates" are joining us hothead radicals in our view of Bush and his cronies -- that the Bush people just lie, that they care about politics and power far more than they care about the good of the country. I don't think a reasonable person can look at events in the election campaign up to this point and reach another conclusion, and I see even the "moderates" reaching this conclusion. This is happening outside the blogosphere as well. I see the "middle" breaking down.
So my question is, how far are the Bush people willing to push the divisions in the country? The current anti-Kerry campaign line is an indication, yet it is still very early in the campaign -- it actually could get even worse. Today they are saying that the leader of the opposition party is "dangerous." They are saying that he will not protect the children of "real Americans." This kind of language is already beyond just an election -- these are words that encourage a response that goes beyond just voting against the guy.
The Republican choice of PR over Policy, and Politicization of Everything has led to potential civil war in Iraq. How far will they push things here at home?
The White House response to Clarke's interview and book reveals a lot about their thinking. From Former Terrorism Official Criticizes White House on 9/11:
"'If Dick Clarke had such grave concerns about the direction of the war on terror, why did he stay on the team as long as he did, and why did he wait till the beginning of a presidential campaign to speak out?' Mr. Bartlett said. He said the book's timing showed that it was 'more about politics than policy.'"1) How about he stayed because he cared about the country and wanted to try to do some good rather to leave the country in the hands of those who would do nothing but give speeches -- trying to actually do something as contrasted with just making a political statement? That does not appear to be a concept that is in the thinking of this White House.
2) The timing? Since timing of activities to coincide with elections seems to be on the White House's mind, let's talk about timing of events to coincide with campaigns. In September of 2002 the White House rolled out what it called a "marketing campaign" to "sell" the Iraq war. They launched their campaign on Labor Day -- the traditional beginning of campaign season. The Iraq War campaign was EXACTLY timed for the 2002 elections. In this White House politics is everything.
Bush's father waited until AFTER the election to hold a vote on getting Iraq out of Kuwait because he did not want to introduce such a potentially divisive issue -- a war vote -- during a campaign. That would have been bad for the country, and he cared about that. But THIS Bush forced the vote DURING the campaign BECAUSE he wanted to divide the country. And he brought up the
WE, blog readers, all knew about the things Clarke talked about on 60 Minutes last night, because we are informed. But now, after last night's 60 Minutes, this is out there in the mainstream. And the number of people who supported Bush's war can't go up. It can only go down. There are facts, and they are not going to change, and eventually facts can break through fog. Iraq did not attack us on 9/11 is a fact. Iraq was not working on weapons of mass destruction is a fact. Iraq was not supporting al-Queda is a fact. Iraq was not a threat to us is a fact. So there is only one direction this can go with the public. Support for the Iraq war CAN NOT increase.
But we are informed and also have seen that this Bush crowd is capable of ANYTHING and THAT is what we have to worry about between now and the election. It has become painfully obvious that this crowd cares more about politics and Party than the good of country and most of the people in it. Another fact. I have seen people like this before, in business. I'm talking about people who only understand their own desires and who have learned that PR can be a magic potion. People who believe that marketing and money can accomplish ANYthing -- and who will turn to marketing and money with no consideration of actually delivering real value to the customer. It's a game of using the power of marketing and money to change the customer -- making the customer believe that what you are already delivering IS what the customer wanted.
It has become so blatant that one has to either see it for what it is or form a cognitive dissonance around it. We're forced to choose "sides." I have observed that those "moderates" among us informed-people-who-read-weblogs, etc. have started to change their views. One can not look at the Bush campaign ads and tactics without realizing that they are just lies and smears. Just lies and smears. It is pretty hard not to see that at this point. And I think the "moderates" are joining us hothead radicals in our view of Bush and his cronies -- that the Bush people just lie, that they care about politics and power far more than they care about the good of the country. I don't think a reasonable person can look at events in the election campaign up to this point and reach another conclusion, and I see even the "moderates" reaching this conclusion. This is happening outside the blogosphere as well. I see the "middle" breaking down.
So my question is, how far are the Bush people willing to push the divisions in the country? The current anti-Kerry campaign line is an indication, yet it is still very early in the campaign -- it actually could get even worse. Today they are saying that the leader of the opposition party is "dangerous." They are saying that he will not protect the children of "real Americans." This kind of language is already beyond just an election -- these are words that encourage a response that goes beyond just voting against the guy.
The Republican choice of PR over Policy, and Politicization of Everything has led to potential civil war in Iraq. How far will they push things here at home?
Thanks Again, Joe
White House Rebuts Ex-Bush Adviser Claim:
Oh yeah, then there's Other Joe:
When we say we want more "Democrat" Senators, maybe we should be careful what we wish for.
"Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said Sunday he doesn't believe Clarke's charge that Bush -- who defeated him and former Vice President Al Gore in the 2000 election -- was focused more on Iraq than al-Qaida during the days after the terror attacks.Go away, Joe. You and Zell.
'I see no basis for it,' Lieberman said on 'Fox News Sunday.' 'I think we've got to be careful to speak facts and not rhetoric.'"
Oh yeah, then there's Other Joe:
"And Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., told ABC's 'This Week' that while he has been critical of Bush policies on Iraq, 'I think it's unfair to blame the president for the spread of terror and the diffuseness of it. Even if he had followed the advice of me and many other people, I still think the same thing would have happened.'"You go away TOO, Other Joe.
When we say we want more "Democrat" Senators, maybe we should be careful what we wish for.
3/21/2004
The Smearing Begins
Richard Clarke's Legacy of Miscalculation:
Doesn't take long...
And what are Clarke's sins?
"The retirement of Richard Clarke is appropriate to the reality of the war on terror. Years ago, Clarke bet his national security career on the idea that electronic war was going to be real war. He lost, because as al Qaeda and Iraq have shown, real action is still of the blood and guts kind. "This is from February (after they knew he was writing a book exposing Bush), but is brought out on the far-right Drudge Report to honor his appearance on 60 Minutes, and begins the inevitable character assassination.
Doesn't take long...
And what are Clarke's sins?
In 1998, according to the New Republic, Clarke "played a key role in the Clinton administration's misguided retaliation for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which targeted bin Laden's terrorist camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan."Helping Clinton go after bin Laden. THAT'S "misguided." If you read the piece, it seems to say Clarke is a bad person because he say we should go after bin Laden instead of Saddam.
Well, Did You See It?
Clarke on 60 Minutes. What did you think?
A Green friend says tomorrow the Republicans will "challenge" Kerry to say whether he "agrees with Clarke that the soldiers who lost their lives in Iraq died in vain," and Kerry will say NO, and that's the end of it.
I say, Kerry, prove him wrong!
A Green friend says tomorrow the Republicans will "challenge" Kerry to say whether he "agrees with Clarke that the soldiers who lost their lives in Iraq died in vain," and Kerry will say NO, and that's the end of it.
I say, Kerry, prove him wrong!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)