What Americans Know

You probably have seen this poll reported on other blogs. I don't tend to post things I have also seen elsewhere, but this one really, really needs repeating.

"A new poll shows that 57 percent of Americans continue to believe that Saddam Hussein gave 'substantial support' to al-Qaida terrorists before the war with Iraq, despite a lack of evidence of that relationship.

In addition, 45 percent of Americans have the impression that 'clear evidence' was found that Iraq worked closely with Osama bin Laden's network, and a majority believe that before the war Iraq either had weapons of mass destruction (38 percent) or a major program for developing them (22 percent).

[. . .] among those who say most experts agree that Iraq had banned weapons, 72 percent plan to vote for Bush."

To understand Bush's support, you have to unde


Well, I don't know where the rest of this post went. It was up for a few days, and then this happened to it. Thanks, Blogger.

An e-mail I received:

TEXAS TRUTH TOO GOOD NOT TO PASS ON

While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75-year old Texas rancher (whose hand was caught in a gate while working cattle), the doctor and the old man struck up a conversation about George W. Bush being in the White House. The old Texan said, "Well, ya know, Bush is a 'post turtle'." Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a 'post turtle' was. The old rancher said, "When you're driving down a country road an you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post turtle." The old man saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued to explain, "You know he didn't get there by himself, he doesn't belong there, he doesn't know what to do while he's up there, and you just want to help the dumb bastard get down!"

Bush the Post Turtle.

Bush had his chance to win it. Get him out of there before he screws up again.

Diana Moon, has pointed out that Bush and his surrogates are 100% sure to blame the Democrats for his Iraq disaster. (Tinker Bell died because we didn't believe hard enough). The title above is my first try at what I think we should be saying.

For 32 years now Democrats have been running away from the McGovern Curse, which the DLC has interpreted to mean "No Democrat ever can oppose any war anywhere". That has to change. Democrats have to suck up their guts and go on the attack.

It'll be a rough sell. Bush's rabid core constituency is 30% of the electorate, Bush's team has close to a billion dollars to blow, the media are shallow, spineless, and venal, and many "centrists" are just airheads. It will be like the Alamo or Thermopylae -- the few and the proud, defending human civilization against the ravening Republican horde. (Take that, Samuel Huntington! Take that, Victor Davis Hansen!)

As I've been saying for a couple of years, this election will be decided by the rational conservatives and the intelligent centrists (if there are any). If they stick with Bush, we are doomed. There are plenty of signs that they're starting to shift, but I'm not counting on it. George W. Bush may be allowed to run the world off a cliff just because certain people couldn't force themselves to vote for the party of unions, affirmative action, and (gasp!) gay marriage. (The horror! The horror!)

Why Chalabi?

Digby has one very good answer.

A Hero

I don't know anything about this guy, except that after 9/11 he gave up a $3.6 million NFL football contract and enlisted in the army. He was "an exceptional student with a 3.84 grade point average through college and graduated summa cum laude with a degree in marketing" who died yesterday in Afghanistan. This was just announced and there isn't much news yet about what happened.

I don't know if he was a rabid right-winger, or a Democrat, and it doesn't matter. (I guess it does matter because if he was a Democrat the Republicans are going to start smearing him now.)

Osama Bin Laden Captured!!

Not really. There's a spam email going around saying so, though. If you clink on the link in the email, you get a nice computer parasite. (Story here).

Investigators are hot on Osama's trail, though. My sources tell me is that the latest tip is that Osama has apparently figured out that if you want to disappear from view, the Texas Air National Guard is the best place to go.

Buy Books, Help Pay For STF Bandwidth

Click on the book cover, buy the book, support Seeing the Forest!

Voting Machines Story

Maryland Group Sues to Upgrade E-Voting Machines:

"A Maryland voters' group said on Wednesday it planned to force the state to add printers to electronic voting machines to ensure they can be double-checked after a disputed election, such as the 2000 presidential vote. "

The CPA Institution

Josh doesn't often crack me up, but this is funny.

Stealing an Election

Bruce Schneier offers a back-of-the-envelope estimate of what we're up against.

In 2002, all the Congressional candidates together raised over $500M. As a result, one can conservatively conclude that affecting the balance of power in the House of Representatives is worth at least $100M to the party who would otherwise be losing. So when designing the security behind the software, one must assume an attacker with a $100M budget.

Conclusion: The risks to electronic voting machine software are even greater than first appears.

Brush off the Polack Jokes

Apparently Poland is thinking of leaving Iraq and joining Old Europe.

What's the correct term for those guys, anyway -- "piroshki-eating Holocaust monkeys"?

Our club has become even more exclusive.

Update: This is a developing story, with different people saying different things, and there's a change of government coming up soon too.

Link

Chimpeach

Chimpeach

They Know

Sunday

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the administration is expected to nominate John Negroponte to be our first ambassador to postwar Iraq, to take up residence in what will be the world's largest embassy after June 30.

Monday:

In a blow to President Bush and his coalition partners in Iraq, Honduras followed Spain on Monday in announcing it will pull its troops out of the country.

The Hondurans know.

What OTHER Election-Manipulation Deals?

Woodward's book reveals that Bush made a deal with Saudi Arabia to reduce oil prices as an election-manipulation tactic. So the question is, WHO ELSE? What OTHER countries, corporations, etc. have Republicans made deals with to manipulate our elections? And in exchange for what?

When the Republicans started accusing Kerry of making deals with foreign governments, we should have known...

Bandar Bush is in the driver's seat

The two stories below are so flagrant that I have trouble believing them myself. I find it unbelievable that there has been so little media outcry, and that Bush supporters still are able to believe anything that the man says. These guys are tough when confronting France, but are meek and obedient with the Saudis.

Colin Powell was not told about our Iraq War plans until Bandar had approved them. Bandar wasn't easily pleased, but ultimately we got his approval for what we wanted to do.

More recently, when OPEC (led by the Saudis) decided to cut production and raise oil prices, Bandar kept Bush on a string for awhile before he agreed to increase Saudi production in time for the elections. I don't know what his quid pro quo was, but we can be sure that he got it.

(If you just tuned in, the 9/11 attackers and sponsors were mostly Saudis, and there was quite possibly no Iraqi involvement at all. We've spent several years now scouring the earth for little specks of evidence that Saddam had something to do with 9/11, while ignoring warehouses of evidence that high-level Saudis were implicated.)

BANDAR BUSH TELLS US WHAT WE NEED TO DO IN IRAQ

"And so Bandar, who's skeptical because he knows in the first Gulf War we didn't get Saddam out, so he says to Cheney and Rumsfeld, ‘So Saddam this time is gonna be out, period?’ And Cheney - who has said nothing - says the following: ‘Prince Bandar, once we start, Saddam is toast.’"

After Bandar left, according to Woodward, Cheney said, “I wanted him to know that this is for real. We're really doing it."

But this wasn’t enough for Prince Bandar, who Woodward says wanted confirmation from the president. “Then, two days later, Bandar is called to meet with the president and the president says, ‘Their message is my message,’” says Woodward."

Excerpt

Transcript

BANDAR PROMISES TO KEEP OIL PRICES DOWN

"Bush, who campaigned in 2000 on a pledge to persuade the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to keep oil supply plentiful, has been under fire in this election year after Saudi Arabia, the cartel's largest producer, led a push to cut OPEC output by 1 million barrels per day from April.....

Adel Al-Jubeir, foreign affairs adviser to the Saudi crown prince, told reporters in a telephone conference call that global oil inventories were at a reasonable level and blamed oil market speculators for driving up the crude price.

Joe Barnes of the James A. Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Texas said Riyadh was more than willing to help Washington balance energy prices by raising stocks in an emergency, like after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Right now, "the Saudis do not believe current oil prices are an emergency," he told Reuters.'

UPDATE:
A more recent story:

"Woodward, discussing his new book, Plan of Attack, on the Bush Administration's preparations for the Iraq war, told CBS television that Prince Bandar pledged the Saudis would try to fine-tune oil prices to prime the US economy for the election - a move they understood would favour Mr Bush's re-election.

Questioned about his claim at a time when oil prices are nearing a 13-year high, Woodward, a senior editor at The Washington Post, said: 'They're high. And they could go down very quickly. That's the Saudi pledge. Certainly over the summer or as we get closer to the election they could increase production several million barrels a day and the price would drop significantly.'"

Update

Story I

Story II

Guardian

Bandar Bush

Democrats and Liberals

Below I've argued that if you want to be part of the mainstream establishment you cannot be a dove. This is just part of a more general rejection of "liberalism".

Steve Teles, a Brandeis political science professor, has said that the only thing all conservatives have in common is a hatred of "liberals". Many reasonably moderate voters would never vote for a Democrat because they think the Democratic Party is liberal.

If you ask them what they mean by "liberals", however, they'll often point to pot-smoking bisexual tree-hugging pacifist ecoterrorist vegans. But these people are not Democrats: they're Greens, if anything.

In other words, the people who killed Gore by voting for Nader also hurt Gore by causing moderates to vote for Bush. Everyone knows that life isn't fair, but this particular lose-lose proposition is an especially nasty one.

The Democrats have been bullied into driving away their fringe constituency, while the Republicans have succeeded in keeping theirs on board. And the Republican fringe is plenty nasty: neo-Confederates, Armageddon Christians, "nuke'em all" warmongers, and anti-tax anarchists.

In 2000 Nader got 2.7% of the vote and Buchanan and Browne combined got 0.79% of the vote. You know that there are a lot more racists and libertarians than that out there. That's only 3.5% of the vote altogether, but suppose the proportions were switched (.79% Green votes, 2.7% Buchanan and Libertarian votes).

Gore would have got almost 2% more votes, Bush would have got almost 2% fewer, and Gore (who already had a .5% advantage in the popular vote) would have defeated Bush solidly, 50.3% to 46%. The Electoral College and the Supreme Court couldn't erase that margin.

The Democrats have to stop running away from their fringe voters.

House of Bush, House of Saud

The New York Times just ran a stupid review of Craig Unger's book House of Bush, House of Saud. I strongly recommend Unger's book, but Tepperman's Times review is worth reading too, just for a glimpse at the way the establishment group mind works.

Unger points out that the Bushes have long-established ties to the Saudis and that the Saudis have donated over a billion dollars to Bush-sponsored causes. He speculates that this may have caused the Bushes to be friendlier to the Saudis than they should have been. There's nothing really extreme about this conclusion.

But Tepperman frames the book as a "conspiracy theory" in order to dismiss Unger's main points. He actually concedes many of Unger's facts (though one fact which he does not mention is that the 9/11 attack was manned, funded, and organized by Saudis.) He concludes his review by explaining that we are slaves of the Saudis and have little choice other than to do pretty much whatever they want us to do.

Tepperman is the senior editor of the prestigious journal Foreign Affairs, which makes his mediocre dishonesty (and his hopelessness about our relationship with the Saudis) seem a bit more more alarming.

More on the Bush-Saudi connection.

Would we have been better off leaving Saddam in power?

My irascible friend Diana Moon (no link, scroll to "Sunday Morning") has asked the question: "Do you think that we would have been better off leaving Saddam in power?"

This is not actually an outrageous question. What it amounts to asking is whether George Bush the First was right to leave Saddam ("a force for stability") in power after the First Iraq War. But the very fact that it can be asked at all speaks very poorly of the younger Bush's Second Iraq War. Coming up with something better than Saddam Hussein shouldn't have been that hard.

From the American point of view, we have confirmed (at a very high cost) that Iraq never had any WMD. As for the terrorist threat, it has certainly become worse: more Islamic militants have been created, whereas nothing at all has been done to reduce terrorism (and resources have even been diverted from the real war on terror.) The war has severely stressed most of America's diplomatic relationships and has also been costly both economically and in terms of casualties.

Are the Iraqis themselves better off? At this point no one in the world has any idea who will be governing Iraq in a year's time. (As far as that goes, no one in the world knows who will be governing Iraq two months from now). But the most likely possibilities are a militant Shiite theocracy, a long civil war, and an extended American occupation. None of these are necessarily better than Saddam's rule.

We're frequently told that we've liberated the Iraqi women, but that's just because you always have to talk about the ill-treatment of women when you talk about Islam. Iraqi women, per se, were better off under Saddam than they are now under the mullahs, just as they were better off in Afghanistan under Communism than they have been since the Communists were overthrown. (No, this doesn't justify either Saddam or Communism, but the secular governments were much better about educating women and letting them work).

And democracy now looks like the longest of long shots, with a real risk of getting an anti-American, anti-Israeli democracy.

This is not the war we were sold, and we will not be able to make a success of it without a long, costly, and probably brutal occupation. Hawks assure us that we have no other choice, but most of what they told us last time turned out not to be true.

Bush's war has been a complete failure unless its whole purpose was to get the U.S. involved in a longer and wider war.

Not A Political Statement

Now KPIG's playing Reggae Accident:

This is not a political statement
Nor is it a farce
In the land of the great bald bird
The rasta man is sparse

He does not like our urban jungle
Or our capitalistic nightmare
He does not believe in auto insurance
Mon I don't believe that is fair

It was a reggae accident
Four rastas in a rambler
A reggae accident
They came from out of nowhere
A reggae accident
They were smoking some spliff cigars
A reggae accident
They totaled out my car

I lost the case that sealed my fate
Last week in municipal court
The judge ruled for rasta restitution
Of a most peculiar sort

Now there's four stoned faces at my dinner table
And my wife wonders how come
She does not mind the extra mouths to feed
As much as she minds those after dinner drums

We sing was a reggae accident
Four rastas eating pasta
A reggae accident
Pass the parmesan please
A reggae accident
How does a rasta spell relief
A reggae accident
No problem mon, pass the spliff

Oh reggae down...

Now the sun shines on the isle of Jamaica
As it's done since time began
No problem says the rasta mon
When I asked to join his band

You see I sold my house I quit my job
I left that narrow-minded wife
And I moved to the island of Jamaica ya
Just to live that rasta life

Another KPIG favorite is Warren Zevon's Lawyers, Guns and Money, which is now the Bush theme song (along with "If I Only Had A Brain").

Send lawyers, guns and money
Dad, get me out of this

and

With the thoughts you'd be thinkin'
You could be another Lincoln
If you only had a brain

For a Sunday afternoon.

Why there was no moderate anti-war movement

Matt Yglesias (April 17 and 18, "Were Anti-War Arguments Wrong", no permalinks) has recently published a piece admitting that he was wrong when he initially supported the Iraq war. He distinguishes his own confession of error from the expected flood of weaselly fake mea culpas, of which David Brooks' supremely weaselly piece is presumably only the first. ("I was wrong but I was right anyway": Matt's paraphrase).

Matt, who is anti-dove, then asks why mainstream anti-war voices were so few before the war. His own answer and those of his commenters miss the point, however.

Since the end of the Vietnam War, or 1980 at the latest, not being a dove has been one of the criteria for being part of the mainstream at all. Before the decision on Iraq War II had been definitively made, there was in fact a great deal of mainstream anti-war opinion (look here and here.) But when crunch time came, those opponents all folded -- because if they had not done so, they would have become pariahs. (As Scott Ritter and, more recently, Richard Clarke have seen).

This consensus also probably accounts for a great deal of the media's writing-to-a-script, as repeatedly exposed by Bob Somerby. Up-and-coming young journalists learn what kinds of things they must say in order to continue to be up-and-coming.

Nothing has changed. The policy-makers and opinion-leaders who were wrong are still in place. No one either in the media or in government has lost his job or suffered a demotion because of his mistakes. So you should plan to see the same old opinion-leaders, in endless parade, passing the buck and covering their butts at a dollar a word.

But don't even hope to hear from the ones who were right all along.

"Bring It On"

This NY Times story includes this line: "Yet the killing will almost certainly have political consequences..."

But actions that inflame the entire Arab world have other, more immediate consequences if you are a family with someone serving in Iraq: Report: 11 U.S. Troops, Dozens of Iraqis Killed.

1952 VINCENT BLACK LIGHTNING

I'm listening to KPIG (online) and I nominate the following that they just played for Best Lyrics:

1952 VINCENT BLACK LIGHTNING
by Richard Thompson (Hear it here.)

Oh says Red Molly to James "That's a fine motorbike.
A girl could feel special on any such like"
Says James to Red Molly "My hat's off to you
It's a Vincent Black Lightning, 1952.
And I've seen you at the corners and cafes it seems
Red hair and black leather, my favourite colour scheme"
And he pulled her on behind and down to Boxhill they did ride

Oh says James to Red Molly "Here's a ring for your right hand
But I'll tell you in earnest I'm a dangerous man.
For I've fought with the law since I was seventeen,
I robbed many a man to get my Vincent machine.
Now I'm 21 years, I might make 22
And I don't mind dying, but for the love of you.
And if fate should break my stride
Then I'll give you my Vincent to ride"

"Come down, come down, Red Molly" called Sergeant McRae
"For they've taken young James Adie for armed robbery.
Shotgun blast hit his chest, left nothing inside.
Oh come down, Red Molly to his dying bedside"
When she came to the hospital, there wasn't much left
He was running out of road, he was running out of breath
But he smiled to see her cry
He said "I'll give you my Vincent to ride"

Says James "In my opinion, there's nothing in this world
Beats a 52 Vincent and a red headed girl.
Now Nortons and Indians and Greeves won't do,
Ah, they don't have a soul like a Vincent 52"
Oh he reached for her hand and he slipped her the keys
Said "I've got no further use for these.
I see angels on Ariels in leather and chrome,
Swooping down from heaven to carry me home"
And he gave her one last kiss and died
And he gave her his Vincent to ride.

Sigh. KPIG and Santa Cruz and Lighthouse Point and Steamer's Alley (it's a surfing thing)...

Update -My potty-mouth wife says, "Romanticizing a bad way of life - A bank robber on a fucking motorcycle." I MET her in Santa Cruz!

Other KPIG Best Evers:
The Road Goes On Forever By Robert Earl Keen
Illegal Smile by John Prine

Another Fact On The Ground

Sharon, thanking us for reversing decades of US policy and completely backing the policies of the Likud party while obtaining no concessions at all from Israel, has now had Hamas leader Rantisi assassinated. So this will be another "fact on the ground" for us to deal with.

You might remember last month's Israeli assassination of Yassin -- the guy in the wheelchair. That assassination directly triggered the recent events in Iraq, leading to the deaths of 82 American soldiers, and hundreds of Iraqis. THIS assassination is very likely to lead to a further increase in violence in Iraq, and across the Middle East.

We have a President who allows -- encourages -- these actions by Israel which lead DIRECTLY to increased violence in Iraq and the deaths of ever more American soldiers.

It looks more and more like this President WANTS all-out war in the Middle East.

Powerful!

The DNC has gotten it right. Go watch this powerful ad!!! DNC Video: Mistakes Were Made. Excellent.

Digby

Hullabaloo:

"There is a great big political battle going on with a bunch of guys who take no prisoners. We are not dealing with our daddy's Republican Party. They are not going to disappear and they are not going to allow us to enact a progressive agenda unimpeded. We'd best take that into account because simply reforming the Democratic Party into a fighting progressive voice for change ain't gonna get it done. We need every last person for this battle from all those awful DLC'rs and Democrats in the House and Senate to John Edwards to audacious faux Dem Wes Clark to Howard Dean. We don't have to sign any loyalty oaths but we do have to be serious and mature and understand how terribly difficult and how high the stakes are in trying to govern with the sort of opposition that puts a criminal like Tom DeLay into a leadership position. They will fight with everything they have."

Digby! Digby! Digby!

Intellectual Crisis of the Left

Over at Blogging of the President Matt Stoller is writing about "the intellectual crisis of the left." He summarizes posts on the subject by Peter Levine and Mark Schmitt of the Decemberist.

I piped in with the following, and repeat the comment here:

Levine writes (as paraphrased by you) that

"Creating a network of left-wing institutions to play hardball politics with the right as the radicals have done (such as Air America to balance Rush Limbaugh), doesn't make sense, and can only lead to a further fraying of our civic culture."

I'd like to take issue with that view of what Progressive organizations would do, if only we could get them funded. I'm much closer to Schmitt's view.

Let's step back a minute and think about what the Right's huge advocacy infostructure is and how it affects our politics. First, take a look at Jerry Landray's Media Transparency article about the huge machine backing up Bush's campaign efforts, and the recent NCRP study it discusses. (And some of my own research starting here.)

Here's how I see it: This huge infrastructure of the Right -- "the Wurlitzer" -- has spent decades softening up the public, spreading right-wing memes through the population, creating "conventional wisdom" that we need "tort reform," "tax relief," "school choice," and that "Social Security is going broke" and many more such themes. So after hearing this, over and over, the public is ready to support politicians offering solutions to these "problems."

So what these organizations do is lay the groundwork for the Republican Party to come in and harvest votes. It hardly matters who their candidate is, the election script is already written, they just repeat it, and they have this huge chorus backing them up nationwide. So come election time, the public has already been prepped.

Progressives and Moderates have very few real advocacy organizations in place -- especially not those that promote general Progressive principals out to the general public. As a result, the public is not prepped for Progressive issues. Our politicians have to educate the public about problems and issues from scratch, alone, and must do it during each election cycle. And not just alone, as in a voice in the wilderness against the huge right-wing chorus, but also they do not get the kind of marketing advice and assistance that organizations like the Heritage Foundation offer.

Mark Schmitt nails this when he writes,

"Having worked on a presidential campaign in 2000, I came to the conclusion that the hardest thing to do within a campaign, even an idea-driven campaign, is to develop new ideas, because the field operation, the message-of-the-day, the press, dealing with the candidate's time, etc., consume everyone's energy. The best a campaign can do is to pick up on and promote ideas already developed, and so I see campaigns as the moment where we measure the availability of new ideas in the larger world, and the success of other groups and people in developing the kind of visions and policy blueprints that candidates can use. If the candidates fail to do so, it is at least in part an indication of the failure of the think tanks or other institutions that are supposed to do the job.

But I don't think the problem is that our "think tanks or other institutions" are failing to do the job, I think the problem is that WE are failing to understand that this is the job of these think tanks and other institutions and not the politicians and parties. So it's really WE who are to blame for not creating and funding them.

We often complain that the "Democratic Party" is not "finding its voice" and is not explaining issues well, etc. We complain that Kerry is not voicing the issues effectively. But look at the other side. Do you think Bush is this amazing master of communications. NO! He just repeats what the right-wing machine feeds him. The Republican Party is little more than the candidate wing of this huge apparatus. So we shouldn't be blaming the Democratic Party, this is not their job. The job of politicians is to reflect the will of the public. The job of a network of advocacy organizations is to set up that background of public understanding for them.

Politicians on the Right have such an easy job! The public has been hearing decades of "what's wrong with" public schools, lawsuits, etc. AND hearing "experts" talk about how to solve those problems, so the politicians of the Right just come in and pick up on that.

THAT is the role of the Right's network of advocacy institutions. The progressive Center for American Progress is one small, small beginning towards doing something about this. But they are just one organization, and their focus is current legislative issues -- sort of trying to beat back the tide. The Right has over 500 such organizations in place. They have literally thousand of well-funded operatives. Our side needs people to step up to the plate and start funding these kinds of organizations as well.

So I think that yes, we DO need a network of left-wing institutions. But what I think they should be doing is putting out books, articles, op-ed pieces, and people to talk on the radio and TV, all advocating a return of progressive values of community, democracy, sharing, nurturance, tolerance, etc. I see this as an effort to restore civility, not to further fray our civic culture. I think that leaving the Right's institutions in charge of the megaphone is what is very, very dangerous to our civic culture. But, as I said, my vision of this is that the organizations are conducting the research into how to better our society, and doing the research on the nest ways to put the word out there, advocating progressive values of community, etc.

(Some time ago I wrote something similar in Don't Blame the Democrats.)

Facts On The Ground -- So Deal With It

I'm watching the press conference with Bush and Blair. They are talking about the decision to back Sharon's plan, and screw the Palestinians. In the press conference they are saying something along the lines of, "Well, this is the way it is NOW, and you can either look back and say, 'You shouldn't have done that' or you can look at what is happening now and get involved in the reality of today.' "

This is another example of leaders presenting us with "facts on the ground." Bush and Sharon are just going ahead and doing what they want, and getting the situation the way they want it, regardless of what the public wants or the participants want. They just go ahead and do what they want and tell us to deal with it. Since the Palestinians don't like they solution THEY propose, they are going around them, saying that they are blocking peace so they are going to go ahead and impose this WITHOUT Palestinian participation or negotiation.

This is the new style of our government -- no listening to public opinion, no votes, no legislation, just presenting us with "facts on the ground" and telling us this is the way it is now so deal with it. This is the corporate style of management. "The decision has been made." Present us with "facts on the ground" and call it "bold leadership." The format of press conference itself exemplifies this style: there will be 3 questions and no more, and forget this nonsense about leaders being accountable to the public. The decision has been made.

They have learned from the WMD situation. They made up a justification for invading Iraq -- WMDs -- and now it is causing them trouble. So forget the justifications from now on, they are just going to go ahead and make declarations and we'd best just "shut up shut up shut up" and recognize that, as Bush said in his press conference. "The decision has been made and it is not going to change."

Remember what Chalabi said about tricking the US into invading Iraq:

"When asked if he feels any unease or discomfort at the fact that some Americans feel the United States was suckered into a war under the false pretenses of disarming Saddam of weapons of mass destruction, Chalabi replies, 'No. ... We are in Baghdad now.'"

The decision has been made, and they are in Baghdad now.

The Apprentice: Guest Starring George W. Bush

The Apprentice: Guest Starring George W. Bush

Tax RELIEF??!!

Headline at the Kerry campaign site:

"John Kerry has proposed three times more tax relief for middle-class families than George W. Bush "

Tax RELIEF???!!! What's next, "Tort Reform?" You would think that SOMEONE in the Kerry campaign would be aware of Lakoff and others' work on FRAMING, since every weblog I read and most politically aware thinking people I am in contact with is. How can a national political campaign in the year 2004 make such a framing mistake? If Kerry gives in to the Right's use of language, and acknowledges their framing of this issue, why not just endorse Bush, since the "need for" tax cuts is the central message of Bush's campaign? How can Kerry now argue that the deficits are bad?

And then there's Kerry's statement on Bush's sudden, surprise reversal yesterday of decades of US progress on Mid-East peace, enraging the entire Arab world:

That Bush's move was good politics was evidenced by Democratic rival John F. Kerry's quick move not to let Bush outflank him among pro-Israel voters.

"I think that could be a positive step," the Massachusetts senator said, approving of the Bush-Sharon action regarding both refugees and Israel's borders.

I'm still going to vote for Kerry. But... I'm not going to ask if it's him or his old-style Washington Democrat campaign staff... He hired them. I'll put the Kerry donation button back up when I feel better about him.

Did Ashcroft Intimidate the 9/11 Commission?

Slate has a couple of good articles up about Bush's speech and Ashcroft's testimony. What this usually means is that we can expect to see a couple of crappy articles soon for balance, to protect Slate against the charge that they've gone all liberal and shit. (But I suppose I should be grateful and not complain so much.)

Molly Ivins summed up Bush's Texas character in three words: pious, macho, and anti-intellectual. Saletan describes a man detached from reality and perhaps borderline mentally-ill. Partly in response to his article, I ended up fearing that Bush might win the election even after all the rational conservatives (Richard Clarke, George Will) have jumped ship, leaving us with a lame-duck President who owes nothing at all to anyone who has a brain. After all, he "means what he says", and the voters seem to like that.

Kaplan's piece asks why Ashcroft was treated so gently by the 9/11 commission, which allowed him to blame various Clinton-administration people and did not confront him about his own inaction. Ashcroft, who put a low priority on counterterrorism and denied requests for more funding, is really the most vulnerable member of the Bush administration, but the commission didn't even touch him.

Kaplan speculates about various plausible reasons for this, but leaves out the possibility that the commission had been intimidated. Ashcroft will almost certainly remain Attorney General for the next nine months, and might well serve for four years after that. He's an utterly ruthless true believer who controls police powers (many of them as-yet unused) which are unprecedented in American history. Perhaps the members of the commission all decided that they didn't dare make an enemy of a man like that.

Those are two pretty chilling possibilities. Bush's support is steadily eroding, but we can expect a savage counterattack, and Bush has gotten out of the last two or three weeks a lot better off than he deserved to.

Trust, Don't Verify (Saletan in Slate)

Ashcroft Gets a Free Pass (Kaplan in Slate)

The Right Declares Absolute War On 9/11 Questions

New York Post Editorial: NATIONAL DISGRACE:

"The national 9/11 commission has been hijacked by political shills -- men and women eager to subordinate truth to partisan advantage; who hold a transitory victory on Election Day more dear than American victory in the war on terror.

Tawdry ambition has eclipsed sacred duty; all Americans are diminished, but none more than the families of the 9/11 victims -- who expect better from the commission, and certainly deserve it.

Unless it is the thousands of young Americans now under arms in Iraq and elsewhere; their bravery and devotion to duty is inspirational. How shameful that the commission attack dogs hold their sacrifices so cheaply.

And John F. Kerry, who presumes to the presidency, acquiesces. What a disgrace. "

There's more. It is incredibly divisive and intending to inflame Bush supporters to a hateful frenzy. Watch your backs.

At The Kerry Blog

Over at the John Kerry for President Blog:

"Tonight, the President had the opportunity to tell the American people what steps he was going to take to stabilize the situation in Iraq. Unfortunately, he offered no specific plan whatsoever. Rather, the President made it clear that he intends to stubbornly cling to the same policy that has led to a greater risk to American troops and a steadily higher cost to the American taxpayer."

The Press Conference II

It seems to me that after this performance tonite REAL Republicans must be REALLY pissed off at the Scaife-funded "movement conservatives" who have taken over their party, and packaged up Bush as a Product to be Marketed, and got us into this incredible mess in Iraq, and put the country into massive, massive debt.

So are they going to continue to take focus-group-tested instructions from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, or are they going to take their party back from the Tom Delay/Pat Robertson/Newt Gingrich corporate-fascism crowd? I mean, looking back from here, compared to this crowd even Nixon seems like a reasonable, fairly-honest, moderate leader who was at least somewhat concerned about the greater good of his country when it came down to it.

Ashcroft Sets Looniness Record

Today Attorney General John Ashcroft made two of the looniest statements that any public official has ever been guilty of. Yeah, I know that that's saying something.

I don't mean blaming the Clinton administration for 9/11. We knew that the shifty-eyed, guilt-wracked Puritan with the shameful secret would do that. The looniness is in the way he did it.

"The commission cited a May 10 Justice Department document setting priorities for 2001. The top priorities cited were reducing gun violence and combating drug trafficking. There was no mention of counter-terrorism.....[Ashcroft] said the May 10 memorandum was based on goals developed by the previous administration."

In other words, almost five months after he had been selected by Bush, Ashcroft hadn't changed anything whatsoever. He was still working for Bill Clinton!

Looniness the Second: later in his testimony Ashcroft said "Our agents were isolated by government-imposed walls [and] handcuffed by government-imposed restrictions...."

I hate to tell you, John, but you aren't an outsider any more. You are the government! The Department of Justice is not an innovative private entrepreneur being crushed by the load of government regulation, or a hardworking family man being harassed by the IRS. The Department of Justice is a branch of government! You have to come up with some new cliches!

The man is afraid of calico cats. He's threatened by neoclassical marble sculptures of bare-breasted women. He has assigned trained investigators to surf for porn on the internet. He spent over a hundred thousand dollars prosecuting Tommy Chong for bongs. He spent tens of thousands of dollars finding whores in New Orleans when you practically have to fight them off, and when most guys can score for less than two hundred.

Boobs and loonies usually live out their lives in obscurity and are forgotten a few years after they die, but Ashcroft has earned himself a reputation which will last as long as the rivers flow and the grass is green. Too goddamn bad we didn't promise that to the Indians.

Story

The Press Conference

I'm watching the press conference. I'm having so many reactions... I keep wanting to write about specific things Bush is saying... The admission that he has a list to call on, his focus-group-tested statement that oceans used to protect us (he's never heard of ICBMs, or the British burning Washington DC?), his clear lie about WMDs combined with his statements that the Iraq war is really about changing the Middle-East, his bumbling, rambling manner, his inability to admit ANY kind of mistake... AND some of the reporters were asking actual questions - not tough but certainly more than they ever have.

But I'm going to See the Forest, not the trees, and say that I think I am watching history. I think there has never been a Presidential performance like this before, and I am including Reagan's rambling answer in the Mondale debates, when his Alzheimer's disease was beginning to have its effect.

I can not imagine that a reasonable adult could watch this performance without thinking that it would be best if the Republicans choose someone else as their candidate this year. Best for the country, best for the Republican Party, best for the world.

It was ON HIS WATCH! RUN SOMEONE ELSE!

What Did He DO?

Everyone is asking, "What did the President DO after seeing the Aug., 6 memo?" Thanks to Kos, here is the transcript of Bush the next day. This is on the White House's own server, by the way. Remarks by the President to the Pool. (That's press pool...)

Abraham Lincoln: Stalin or Osama?

Recently a regrettable controversy erupted when Blogger Y was accused of having compared Blogger J to Hitler.

Below our neo-Confederate friends show us how we can make our points vividly without using the Hitler comparison. At issue is an attempt to erect the first statue of Lincoln anywhere in the solid Republican South. This led to a split in the Virginia Republican Party, many of whom think of Lincoln as a hated Northern Liberal. Opposition was led by U.S. Rep. Virgil Goode (R., VA.) and Virginia Legislature Delegate Richard Black (R., Loudon), with some help from The Washington Times.

Comments from the first three pages of a 3600-signature petition:

"Absolutely Not ! I'll accept a statue of Ape Lingum in Richmond when Karl Marx and Vlad Lenin are placed in Washington, D.C. along with a statue of Bin Laden in New York City.....

Why not put up a statue of Osama bin Laden at Ground Zero?....

The only way that I would support a statue of Lincoln in Richmond would be to have him depicted in CHAINS in a kneeling position!....

Put up a Lincoln statue in Richmond ONLY after you put up a John Wilkes Booth statue at Ford's theatre....

A statue of Lincoln the war criminal doesn't deserve to be anywhere in the state of Virginia, much less in Richmond....."

There's more on this from Mac Diva here. Mac now writes at Macaronies and Silver Rights.

Al Franken

I hope you're all listening to Al Franken's show every day. It is just so FUNNY!

The Other Side of the Story: John Kerry and Martin Van Buren

Some may think that the 9/11 investigation is about George W. Bush and maybe Bill Clinton, but if you spend enough time on the internet you'll find out that it's really about LBJ, FDR, Woodrow Wilson, and every other goddamn no good Democratic President that there ever was or will be.

My friend Al at Brad DeLong has strengthened the Republicans' case, pointing out that the Democrat Martin Van Buren's performance in the 1837-1838 Caroline incident and Aroostook War on the Maine-New Brunswick border was disgraceful and cowardly.

Kerry should firmly dissociate himself from Van Buren's costly do-nothing policy in the Aroostook Valley, and explain that as a New Democrat he has renounced the failed policies of the past. Unless he does so, he cannot expect the American People to elect him to the highest office in the land.

Back Off The Bin Ladens

On the Randi Rhodes Radio Show, she just suggested going to Google and looking up the phrase "Back Off The Bin Ladens".

And always keep in mind that the President's Daily Briefing, warning of an al-Queda attack on the US, was presented to Bush the day before he started the longest vacation any President has taken.

Instructions

skippy has instructions for a President who said he needs things spelled out VERRRRRRY clearly.

Cronies

Arianna writes about the Republican Palace in Iraq.

I call it the Republican Crony Club.

Have A Nice Weekend

RADIO AUSTRALIA: "North Korea says nuclear stand-off 'at brink of war'"

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.

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.

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.

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:

"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.

• 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."

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.)

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!

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.

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."

Pandagon: Corporate Taxation

I left a comment to this post: Pandagon: Corporate Taxation about whether companies pass taxes along to their customers: (ETMMLB)

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, 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?

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.

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

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:

"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?

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 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.

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."

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.

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".

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:

"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!

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."

So what I get from this is:

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.

It's Working

Surprise, surprise, Bush's ads are working. Bush Scores Points By Defining Kerry:

"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.

[. . .] 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."

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.

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.

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.

Bush is the "low tax, leadership" brand. Can you tell me what the Kerry brand is? If not, why not?

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".

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.

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!