Thursday, September 30, 2004
Halfway Through the Debate
Aaargh! I could debate Bush better than this. Say this: Iraq is a fucking mess. (O.K., leave out the word "fucking.") Bush blabs about 100,000 police trained in Iraq (in fact, it's around 50,000 according to the Dept. of Defense). Kerry should say, "Oh yeah? How come more people died in September than in any month?" Bush says: "the reason Allawi says they're (the terrorists) are coming across the border is because they realize this is a central front on terror." Dumb ass. He gives Kerry so many freakin' openings and the Senator just does not go through them. I think Kerry gives Americans too much credit. Most people don't know how bad things are in Iraq right now. Kerry should tell them. Just like Bush keeps saying that Kerry says it's the wrong war, wrong time. Kerry should say, we're losing the war cuz you're an idiot. You backed down in Fallujah. You were the flip-flopper. The terrorists are coming across the border NOT because it's a central front on the war in terror, but because we've made such a mess over there that it's given them new safe havens. We can't even defend the safe zone in Baghdad. Never mind the rest of the country.
Oh wait. Finally Kerry has a good answer. He's calling Bush out for saying we fight back when we're attacked and making the point that Saddam is not the enemy that attacked us. Oooh, good answer. I hope people are still watching. He seems to be getting in the groove.
Oh wait. Finally Kerry has a good answer. He's calling Bush out for saying we fight back when we're attacked and making the point that Saddam is not the enemy that attacked us. Oooh, good answer. I hope people are still watching. He seems to be getting in the groove.
Justice DeLay-ed
There's a scandal brewing with some of Tom Delay's aides, many of whom are being indicted for illegal campaign activities. Their actions may have resulted in giving Republicans control of the Texas House for the first time since 1873. So what, you say? I'm not a Texan. Well, those Republicans in Texas may be able to redistrict Texas, resulting in more national Republican Congressional seats, which is something that affects us all.
Thanks to Mike for tipping me to this story! :-)
Thanks to Mike for tipping me to this story! :-)
Cheney Changed His View on Iraq
Back in '92, then Secretary of Defense Cheney (to Bush '41), defended the administration's decision to withdraw from Iraq, arguing that it'd be too tough to re-build the country and not worth the effort. Huh? Wonder what changed his mind? Oh, I remember. 9/11 changed everything. We're going to take the war to the terrorists, not wait for them to come here. What's that, you say? Iraq had no ties to the jerks who murdered thousands on 9/11? No matter. Still, Iraq is, as President Bush calls it, "the central front on the war on terror." I'm not sure why. I'm not sure any thinking person thinks so. It may be the central terror training camp these days with the alarming insurgency, but that's not the point of this post.
But way back when, there was a time when Cheney was a smart man. This is what he had to say then:
"And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."
John Edwards picked up on this and said this today: "When he was asked why they didn't finish the job in Iraq . . . he talked about the enormous danger and risk of getting bogged down, of having to govern the country. Of the casualties that would be incurred. To use some of the same language these people have used against John, he was against getting bogged down in Iraq before he was for it."
He was against it before he was for it. Yeah, that's it.
But way back when, there was a time when Cheney was a smart man. This is what he had to say then:
"And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."
John Edwards picked up on this and said this today: "When he was asked why they didn't finish the job in Iraq . . . he talked about the enormous danger and risk of getting bogged down, of having to govern the country. Of the casualties that would be incurred. To use some of the same language these people have used against John, he was against getting bogged down in Iraq before he was for it."
He was against it before he was for it. Yeah, that's it.
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Plan Would Allow Terror Suspects To Be Sent to Abuse-Prone Nations
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Outrage over CBS
Yes, CBS screwed up. But the Congressman from Illinois makes some excellent points about the government's response and moral outrage. Thanks to Liz for sending the minutes:
(House of Representatives - September 21, 2004)[Page: H7303]
---
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, the Nation is talking about Dan Rather, CBS, and the false National Guard memos. Republicans are saying that he misled the Nation, that it is a scandal that threatens our body politic. Congressional Republicans are talking about an ethics investigation. And yesterday on a radio show, Bill Bennett said the Dan Rather incident went beyond bias. He said, ``This is corruption.''
Let me tell the Members something. Dan Rather is going to get a whopping, and he deserves it. CBS has a black eye, and they earned it. There is no excuse for what happened. However, all this outrage from the self-righteous right wing of this country has taken hypocrisy to a new low.
Let me ask my colleagues where was the moral outrage and where is the moral outrage when the President of the United States here in the State of the Union at this podium used falsified evidence to allege in his State of the Union that Iraq had attempted to purchase yellow cake uranium from Nigeria?
[Time: 20:15]
Where is their moral outrage when Condoleezza Rice and DICK CHENEY repeatedly link Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, all the while knowing that no evidence supports the claim?
Where is their moral outrage when our President said we would find tens [Page: H7304]
of thousands of pounds of chemical and biological weapons when we invaded Iraq, even though he knew there was no absolute proof?
Where is the their moral outrage when we are told that Iraq purchased aluminum tubes in order to refine uranium, even though weapons experts said otherwise?
Where is their moral outrage when Paul Wolfowitz told the Congress that Iraqi oil money would pay for reconstruction, all the while knowing that the burden would be placed on the American taxpayers?
And where is their moral outrage when we discovered that the chief architects of the Iraqi war, Vice President Cheney, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle and Donald Rumsfeld, paid Mr. Ahmed Chalabi $49 million in U.S. taxpayer money for faulty intelligence claiming that Iraq had mobile weapons labs and that we would be greeted as liberators? If this is how Iraqis greet liberators, they have a funny way of saying ``welcome.''
Mr. Speaker, the outrage of the self-righteous right over the falsified National Guard documents is nothing more than opportunistic partisan politics at its worst.
Did Dan Rather do wrong? Undoubtedly, and he is going to get what he deserves, as will CBS. Dan Rather deserves criticism and he should be held accountable.
But I fail to understand why Dan Rather's credibility has raised such a moral outrage, but the same critics cannot find that the President's credibility equals that of Dan Rather's. What civics class did they go to, where they learned that Dan Rather's credibility weighs more important to the fabric of this country than the President of the United States?
As far as I am concerned, both individuals have a piece of the public's trust; both individuals have to be accountable for what they say. Dan Rather said he was wrong and he will be held accountable. We have yet to hear that same explanation from the President of the United States.
I say this in all seriousness: I do not think the President of the United States takes it lightly. Dan Rather's poor judgment and false statements did not lead to where the country is today in Iraq and the cost we have paid both in lives and in our treasure. Time and again, this administration has used false statements and false documents to justify their actions, and America has paid dearly.
Mr. Speaker, my challenge to my friends on the right wing is, I will join you any time you want to condemn Dan Rather. If you want to have an hour debate here on the floor, I will be down there. But I offer you the invitation to come and join me any time you want to have an hour debate about the President's false statements and what he used to justify a war, knowing all the while that was not true.
Dan Rather will pay for this, as will CBS. But the President of the United States also has credibility, all of our credibility, and when it is misused, we all pay dearly for it.
So I ask the people on the right who usually talk about moral consistency to stop being so inconsistent in their moral relativism, where they see Dan Rather's credibility and his character as more important than that of the President of the United States. Understand that the President, our President, speaks for all of us, and his credibility is our credibility, and when we use it in front of the world and we are questioned from here forward because we no longer have told the truth and people do not believe us, we all pay a price that we are seeing every day in the news.
(House of Representatives - September 21, 2004)[Page: H7303]
---
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, the Nation is talking about Dan Rather, CBS, and the false National Guard memos. Republicans are saying that he misled the Nation, that it is a scandal that threatens our body politic. Congressional Republicans are talking about an ethics investigation. And yesterday on a radio show, Bill Bennett said the Dan Rather incident went beyond bias. He said, ``This is corruption.''
Let me tell the Members something. Dan Rather is going to get a whopping, and he deserves it. CBS has a black eye, and they earned it. There is no excuse for what happened. However, all this outrage from the self-righteous right wing of this country has taken hypocrisy to a new low.
Let me ask my colleagues where was the moral outrage and where is the moral outrage when the President of the United States here in the State of the Union at this podium used falsified evidence to allege in his State of the Union that Iraq had attempted to purchase yellow cake uranium from Nigeria?
[Time: 20:15]
Where is their moral outrage when Condoleezza Rice and DICK CHENEY repeatedly link Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, all the while knowing that no evidence supports the claim?
Where is their moral outrage when our President said we would find tens [Page: H7304]
of thousands of pounds of chemical and biological weapons when we invaded Iraq, even though he knew there was no absolute proof?
Where is the their moral outrage when we are told that Iraq purchased aluminum tubes in order to refine uranium, even though weapons experts said otherwise?
Where is their moral outrage when Paul Wolfowitz told the Congress that Iraqi oil money would pay for reconstruction, all the while knowing that the burden would be placed on the American taxpayers?
And where is their moral outrage when we discovered that the chief architects of the Iraqi war, Vice President Cheney, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle and Donald Rumsfeld, paid Mr. Ahmed Chalabi $49 million in U.S. taxpayer money for faulty intelligence claiming that Iraq had mobile weapons labs and that we would be greeted as liberators? If this is how Iraqis greet liberators, they have a funny way of saying ``welcome.''
Mr. Speaker, the outrage of the self-righteous right over the falsified National Guard documents is nothing more than opportunistic partisan politics at its worst.
Did Dan Rather do wrong? Undoubtedly, and he is going to get what he deserves, as will CBS. Dan Rather deserves criticism and he should be held accountable.
But I fail to understand why Dan Rather's credibility has raised such a moral outrage, but the same critics cannot find that the President's credibility equals that of Dan Rather's. What civics class did they go to, where they learned that Dan Rather's credibility weighs more important to the fabric of this country than the President of the United States?
As far as I am concerned, both individuals have a piece of the public's trust; both individuals have to be accountable for what they say. Dan Rather said he was wrong and he will be held accountable. We have yet to hear that same explanation from the President of the United States.
I say this in all seriousness: I do not think the President of the United States takes it lightly. Dan Rather's poor judgment and false statements did not lead to where the country is today in Iraq and the cost we have paid both in lives and in our treasure. Time and again, this administration has used false statements and false documents to justify their actions, and America has paid dearly.
Mr. Speaker, my challenge to my friends on the right wing is, I will join you any time you want to condemn Dan Rather. If you want to have an hour debate here on the floor, I will be down there. But I offer you the invitation to come and join me any time you want to have an hour debate about the President's false statements and what he used to justify a war, knowing all the while that was not true.
Dan Rather will pay for this, as will CBS. But the President of the United States also has credibility, all of our credibility, and when it is misused, we all pay dearly for it.
So I ask the people on the right who usually talk about moral consistency to stop being so inconsistent in their moral relativism, where they see Dan Rather's credibility and his character as more important than that of the President of the United States. Understand that the President, our President, speaks for all of us, and his credibility is our credibility, and when we use it in front of the world and we are questioned from here forward because we no longer have told the truth and people do not believe us, we all pay a price that we are seeing every day in the news.
Monday, September 27, 2004
Bush's Autobiography, Part II
- I set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.
- I dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.
- I am the first president in US history to order a US attack AND military occupation of a sovereign nation, and I did so against the will of the United Nations and the vast majority of the international community.
- I am the first president in US history to compel the United Nations remove the US from the Human Rights Commission.
- I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the Elections Monitoring Board.
- I refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.
- I am the first president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors access during the 2002 US elections.
- I am the first US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability
Saturday, September 25, 2004
Bush's Autobiography
My friend Sonya sent me an email filled with stats about this President's accomplishments while in office, written in first person as an "autobiography." Can't verify the info, but much of it I've seen before. Sometimes, though, it's useful to whip a few of these out when trying to make an argument, and put the other team on the defensive for a change. This was such a long email that I'm going to put a few in this post and will add more daily. Enjoy!
- I attacked and took over 2 countries.
- I spent the US. surplus and bankrupted the US Treasury.
- I shattered the record for the biggest annual deficit in history (not easy!).
- I set an economic record for the most personal bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.
- I set all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the stock market.
- I set the record for most campaign fund raising trips by any president in US history.
- In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their jobs.
- I cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in US history.
- I am the first president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.
Thursday, September 23, 2004
Rumsfeld's Peculiar Version of Democratic Elections
I'm going to cut and paste this word-for-word. No commentary needed.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Thursday raised the possibility that Iraq could conduct only limited elections in January, excluding places where violence was considered too severe for people to go to polls.
"Let's say you tried to have an election and you could have it in three-quarters or four-fifths of the country. But in some places you couldn't because the violence was too great," Rumsfeld said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.
"Well, so be it. Nothing's perfect in life, so you have an election that's not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet," he said.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Thursday raised the possibility that Iraq could conduct only limited elections in January, excluding places where violence was considered too severe for people to go to polls.
"Let's say you tried to have an election and you could have it in three-quarters or four-fifths of the country. But in some places you couldn't because the violence was too great," Rumsfeld said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.
"Well, so be it. Nothing's perfect in life, so you have an election that's not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet," he said.
Is Bush Using Military Strategies Against Us?
Chilling article. Here's the subhead:
In war, you deny information, spread lies and use psychological warfare. AnScary stuff!
expert on military information operations explains how Bush has mastered this
technique -- and used it against the American people.
Prominent Military Leaders and Republicans Decry the War in Iraq
Sydney Blumenthal quotes many military experts who say we've lost this war, that it's helping al-Qaida, and becoming another Vietnam. Sample quote from Retired Gen. William Odom, former head of the National Security Agency:
[2] Washington Post editorial: Mr. Bush and IraqSeptember 18th, 2004
[3] Washington Post: Three GOP Senators Urge Refocusing of Iraq PolicySeptember 19th, 2004
"This is far graver than Vietnam," said Gen. Odom. "There wasn't asAnd we've previously noted prominent Republicans' concerns, but here are a few more quotes for you to consider:
much at stake strategically, though in both cases we mindlessly went ahead with
a war that was not constructive for U.S. aims. But now we're in a region far
more volatile and we're in much worse shape with our allies."
Senator Chuck Hagel (NE), a Republican, says: "The worst thing we
can do is hold ourselves hostage to some grand illusion that we're winning.
Right now, we are not winning. Things are getting worse." [2] "The fact is,
we're in trouble. We're in deep trouble in Iraq." [3]
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) also supports releasing the NIE [4] and says:
"We made serious mistakes right after the initial successes by not having enough
troops there on the ground, by allowing the looting, by not securing the
borders." [3]
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), says "he
believes the situation in Iraq is going to get worse before it gets better,
adding that he believes the administration has done a 'poor job of implementing
and adjusting at times.'" and says "We do not need to paint a rosy scenario for
the American people...." [3]
Senator Richard Lugar
(R-IN) says it's "exasperating for anybody look at this from any vantage point."
[1]
Sometimes, I think we ought to re-elect George W. and let him deal with this mess. There's not much Kerry can do and if the situation worsens, as it seems likely to do, he'll get blamed. Maybe we should keep W. in there, let him take the heat, and put a better candidate up in 2008. Anybody with me?
[1] New York Times: U.S. Intelligence Shows Pessimism on Iraq's FutureSeptember 16th, 2004[2] Washington Post editorial: Mr. Bush and IraqSeptember 18th, 2004
[3] Washington Post: Three GOP Senators Urge Refocusing of Iraq PolicySeptember 19th, 2004
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
The Truth About Kerry's Healthcare Plan
To hear George Bush speak, you'd think Kerry is for a government-run healthcare plan. That's one of the alarming accusations he makes on the campaign trail. Kerry is advocating a more involved role by government (by allowing people to buy into federal employees' health care plans), but not anything close to the nationalization of healthcare that Bush accuses him of. By the way, doesn't Bush advocate allowing small businesses to buy into the same health care plans Kerry is talking about? The guys at Spinsanity straighten all this out.
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Separating fact from fiction...
Lots of intriguing facts at this blog, although I could do without the title stating that it's simple enough for even Republicans to understand. It doesn't serve the cause of thoughtful discourse to be derisive. A couple of tidbits from the site:
The uninsured cost the economy as much as $130 billion annually in lost
productivity -- an amount which could cover the cost of providing health
insurance for more than 14,500 families."Significant" terrorist attacks (those involving large numbers of casualties or property damage) increased worldwide from 124 in 2001 to 138 in 2002 to 175 in 2003, a 21-year-high, a 36% increase.
Who Really Has More Military Experience?
It's a widely held belief that Republicans are stronger on foreign policy than Democrats. And I think that the common perception is that more Republicans have served in the military than Democrats. But that may not be true. Check out this list detailing the military experience of prominent Democrats and Republicans. I'm not suggesting that military experience makes one more qualified to lead foreign policy. Just trying to set the record straight. (Thanks to Carla for the link.)
Monday, September 20, 2004
What Kerry Needs to Do
William Safire attempts to answer the question of what Kerry needs to do to win the election. He lays out a ten point plan, much of it focused on what's currently happening in Iraq. He says the message should be "Bush is Losing the War and Kerry Will Win It."
Rich Lowry of the NationalReview also has some great pointers for Kerry. Sample quote:
Rich Lowry of the NationalReview also has some great pointers for Kerry. Sample quote:
ATMOSPHERICS: Bush loses every time there is a picture of another
car bombing in Iraq. So the summer helped him, when there were two political
conventions and the Olympics, among other things, to keep Iraq on the back
pages. The more Kerry highlights Iraq — rather than Vietnam or health care or
whatever — the more incentive the media have to cover events in Iraq.
Saturday, September 18, 2004
Dems will Ban Bibles
Another disgusting campaign tactic. Here's an article detailing how Republicans in West Virginia are getting letters telling them that Liberals will ban the Bible and allow gay marriages. Whatever. Here's a link that shows a copy of the flyer. Notice this one is from Arkansas, so it seems the vitriol is spreading. And the return address is clearly the Republican National Committee.
Thursday, September 16, 2004
Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire
This is what Bush says on the campaign trail:
"We have a difference of philosophy in this campaign," Bush told supporters. "It's a clear difference: my opponent's programs will expand government. Our programs will expand opportunity."
Whaaaaaat? He's done nothing BUT expand government since he took office. It's his administration and his Republican Congress that have run up record deficits and increased spending (including non-defense spending). There are no Democrats to blame for this. Just the "borrow and spend" Republicans. Where's a good conservative when you need one? (There's a case to be made here for why it's a good idea to have different parties controlling the different branches. It reels in the spending.)
Republican talk-show host Joe Scarborough: "Republicans in Congress have spent the past three years passing the largest spending bills ever-ripping off taxpayers at record rates. The deficit, the debt, and the future debt are all at record highs." I have the debt clock posted in the links column. But make sure you have a strong stomach before you take a peek. :-)
"We have a difference of philosophy in this campaign," Bush told supporters. "It's a clear difference: my opponent's programs will expand government. Our programs will expand opportunity."
Whaaaaaat? He's done nothing BUT expand government since he took office. It's his administration and his Republican Congress that have run up record deficits and increased spending (including non-defense spending). There are no Democrats to blame for this. Just the "borrow and spend" Republicans. Where's a good conservative when you need one? (There's a case to be made here for why it's a good idea to have different parties controlling the different branches. It reels in the spending.)
Republican talk-show host Joe Scarborough: "Republicans in Congress have spent the past three years passing the largest spending bills ever-ripping off taxpayers at record rates. The deficit, the debt, and the future debt are all at record highs." I have the debt clock posted in the links column. But make sure you have a strong stomach before you take a peek. :-)
Hurricane Here, Tempest Abroad
Read my posts from yesterday on Afghanistan and Iraq. Much news to report, very little of it good.
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Afghanistan Out of Control
This liberation stuff is hard. The Taliban is back in many areas. Warlords and druglords control many areas. But wait! There's more! Here's a snapshot of Afghanistan today:
- 1000 civilians dead in the past year, including 600 aid and election workers
- Doctors Without Borders has pulled out altogether (even though they stayed IN during the Taliban rule) because of safety concerns.
- Some old law forbidding married women and unmarried women from attending school together still exists and was recently enforced by President Karzai (and remember, these "women" are married at very young ages), resulting in two to three thousand girls getting kicked out of school.
- Afghanistan received twice as much money from heroin trafficking last year than it did from U.S. assistance.
There's soooo much more. Read all about it here.
Iraq's a Bloody Mess
The situation in Iraq is depressing. 200 dead in four days. An insurgency that is growing more sophisticated and organized every day and that is beginning to win the hearts of the Iraqi people who admire their courage and resilience. Bush seems oblivious. Kerry doesn't say what he would do. Condi Rice says "the Iraqis are moving right along" and that the "insurgents won't win." I certainly hope she's correct because the alternative is too terrible to imagine.
This Just In (9/16):
From the New York Times: "A classified National Intelligence Estimate prepared for President Bush in late July spells out a dark assessment of prospects for Iraq, government officials said Wednesday." Yet the administration continues to pretend all is well. "You know, every step of the way in Iraq there have been pessimists and hand-wringers who said it can't be done," Press Secretary Scott McClellan said at a news briefing. "And every step of the way, the Iraqi leadership and the Iraqi people have proven them wrong because they are determined to have a free and peaceful future." And read above for Condi's optimistic statements.
Look, I'm all for a positive attitude. But, I think it's possible to be both positive and realistic. There are things we can be doing that we aren't. To date, only about six percent of money earmarked for the reconstruction has been spent, which has some Senators ticked off. From the AP: "It's beyond pitiful, it's beyond embarrassing, it's now in the zone of dangerous," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.
This Just In (9/16):
From the New York Times: "A classified National Intelligence Estimate prepared for President Bush in late July spells out a dark assessment of prospects for Iraq, government officials said Wednesday." Yet the administration continues to pretend all is well. "You know, every step of the way in Iraq there have been pessimists and hand-wringers who said it can't be done," Press Secretary Scott McClellan said at a news briefing. "And every step of the way, the Iraqi leadership and the Iraqi people have proven them wrong because they are determined to have a free and peaceful future." And read above for Condi's optimistic statements.
Look, I'm all for a positive attitude. But, I think it's possible to be both positive and realistic. There are things we can be doing that we aren't. To date, only about six percent of money earmarked for the reconstruction has been spent, which has some Senators ticked off. From the AP: "It's beyond pitiful, it's beyond embarrassing, it's now in the zone of dangerous," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.
Bumper Sticker Backfire
A woman in Decatur, Alabama was fired for sporting a Kerry bumper sticker on her car. Reportedly, she was told she could either work for Kerry or her employer. (Thanks to Carla for sending the article from the Decatur Daily).
Funny because I was thinking the other day how I would be afraid my car would get egged if I had a Kerry bumper sticker on it (never mind the ambivalence I have for the candidate which would probably preclude me from labeling my car anyhow). I don't think the Bush people feel afraid, and I'm sure that most Kerry supporters aren't either. It's just my own silly paranoia living here in the land of the Red (and the red-eyed like Zell).
Funny because I was thinking the other day how I would be afraid my car would get egged if I had a Kerry bumper sticker on it (never mind the ambivalence I have for the candidate which would probably preclude me from labeling my car anyhow). I don't think the Bush people feel afraid, and I'm sure that most Kerry supporters aren't either. It's just my own silly paranoia living here in the land of the Red (and the red-eyed like Zell).
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Again with the Flip Flops
Today, on Andrew Sullivan's blog, he wrote:
"Bush is for big government except when he's against it; he's for restraining spending, except when he's boosting it; he's for rooting out insurgents in Iraq, until he favors a more "sensitive" strategy; he's for free trade, except when he's against it; he's against stem cell research, except when he's bragging about it; he's pro states rights, unless they do things he disapproves of; he's in favor of responsibility, except when it comes to the budget; he's pro-U.N., except when he's against it; he's for church-state separation, except when it comes to federal funding. Any decent opponent would make mincemeat of Bush's wavering, straddling and inconsistent policy pronouncements. But Kerry is useless. And if he's this useless as a candidate, how good would he be as a president?"
Good question, Andrew. Bush is a great campaigner, though, and a terrible president (in your estimation), so maybe the two aren't related. But Kerry does make me nervous. I wanna smack him sometimes for the opportunities he's missed. I want a campaign, dammit! Not a one-sided affair where the Republicans set the agenda and the Dems are always on defense. I wanna see some offense! Bush fumbles, often, but the other side just stands around like they've never seen a football bounce before. PICK IT UP!
"Bush is for big government except when he's against it; he's for restraining spending, except when he's boosting it; he's for rooting out insurgents in Iraq, until he favors a more "sensitive" strategy; he's for free trade, except when he's against it; he's against stem cell research, except when he's bragging about it; he's pro states rights, unless they do things he disapproves of; he's in favor of responsibility, except when it comes to the budget; he's pro-U.N., except when he's against it; he's for church-state separation, except when it comes to federal funding. Any decent opponent would make mincemeat of Bush's wavering, straddling and inconsistent policy pronouncements. But Kerry is useless. And if he's this useless as a candidate, how good would he be as a president?"
Good question, Andrew. Bush is a great campaigner, though, and a terrible president (in your estimation), so maybe the two aren't related. But Kerry does make me nervous. I wanna smack him sometimes for the opportunities he's missed. I want a campaign, dammit! Not a one-sided affair where the Republicans set the agenda and the Dems are always on defense. I wanna see some offense! Bush fumbles, often, but the other side just stands around like they've never seen a football bounce before. PICK IT UP!
The Dean Scream -- It Just Didn't Happen
I know this is old news, but most people don't know the truth and I think it's a good lesson in how the media works (or doesn't, in this case). Having worked in television for many years, I got very ticked off when I saw the "Dean Scream" replayed over and over, because the clip they showed DID NOT INCLUDE the crowd noise. Dean was on what is called a "noise-cancelling microphone," a type of mic that mutes out most of the background noise. In fact, the crowd was deafening at the point Dean did his famous yelp and you can barely hear him at all. What you saw on t.v. was not true. What you saw was, in effect, edited.
Have you ever seen footage of musicians in a recording studio? Watched as they punched up a vocal track and turned all the other tracks off? Then they punch in the drum track, the guitar, etc. Each piece of the song is on a separate track. They "mix" it all together to make the song, but you can, if you like, just listen to one piece of it.
That's sort of what a noise-cancelling mic does. What you saw on the t.v. news was just Dean's audio track. It stripped out the background tracks. And the reason you saw the SAME clip over and over again is because news organizations use what are called "pool reporters." They share the same footage, so they were all working from the same audio feed. They use noise-cancelling microphones because if they didn't, you wouldn't be able to hear the candidate's words over the din of the crowd.
It wasn't until months later that ABC set the record straight on "Prime Time Live." But it was too late by then as the damage had been done. That's why I think it's important we be informed consumers of media. You wouldn't buy a car without researching it and test-driving it, yet we regularly consume news media without "kicking the tires," so to speak.
If you want to hear what it really sounded like in the hall, listen to footage shot from someone in the crowd. Regular old camcorders don't use noise-cancelling microphones, which means you get a better perspective. Quite a different picture from what most of us saw on t.v., isn't it?
Have you ever seen footage of musicians in a recording studio? Watched as they punched up a vocal track and turned all the other tracks off? Then they punch in the drum track, the guitar, etc. Each piece of the song is on a separate track. They "mix" it all together to make the song, but you can, if you like, just listen to one piece of it.
That's sort of what a noise-cancelling mic does. What you saw on the t.v. news was just Dean's audio track. It stripped out the background tracks. And the reason you saw the SAME clip over and over again is because news organizations use what are called "pool reporters." They share the same footage, so they were all working from the same audio feed. They use noise-cancelling microphones because if they didn't, you wouldn't be able to hear the candidate's words over the din of the crowd.
It wasn't until months later that ABC set the record straight on "Prime Time Live." But it was too late by then as the damage had been done. That's why I think it's important we be informed consumers of media. You wouldn't buy a car without researching it and test-driving it, yet we regularly consume news media without "kicking the tires," so to speak.
If you want to hear what it really sounded like in the hall, listen to footage shot from someone in the crowd. Regular old camcorders don't use noise-cancelling microphones, which means you get a better perspective. Quite a different picture from what most of us saw on t.v., isn't it?
Moore's Mess-Ups
I received an email today that asked: "Do you know what facts in ‘Fahrenheit 911’ were wrong or were contorted to make a point? I keep hearing the buzz but have not seen the details. -- Shirley"
There are too many for me to go into, but the guys at Spinsanity have a great list.
There are liberals who make more factual arguments. I, for one, enjoyed Al Franken's book, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" and most of his allegations have stood up to inquiry. Whatever you think of his jokes and taste, his facts are largely true. (He had a team of fourteen Harvard students researching the book.)
There are too many for me to go into, but the guys at Spinsanity have a great list.
There are liberals who make more factual arguments. I, for one, enjoyed Al Franken's book, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" and most of his allegations have stood up to inquiry. Whatever you think of his jokes and taste, his facts are largely true. (He had a team of fourteen Harvard students researching the book.)
Monday, September 13, 2004
How to Wage Peace
Ever heard of Fareed Zakaria? International editor of Newsweek, regular on "This Week" on ABC, and guest columnist all over the place. He's has a B.A. from Yale (in history) and a Ph.D. from Harvard (in international relations). He's generally conservative (as in small government conservative), hawkish, and socially liberal.
He was an advocate for the war in Iraq but cautioned then that the rebuilding would be critical and that we needed to do a better job than we were doing in Afghanistan at the time.
I wish I could come up with a sexy, enticing way to get you toread his article on how to wage peace in the Middle East. Zakaria discusses countries that have made successful transitions to democracies. He argues that capitalism has to come first. We can't just go into a country, set up free elections, and think that'll do it. And contrary to Cheney's assertion that Iraq's oil makes it easier for them, Zakaria explains why oil-rich countries have an even tougher time converting to representational democracies.
Zakaria notes that "Easy money means a government doesn't have to tax its people. When a government takes money from its people, the people demand something in return eventually, democracy. This bargain, between taxation and representation, is at the heart of Western liberty."
I can't make it sexy, but I found his take on democratization of other nations to be extremely compelling. Check it out for yourself: http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/042103.html
He was an advocate for the war in Iraq but cautioned then that the rebuilding would be critical and that we needed to do a better job than we were doing in Afghanistan at the time.
I wish I could come up with a sexy, enticing way to get you to
Zakaria notes that "Easy money means a government doesn't have to tax its people. When a government takes money from its people, the people demand something in return eventually, democracy. This bargain, between taxation and representation, is at the heart of Western liberty."
I can't make it sexy, but I found his take on democratization of other nations to be extremely compelling. Check it out for yourself: http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/042103.html
Thursday, September 09, 2004
Bush Flip Flops, Too!
The Pubs are great at pointing out Kerry's flip-flops (some true, some not, some unimportant even if true). What's interesting to me is how much the media portrays Bush as a man of resolve, with many pundits saying that whatever you think of Bush, you know where he stands. He's stubborn. He doesn't change his mind.
Bullshit. He's changed his mind about many things. I happen to admire that, being a woman who cherishes the right to change my mind at whim. I just think it's stupid for people to think the President NEVER flip-flops.
To my friend Patrick who challenged me to find ONE incident of the President flip-flopping, I present you withthis list. I could also provide you with a list of Kerry's, but I suspect we've all heard enough of that. Time to even the score a bit.
This Just In (9/23): a thoughtful exploration of this topic from the Washington Post, detailing both candidates' flip flops and the media's role in cementing the impressions we have.
Bullshit. He's changed his mind about many things. I happen to admire that, being a woman who cherishes the right to change my mind at whim. I just think it's stupid for people to think the President NEVER flip-flops.
To my friend Patrick who challenged me to find ONE incident of the President flip-flopping, I present you with
This Just In (9/23): a thoughtful exploration of this topic from the Washington Post, detailing both candidates' flip flops and the media's role in cementing the impressions we have.
More Republican Buzz That Bush Is Not Acting Like a Conservative
Big government. Big spending. Phrases typically reserved for the Democratic party are now accusations leveled at President Bush. It's a whisper right now, but I predict it will become a roar. In fact, my first blog post was about the growing dissatisfaction among conservatives with Bush's fiscal irresponsibility.
What others are saying:
Today, Bush was speaking in Johnstown, PA. The local paper endorsed him in 2000. Today's headline: "Mr. President, you're the true heir to your father, both in a familial sense and a Big Government Liberal Republican sense," the Tribune-Democrat of Johnstown wrote. "We're so saddened with your tenure in office." The Tribune Democrat (Registration required; email me if you want the full text of the editorial and I'll send it to you.)
Conservative columnistAndrew Sullivan : "Bush is slowly destroying conservatism's small government credentials and commitment to expanding personal freedom."
This just in from Salon.com. Written by Reaganite Doug Bandow:
"Quite simply, the president, despite his well-choreographed posturing, does not represent traditional conservatism -- a commitment to individual liberty, limited government, constitutional restraint and fiscal responsibility. Rather, Bush routinely puts power before principle. As Chris Vance, chairman of Washington state's Republican Party, told the Economist: "George Bush's record is not that conservative ... There's something there for everyone."
Even Bush's conservative sycophants have trouble finding policies to praise. Certainly it cannot be federal spending. In 2000 candidate Bush complained that Al Gore would "throw the budget out of balance." But the big-spending Bush administration and GOP Congress have turned a 10-year budget surplus once estimated at $5.6 trillion into an estimated $5 trillion flood of red ink. This year's deficit will run about $445 billion, according to the Office of Management and Budget."
Heard any others? Post them in the comments section.
What others are saying:
Today, Bush was speaking in Johnstown, PA. The local paper endorsed him in 2000. Today's headline: "Mr. President, you're the true heir to your father, both in a familial sense and a Big Government Liberal Republican sense," the Tribune-Democrat of Johnstown wrote. "We're so saddened with your tenure in office." The Tribune Democrat (Registration required; email me if you want the full text of the editorial and I'll send it to you.)
Conservative columnist
This just in from Salon.com. Written by Reaganite Doug Bandow:
"Quite simply, the president, despite his well-choreographed posturing, does not represent traditional conservatism -- a commitment to individual liberty, limited government, constitutional restraint and fiscal responsibility. Rather, Bush routinely puts power before principle. As Chris Vance, chairman of Washington state's Republican Party, told the Economist: "George Bush's record is not that conservative ... There's something there for everyone."
Even Bush's conservative sycophants have trouble finding policies to praise. Certainly it cannot be federal spending. In 2000 candidate Bush complained that Al Gore would "throw the budget out of balance." But the big-spending Bush administration and GOP Congress have turned a 10-year budget surplus once estimated at $5.6 trillion into an estimated $5 trillion flood of red ink. This year's deficit will run about $445 billion, according to the Office of Management and Budget."
Heard any others? Post them in the comments section.
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
Bush is NOT 11 Points Ahead
Time and Newsweek and I think CNN are all showing double-digit leads for the President in national polling of likely voters. So he did get a post-convention bounce, something the Kerry campaign didn't get much of. But you know polls are only as good as their methodology. Zogby has been polling continuously throughout the campaign, is generally well-respected, and is contracted by the Wall Street Journal. He puts Bush ahead by two points and outlines how his methodology differs from other pollsters. Look, I'm not a polling expert so I'm not saying his methodology is better, just different, and makes sense to me when I read his explanation.
It's the Electoral College, Stupid
Of course, national polls aren't as important as state polls (Here's Zogby's latest and a slight correction) that predict the electoral split. Check out this fun, interactive map
at the New York Times. You can click on states and choose which way you think they'll go in November, and instantly see what that does to the total electoral count for each candidate. It also shows the electoral count based on NY Times' polls. (The New York Times requires registration, but it's free and quick.)
Other electoral college polls:
Electoral Vote.Com (currently showing Kerry in the lead)
Rasmussen Reports (currently showing Bush in the lead)
Happy Stats-Hunting! :-)
It's the Electoral College, Stupid
Of course, national polls aren't as important as state polls (Here's Zogby's latest and a slight correction) that predict the electoral split. Check out this fun, interactive map
at the New York Times. You can click on states and choose which way you think they'll go in November, and instantly see what that does to the total electoral count for each candidate. It also shows the electoral count based on NY Times' polls. (The New York Times requires registration, but it's free and quick.)
Other electoral college polls:
Electoral Vote.Com (currently showing Kerry in the lead)
Rasmussen Reports (currently showing Bush in the lead)
Happy Stats-Hunting! :-)
Republicans concerned with Bush's brand of "conservatism"
From Joe Scarborough's new book, "Rome Wasn't Burnt in a Day":
"Well, in just three years since George W. Bush was elected president, your Republican-run Congress took a $155 billion surplus and turned it into a staggering $455 billion deficit. These self-described conservatives did it in part by passing a staggering array of pork-barrel bills, billion-dollar farm subsidies, and trillion-dollar entitlement programs that America cannot afford." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5932469/
We're now at $7 trillion in debt and counting . . . Visit the U.S. National Debt Clock for a new count daily. (Yes, there is an actual clock.)
p.s. -- Joe Scarborough is a former Republican Congressman from Florida, part of the '94 "Contract with America" (New Gingrich) class. He hosts "Scarborough Country" weeknights on MSNBC.
"Well, in just three years since George W. Bush was elected president, your Republican-run Congress took a $155 billion surplus and turned it into a staggering $455 billion deficit. These self-described conservatives did it in part by passing a staggering array of pork-barrel bills, billion-dollar farm subsidies, and trillion-dollar entitlement programs that America cannot afford." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5932469/
We're now at $7 trillion in debt and counting . . . Visit the U.S. National Debt Clock for a new count daily. (Yes, there is an actual clock.)
p.s. -- Joe Scarborough is a former Republican Congressman from Florida, part of the '94 "Contract with America" (New Gingrich) class. He hosts "Scarborough Country" weeknights on MSNBC.
