The Smoking Lipstick (sorry; I don't have a gun)

Bush's triumph conceals the great conservative crack-up

2005-04-05T15:21:00.000-07:00

Comment: Andrew Sullivan: Bush�s triumph conceals the great conservative crack-up - Sunday Times - Times Online

Honey, I Shrunk the Dollar

2005-02-24T18:28:00.000-08:00

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Honey, I Shrunk the Dollar

Pro-Choice Can Mean Pro-Life

2005-01-27T22:26:00.000-08:00

The New Republic Online: Life Lesson

USATODAY.com - Optimism has fallen, divisions increased

2005-01-23T18:10:00.000-08:00

USATODAY.com - Optimism has fallen, divisions increased

Bush or Kerry? A Pocketbook Rating

2004-11-01T13:13:00.000-08:00

My friend Michael told me he picked up an interesting factoid in a recent article from Business Week:

". . . history shows that Wall Stree performs better under Democratic
Administrations. Since 1901, the Dow Jones industrial average has returned an
average 9.1% annually under Democrats, but only 6% under Republicans."

The article has other facts and an analysis of each candidate's positions and plans on other factors affecting your pocketbook.

Electoral Predictions Show Kerry Win

2004-11-01T11:08:00.000-08:00

There are two sites that take the most recent polling data in each state and put forth projections on the electoral college. Both have Kerry winning. The Princeton site also projects the national popular vote and has a separate projection factoring in calculated guesses for turnout.

Both these sites are loading slowly as they're getting hit a lot. They have backup sites, which I've also listed for you.

Meta-Analysis of State Polls - election.princeton.edu
Princeton BackUp Site

This Electoral Vote site is great and he's promising to update it throughout election night.
Electoral-Vote
BackUp Site #3
BackUp Site #4

Finally, if you're a polling junkie and want to understand the models and how the questions are asked in the various polls, Mystery Pollster lays out the goods.

Looted Nuclear Material: Scarier than I Realized

2004-10-31T17:13:00.000-08:00

Until I read this article in USATODAY.com, I was annoyed, and slightly flabergasted at the administration's lack of pre-war planning. After reading this article, I am OUTRAGED and scared. The military TOLD them they didn't have enough troops to secure the sites; the administration downplayed it, even "mocked it" according to this piece.

SEVEN major nuclear sites have been extensively looted. SEVEN. In one case, the International Atomic Energy Agency called D.C. and told us we needed to get our butts over to the Tuwaitha facility and we took two weeks to get there, by which time, 22 tons of uranium were missing -- more than enough to arm a dirty bomb.

And what can a nuclear-enabled dirty bomb do? Kill thousands. Render large areas uninhabitable for years.

But certainly nobody could get one of those things over here, could they? Well, apparently they can:

"Should an organization such as al-Qaeda acquire a dirty bomb, it is unlikely
authorities could keep it out of the U.S. or prevent it from being detonated.
Under such circumstances, a terrorist group would not even actually need to
possess a second device; it would merely just have to say one was planted in a
U.S. city. Imagine what the outbound highways would look like or the overall
effect on our economy, our security, our civil rights, our way of life."

How is it that NO ONE has been fired over this stuff? This goes beyond incompetent. To me, this is criminal negligence.

Swing State Endorsements

2004-10-28T14:43:00.000-07:00

I thought it'd be interesting to see who the major papers in the battleground states are endorsing. A sampling:
Cincinnati: Bush
Cleveland: Decided Not to Endorse Either
Columbus: Bush
Dayton: Kerry
Toledo: Kerry
Palm Beach: Kerry
Miami: Kerry
Orlando Sentinel: Kerry
Daytona: Kerry
Minneapolis: Kerry
Detroit: Kerry
Grand Rapids: Bush
Tucson: Kerry
Phoenix: Bush
Little Rock: Bush
Denver Post: Bush
Rocky Mountain News (Denver): Bush
Des Moines: Kerry
Philadelphia: Kerry
Pittsburgh: Kerry
Chicago: Bush
Overall, Kerry leads with endorsements. According to the trade journal "Editor & Publisher," Kerry has won the endorsements of 128 papers across the country compared with 105 for Bush. And 35 newspapers that endorsed Bush in 2000 switched to supporting Kerry this year.

And I know Georgia isn't a battleground state, but the AJC endorses Kerry.

Economist.com | America's next president

2004-10-28T14:05:00.000-07:00

The Economist is a very conservative paper that still thinks the war in Iraq was a good idea.

"Invading Iraq was not a mistake. Although the intelligence about Saddam's
weapons of mass destruction has been shown to have been flimsy and, with
hindsight, wrong, Saddam's record of deception in the 12 years since the first
Gulf war meant that it was right not to give him the benefit of the doubt. "

But they're endorsing Kerry. Read why.

MyPollingPlace.com

2004-10-27T09:37:00.000-07:00

Not sure where to vote? Type in your address here and get your polling place.

Another Conservative Endorses Kerry

2004-10-26T16:42:00.000-07:00

Andrew Sullivan endorsed Bush in 2000, but says he can't again. Here's why.

Allawi Blames Ambush on U.S. Negligence

2004-10-26T16:29:00.000-07:00

The situation in Iraq continues to be terrible. Even the prime minister of that country takes issue with our management of things. Quote:

"Iraq's interim prime minister blamed the U.S.-led coalition Tuesday for 'great negligence' in the ambush that killed about 50 soldiers heading home after graduation from a U.S.-run training course, and warned of an escalation of terrorist attacks.

Prime Minister Ayad Allawi told the Iraqi National Council, a government oversight body, that coalition forces' negligent handling of security was responsible for Saturday's deadly ambush along a remote highway near the Iranian border."

We need to face the facts. Nation-building is a long, torturous goal. If we're going to do it (and it seems we have no choice), then let's commit the troops, involve our allies more, and get it over with. The more we keep one foot in and one foot out, the more the situation unravels. The insurgents know they have a foothold now and we're in just deep enough to sink.

TIME Magazine: Why the Old Labels Don't Stick

2004-10-25T13:20:00.000-07:00

If you're a conservative, don't vote for Bush cuz he's acting like a liberal and this article details how. If you're a liberal, don't vote for Kerry, cuz he's acting more like a conservative. Or, he's acting like Clinton fiscally but a moderate in the tradition of Bush Sr. and Colin Powell in foreign affairs.

I have been saying for sometime now that I don't understand how any true conservatives can vote for Bush. He hasn't met a spending bill he didn't like; he's run up record deficits; "nation-building" is generally anathema to conservatives, etc. The only way Bush is conservative is on social issues. If you define conservative as one who believes they should be legislated. True conservatives, of course, don't.

Kerry for President (washingtonpost.com)

2004-10-24T08:28:00.000-07:00

Today, the Washington Post endorses Kerry for President. It's not a "rah rah" endorsement and it's definitely not a liberal dressing down of the President. Rather, the editors thoughtfully outline Bush's presidency, laying out many of the good things he has done (and there were more than I thought and some I wouldn't give him credit for). This is a paper that was for the Iraq War, but is concerned that President Bush ignored the advice of advisors and seems unwilling to acknowledge the continued problems. On domestic issues, they are also very critical. While acknowleding that the deficit is not entirely his fault -- we would surely have had a deficit with the recession that was growing as he took office and the post 9/11 economic tremors -- they criticize him for the tax cuts that do make up a significant portion of the deficit.

They have some concerns about Kerry, but feel he has a better grasp on what needs to be done in the terror war, and prefer most of his domestic policies. They conclude:

"We do not view a vote for Mr. Kerry as a vote without risks. But the risks on the other side are well known, and the strengths Mr. Kerry brings are considerable."

The Gay Thing

2004-10-19T15:25:00.000-07:00

I winced when Kerry made the comment during the debate. Not because I thought it was wrong, but because I sensed that it would be perceived as in poor taste. Never did I think it'd be the hot topic on cable news with less than two weeks to go. What's incredible to me is how the Republicans are so quickly defending the Cheneys when they so often vigorously oppose equal protection for gays and send out vile flyers warning voters that Democrats will ban Bibles and allow gays to marry.

But what do I know? Once again, I send you to my favorite conservative, Andrew Sullivan. He writes:

" . . . if Kerry congratulated the president on the conduct and charm of his straight daughters--as he did in the first debate--no one would accuse him of being out of line, of invading someone's 'privacy.' And yet by congratulating the vice president on the conduct and dignity of his gay daughter, he is somehow beyond the pale of decency. It only makes sense if you believe that lesbianism is something to hide, be ashamed of, or cover up."

It's a thoughtful article. Not that my endorsement means anything, but I recommend it. But then again, I have a crush on him. He's gay and I have a crush on him. (Uh oh, should I not have mentioned that?) :-)

How Kerry Wins

2004-10-14T13:21:00.000-07:00

According to The New Republic Online: Campaign Journal, Kerry needs to win Ohio, and pick up seven more votes to win. They do a nice job outlining where things stand and how things are leaning. Watching the polls makes me crazy. It's essentially a dead heat. But for those who'd like to see Kerry win, there is some encouraging news:

In something like 86% of the time in recent presidential elections for which we have polling data, undecideds break for the challenger.
More of the new registrations are Democratic than Republican. New polls show that Bush's job approval rating is 44% -- far below the 50% usually needed to win.
The positive view of the Democrats has gone up.
Heavy voter turnout usually favors Democrats, so if they can mobilize their base (and the Democrats are more pissed and motivated than the Republicans, so that's a definite possibility), they'll do well.

But in a race as close as this, ALL of that needs to break Kerry's way. It is worth noting, however, that Gore was way ahead in polls in October of 2000, so nobody has a clue what'll happen.

I still maintain the conventional wisdom that 2nd term presidential elections are a referendum on the incumbent. I think enough people are concerned with this president's mismanagement of the war in Iraq (whether or not they agreed with the decision to go) and his sky-rocketing deficits to say, "let's give the other guy a shot." A month ago, many people were too scared of Kerry to give him a shot. After the debates, their comfort level has risen. He didn't make an ass of himself. He seemed presidential and thoughtful.

Add it all up and I think he'll win. But I'm just one girl trying to take a 10,000 foot view and not get bogged down in the polls and the pundits and the predictions. This race is a referendum on the incumbent. Simple. Imcumbent's job approval rating is below 50. Kerry isn't well-liked either, but he's made himself a more viable candidate recently. That impression will settle and solidify in the next two weeks. Kerry will win.

Final Debate -- Bush is Back

2004-10-13T18:26:00.000-07:00

9:28 p.m. -- Ouch. I wish Kerry hadn't used Cheney's daughter to open his answer to the gay question. On whole, so far, Bush is back. He's got substantive answers, he's laying out a vision, and he's keeping his cool. And Kerry remains unruffled. What that means for us at home is that we're actually getting to hear what the differences are between the candidates. I'm excited about it.

Slip-ups so far: Bush's answer on outsourcing jobs. Awful. You don't tell someone who just lost his job to a company overseas that he needs to go to community college. (Even if that is the reality of free trade and capitalism, that's just a terrible way to answer that question.)

9:38 p.m. -- Bush really is doing a much better job tonight. His flu shot answer was great and connected with people. Kerry's litany of how many people have lost healthcare in certain states was an obvious attempt to connect with voters in swing states (did you notice which states he listed?).

Bush is doing great. Said when he came into office he didn't want seniors to have to choose between food or drugs. Again, he's outlining a vision, and supporting it with specifics, something he wasn't able to do in the first debates.

But one thing that will be interesting to watch is if the president is still playing to his base and not the undecideds. His demeanor works better for undecideds who didn't like the angry man they saw the last time at bat. I'm concerned that Kerry's almost too-detailed in his responses and is losing points on style.

9:44 p.m. -- Bush's answer on social security is strong. Promised seniors they'll get their check. Said that it is going to be a problem for "youngsters." Says it's a vital issue and he'll take it on, but that we have to do something. Really strong answer.

Kerry's answer that if young people take money out of social security and put it in their own accounts it would be a "disaster." Huh? Factually, he's quoting the Congressional Budget Office, etc., but he keeps losing points on vision. Bush is winning this question and the debate.

Kerry's second time around on this question was much stronger.

9:52 p.m. -- Bush is kicking ass. Loved his open to the immigration question. "It's a security issue, it's a human rights issue, etc."

This is interesting to me. Given the President's woeful domestic record (gross expansion of government, record deficits, fiscal irresponsibility), you'd think Kerry could dunk him. But because he's too heavy into the stats, he's not focusing on key messages. Classic marketing mistake.

10:04 p.m. -- What Kerry may be doing right: he's speaking directly to specific voter groups. He's carefully caged answers with something for women, something for Hispanics, something for seniors. Whereas Bush is speaking more generally or to his base. That may mean that Bush will win the debate, but that the electoral college polls won't shift much (the national polls will but they don't matter).

10:11 p.m. -- Kerry's answer on the assault weapons ban was outstanding. Best answer of the night. Cited his record in law-enforcement, gave a specific example of a recent arrest where the guy had an AK-47 sitting next to him, personalized it with his own position as a hunter. Said that if Delay had come to him and said we don't have enough votes on this, he would have said, we have to go back, we have to get them. Really strong. Wish he'd shown up sooner.

Final Analysis -- Bush turned in his strongest performance in the debates; Kerry was strong, too. But Kerry spoke more specifically to swing voter groups. No telling what this will all mean. ABC's instant poll: Kerry 42%, Bush 41% -- well within the margin of error. So it's a tie.

UN: Iraqi Nuclear-Related Materials Have Vanished

2004-10-12T21:06:00.000-07:00

The point has been made that we did not guard weapons stockpiles after our invasion/liberation of Iraq. It's even more serious than that. What the President and others have said is that the most dangerous thing facing us is if nuclear weapons were to get in the hands of terrorists. So imagine how dismayed they must be to learn that "Equipment and materials that could be used to make nuclear weapons are disappearing from Iraq but neither Baghdad nor Washington appears to have noticed, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency reported on Monday." Read the article here.

Checking the Facts, in Advance of the Final Debate

2004-10-12T20:25:00.000-07:00

Paul Krugman's piece in the New York Times outlines many of the President's domestic issue talking points, anticipates what he will say in the debate, and then provides facts that refute his rhetoric. Whether Kerry will fire back remains to be seen.

Sample quote from the article:

"Mr. Bush will claim that the recession and 9/11 caused record budget deficits. Congressional Budget Office estimates show that tax cuts caused about two-thirds of the 2004 deficit."

What Got Into Kerry? Debate # 2

2004-10-08T18:58:00.000-07:00

Bush's handlers made a major mistake by stacking all his campaign trail town hall meetings with supporters. He has not had much practice at answering tough questions because all he gets on the road are softballs and compliments. I've heard over and over how relaxed, friendly and "folksy" Bush is and how stiff and formal Kerry is.

Bush's "folksy" is coming off tonight as defensive and yippy. Kerry is remarkably self-assured, calming yet forceful. He's doing a much better job than he did last week of punching back and not letting opportunities slip. I'm starting to like him.

Did Bush just say he's a "good steward" of the land? Good Lord, I hope Kerry nails him on that. He did.

I think Bush's problem is that he can't do the "Listen, Folks" thing against an opponent like the Kerry that showed up tonight. Bush sounds like he's giving a civics lesson or scolding when I think he's trying to sound candid. When he does that, he is essentially calling the questioner wrong.

Now, how is this different from Kerry? He's showing more deference to the questioner (addressing the person by name) and his attacks on the president are focused and filled with facts (again, I'm not immediately checking the veracity of his facts). Bush's attacks are broader, more general, less focused, as he walks around the room. That comes across to people as condescending and disrespectful.

I think Bush lost this debate (and I've long believed he'll lose the election, but that's for another post). Not that anyone is watching. Isn't there a baseball playoff on or something?

p.s. The abortion question was heartfelt. But those who are passionately anti-abortion were already for Bush. That was not a question that would sway an undecided or anyone on the fence even. Is there anyone who doesn't know that Bush is against it? Does Kerry's somewhat-walking-the-fence answer persuade anyone who is staunchly anti-abortion? Of course not.

So Who Won the VP Debate?

2004-10-06T13:23:00.000-07:00

As usual, Andrew Sullivan has the best analysis for my money. He's fair and on record as predicting that Cheney would clobber Edwards. After watching the debate, though, he feels strongly that Edwards clobbered Cheney -- at least with those who matter most -- the undecideds. The polls are split on this one. ABC, which oversampled Republicans, shows Cheney won. CBS polled only undecided voters and clocked the win for Edwards.

Most say it doesn't matter unless someone really knocks the other out. I'm inclined to agree. This story has a short shelf-life in the media because the presidential candidates are back at it this Friday with Debate # 2.

A Picture's Worth a Thousand Words

2004-10-05T22:08:00.000-07:00

In the debate tonight, Cheney attacked Edwards' Senate attendance record and ended with the zinger that tonight was the first time he'd ever met the Senator. After the debate, Elizabeth Edwards whispered in Cheney's ear that he had met her husband before. See?

.

Cheney's Big Whopper On Iraq and 9/11

2004-10-05T21:42:00.000-07:00

It takes major cajones to stick with this big stinker:

"I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11." – Dick Cheney [VP Debate, 10/5/04]

Oh really? What'd you mean when you said this, Dick?

“His regime has had high-level contacts with al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to al Qaeda terrorists.” [Cheney Remarks, 12/2/02]

or this

“I think there’s overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government.” [National Public Radio, “Morning Edition,” 1/22/04]

And how do you refute what your own Defense Secretary said?

“…To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two.” [Donald Rumsfeld at Council on Foreign Relations, 10/4/04]

or the 9/11 Commission Report findings:

“We have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.” [9-11 Commission Final Report, 7/22/04]

or the CIA report issued earlier today:

A CIA report has found no conclusive evidence that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein harbored Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, which the Bush administration asserted before the invasion of Iraq. [Reuters, 10/05/04]

VP Debate -- Partway Through

2004-10-05T18:31:00.000-07:00

Why does this moderator keep giving Cheney a :30 rebuttal, but then not let Edwards have his :30? She's done that twice so far. (Or are the rules different? Aren't they both supposed to get :30 for a total of one minute?)

OK, my take so far:
Cheney is doing what Bush should have done. He's supporting his assertions with specific data (never mind for a moment the veracity of his claims); he's calm and unruffled; he "sells" the "I've been there, done that" position that Bush didn't sell with his "I get the reports every morning. I know Osama Bin Laden attacked us" nonsense.

Similarly, Edwards is doing what Kerry should have done. Edwards is taking on every questionable fact or assertion that Cheney makes. He's showing what I think is a proper amount of annoyance and walking that fine line between calling Cheney out vs. sounding shrill.

These two men are at the top of their game. I wish their running mates would take notes.

10:08 p.m. It's close, but I think this one will be called for Cheney. Edwards needs to do more than counter-punch. He needs to score some knock-outs and he just hasn't so far.

10:15 p.m. Uh oh, Edwards screwed up on the question about his qualifications. What he should have said is that he has more foreign policy experience than Bush had when he was elected. He totally fumbled that question, which he had to know was coming. Cheney's response is a good one.

Parting Thoughts:
Cheney's line that he'd never met Edwards before tonight was a good zinger. Turns out it's not true. They've met at least twice before, and that's what Elizabeth Edwards whispered in Cheney's ear when she greeted him onstage. Don't wanna take her word for it? A picture's worth a thousand words.

Something Rotten in DeLay's Denmark

2004-10-04T14:47:00.000-07:00

I've already blogged about one of Tom DeLay's political/ethical troubles. Turns out there are plenty more to be found, as reported in this overview from Salon. Here's just one of the tangled webs detailed in this piece:

Two weeks after DeLay's associates were indicted in Texas, the
Senate Indian Affairs Committee began an investigation of two DeLay associates
who billed six Indian tribes a staggering $66 million in lobbying fees, after
promising tribal leaders that their proximity to DeLay equaled unparalleled
influence in Washington . . .

Jack Abramoff, a member of DeLay's "kitchen cabinet," and
DeLay's former press secretary Mike Scanlon billed their Indian clients twice as
much as companies such as General Electric paid for outside lobbyists in the
same time period. The tribes were paying the two Washington operatives -- who in
private e-mails referred to the Indians as "troglodytes," "monkeys" and
"moronic" -- to defend their casinos. Two U.S. attorneys in Washington and a
federal grand jury are also looking into Abramoff and Scanlon, who are not only
frequent fliers to gaming reservations around the country but also frequent
contributors to Republican candidates and think tanks.

And the mighty shall fall. I hope. (For a more detailed look at the Indian gaming piece of this scandal, check out this report from NPR.)

Halfway Through the Debate

2004-09-30T18:51:00.000-07:00

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.

Justice DeLay-ed

2004-09-30T17:30:00.000-07:00

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! :-)

Cheney Changed His View on Iraq

2004-09-30T16:40:00.000-07:00

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.

Plan Would Allow Terror Suspects To Be Sent to Abuse-Prone Nations

2004-09-29T22:07:00.000-07:00

Here we go violating international agreements again.

Outrage over CBS

2004-09-28T14:53:00.000-07:00

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.

Bush's Autobiography, Part II

2004-09-27T14:20:00.000-07:00

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

Bush's Autobiography

2004-09-25T21:13:00.000-07:00

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.

Rumsfeld's Peculiar Version of Democratic Elections

2004-09-23T20:47:00.000-07:00

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.

Is Bush Using Military Strategies Against Us?

2004-09-23T15:07:00.000-07:00

Chilling article. Here's the subhead:

In war, you deny information, spread lies and use psychological warfare. An
expert on military information operations explains how Bush has mastered this
technique -- and used it against the American people.

Scary stuff!

Prominent Military Leaders and Republicans Decry the War in Iraq

2004-09-23T14:41:00.000-07:00

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:

"This is far graver than Vietnam," said Gen. Odom. "There wasn't as
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."

And we've previously noted prominent Republicans' concerns, but here are a few more quotes for you to consider:

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

The Truth About Kerry's Healthcare Plan

2004-09-22T10:21:00.000-07:00

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.

Separating fact from fiction...

2004-09-21T21:03:00.000-07:00

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?

2004-09-21T20:57:00.000-07:00

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.)

What Kerry Needs to Do

2004-09-20T19:20:00.000-07:00

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:

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.

Dems will Ban Bibles

2004-09-18T11:26:00.000-07:00

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.

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire

2004-09-16T13:15:00.000-07:00

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. :-)

Hurricane Here, Tempest Abroad

2004-09-16T13:14:00.000-07:00

Read my posts from yesterday on Afghanistan and Iraq. Much news to report, very little of it good.

Afghanistan Out of Control

2004-09-15T19:51:00.000-07:00

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

2004-09-15T19:37:00.000-07:00

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.

Bumper Sticker Backfire

2004-09-15T08:28:00.000-07:00

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).

Again with the Flip Flops

2004-09-14T15:31:00.000-07:00

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!

The Dean Scream -- It Just Didn't Happen

2004-09-14T14:52:00.000-07:00

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?

Moore's Mess-Ups

2004-09-14T14:17:00.000-07:00

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.)

How to Wage Peace

2004-09-13T21:23:00.000-07:00

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 to read 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

Bush Flip Flops, Too!

2004-09-09T21:04:00.000-07:00

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 with this 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.

More Republican Buzz That Bush Is Not Acting Like a Conservative

2004-09-09T19:51:00.000-07:00

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 columnist Andrew 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.

Bush is NOT 11 Points Ahead

2004-09-08T17:48:00.000-07:00

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! :-)

Republicans concerned with Bush's brand of "conservatism"

2004-09-08T13:03:00.000-07:00

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.