Best of the Blogs

Hare Krishna Moonlanding Debunkers For Truth

Quick -- somebody call CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News! I've got a hardcore group of people -- thousands, in fact, located all around the world -- who will swear the whole NASA moonlanding program is and always was an outright hoax; that we never went there.

Plus -- unlike the Swiftboat folks -- they're not just blowing smoke up your ass; they've got photographic proof -- forensic evidence! -- to back up their claims.

What's more, they're "pious, religious folk" -- so the cable news shows can angle for inroads into reaching those potential viewers . . .

. . . C'mon, now: Wolf, Sean, Chris, Ken, Aaron -- let's get these folks booked on your shows, and let's hear some honest skepticism about "the official record" for a few weeks, eh?

posted by Michael 9:17 PM

With Friends Like These

Could the outing of Larry Franklin as an Israeli mole be George Tenet's revenge? This analysis in Haaretz suggests that a cold wind blows between the CIA and the Mossad. Meanwhile, AIPAC (the American Insrael Public Affairs Committee), supposedly the conduit for secret documents, claims it never heard of anybody named Larry Franklin.

posted by Jerry Bowles 7:08 PM

GOP still plans to jack Social Security & Medicare... protest that!

On the eve of the GOP convention Fed head Tatalech Greenspan is beating his drum about jacking entitlements . With the trust funds in good shape until mid-century, it looks like he's desparately seeking a quick fix to cross-subsidize the twin towers of burgeoning debt and negative trade balance... all part of the "Bu$h recovery."

posted by Groom 6:00 PM

Shouting "Fire" In A Crowded Political Theater -- The Transcript

Wow. As Jerry points out, in his earlier post below, Bill Maher's concluding remarks last night, on his HBO series Real Time, were something else -- maybe "mock-incendiary" would be the right term. (Fortunately, I taped and transcribed it:):

You can't claim you're for peace unless you're willing to disturb it.

Now, at the Republican Convention next week New York City is attempting to buy off angry war protestors by giving them discounts on restaurants and Broadway shows in exchange for a pledge not to all congregate in one place and to keep the noise down -- you know, like it's a high school band trip.

"What do we want?" "PEACE!"

"When do we want it?" "NOW! -- but we'll settle for dinner for two at Red Lobster."

You know what? I want to see some REAL protests next week -- the kind I watched as a kid from the Democratic Convention in Chicago in '68. I want to see THIS guy --

[makes twisted, angry face, flipping off cameras -- reminiscent of a famous photo of a shirtless angry Chicago protestor flipping the bird]

-- remember that guy?

I mean, isn't that the least we as citizens can do? Isn't this one of those moments when democracy can show it's not afraid to be in the streets? Because you know who has peaceful, planned demonstrations? Totalitarian states, like North Korea and Disneyland.

Therefore, tonight, I am urging all the protestors in New York next week TO RIOT!

I'm talking about good, old-fashioned rioting -- the kind that made Whitey move to the suburbs!

{Guest interjection: "That's why Detroit LOOKS like that!"}

Look, Protestor: You spent two weeks making that papier-mache Dick Cheney mask? [rolls eyes] Now, light it on fire and TORCH THE NEAREST GAP STORE!

Two lesbians with a "LICK BUSH" sign is NOT going to make the nightly news -- pick up a garbage can and throw it through a Starbucks window!!

I don't want to see a candlelight vigil -- this is New York, there's a bodycount at Simon & Garfunkle concerts!

If anything with "Trump" written on it is standing after September 3rd? You're a bunch of pussies who aren't worth the hemp in your Timberland shoes!

I want to see cabdrivers so nervous they stop picking up the white people!

We're Americans, damnit! We burn cars over basketball games! Let's MAKE some noise; let's KICK some ass! If I want to turn on the TV and see nothing . . .

. . . I'll keep watching the Olympics.

posted by Michael 3:18 PM

Paging Bob Perry

David Kirkpatrick has a lengthy piece in the Times today about the ultra-conservative Council for National Policy (CNP) whose secret membership is a who’s who of the Radical Right—especially the Christian culture warriors. Kirkpatrick names some of the most prominent members like Jerry Falwell, Phyllis Schlafly, Tim LaHaye, James Dobson, Holland H. Coors of the beer family and Wayne LaPierre, head of the NRA.

Strangely enough, he didn’t mention Bob Perry, the Houston homebuilder, who funded most of the initial efforts of the Swift Boat Veterans. As we wrote here a couple of weeks ago, Perry was one of the founders and the first treasurer of the CNP.

posted by Jerry Bowles 1:58 PM

Naked City Update

(Occupied New York) - An eerie quiet hangs over midtown Manhattan this morning. 57th Street, the world's busiest crosstown thoroughfare, looks like a scene out of The Day the Earth Stood Still. Only an occasional car and a handful of pedestrians stir the sunny, fallish air. Things should pick up later but for now it might as well be Omaha.

Last night more than five thousand bicyclists rode past Madison Square Garden to protest the Bush administration's environmental policies. Nearly 300 were arrested and peacefully taken off to be booked for minor traffic violations. The big test will probably come tomorrow when about 250,000 protesters are expected to march from Union Square at 14th Street to the Garden at 34th Street and back. This is the group that was denied permission to rally on the Great Lawn in Central Park but organizers are suggesting that there's nothing to prevent, say, 250,000 citizens from individually strolling over to Central Park after the rally. The mayor and the cops have a different interpretation so things could be tense. A former first deputy New York police commissioner is quoted in today's NY Times as saying: "The city cannot have a pitched battle the day before the convention. You cannot have cops billy-clubbing protesters on the 6 o'clock news."

I thought Bill Maher came awfully close to yelling fire in a crowded theater last night when he (playfully, I assume) called on protesters, in his closing monologue, to torch the nearest Gap and throw garbage cans through Starbucks windows. "If anything with word Trump on it is still standing at the end of the convention you're all a bunch of pussies," he said. Funny, edgy stuff but I suspect some HBO lawyers who were looking forward to a quiet weekend with the family are in the office today.

posted by Jerry Bowles 10:23 AM

This way to the Bronx, fellas

One could hope that the Republicans will pick up the home town newspaper not owned by Murdoch, The New York Times, and read the cover review of tomorrow's Books section by Richard A. Posner.

More than a review, it is an excellent analysis of the 9/11 Commission Report with one of the most lucid and forthright views I have seen of the failures -- and successes -- which preceded the disaster. However, in a series of recommendations which he notes are already being partially addressed, he only seems to hint at what is perhaps the greatest single flaw in the system: the inability at the very top of the government to seek and interpret competitive points of view. It is just this kind of diversity in intelligence and its interpretation, rather than a move to greater centralization as recommended by the Commission, that Posner feels will lead to at least a partial thwarting of future attacks.

Otherwise, that omission in an otherwise clear-eyed critique is the only "Elephant in the Living Room, er, Oval Office."

posted by Evelyn 9:13 AM

One flu over the cuckoo's nest

Flu vaccine is kind of like Coke or Pepsi. Either you buy Fluvirin, the product from Chiron, the US-based multinational, or Fluzone, made by Aventis-Pasteur the EU multinational. The Bu$h administration rolled the dice with Chiron and got snake eyes to the tune of 4 million contaminated doses of Fluvirin that will impact on “flu season” in the US. But the New York Times seems more comfortable talking around the issue than with putting the long history of contamination problems at the Emeryville, CA-based Chiron under the microscope (see my earlier post for details). Can Barbara Boxer or Diane Feinstein tell us how this outfit gets contract after contract after screw-up after screw up? Or maybe Gauleiter Schwarzenegger has the skinny. This is as bad as the Patriot missiles that can’t shoot straight, the “smart” bombs of the “shock and awe” attacks that wore dunce caps, and the 100,000 flak jackets that never showed up for our GIs. Not to worry, Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy & Influenza puts a positive spin on this ticket to a pandemic by saying “these kinds of things come up all the time.” Didn’t he say the same thing last year?

posted by Groom 3:22 AM

Rhode or Franklin?

The mainstream media isn't naming names in the Pentagon mole case yet but the New York Times reports that:

The Pentagon analyst who officials said was under suspicion was one of two department officials who traveled to Paris for secret meetings with Iranian dissidents, including Manucher Ghorbanifar, an arms dealer.

The two Pentagon officials who met secretly with Ghorbanifar were Harold Rhode and Larry Franklin, from the Pentagon Office of Special Plans. Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute is said to have arranged the meeting.

posted by Jerry Bowles 12:22 AM

"I'm very ashamed"

The former Texas official who got George Bush into the National Guard apologizes for making sure that young men with important "family names" did not have to fight in Vietnam....

In a video originally posted on the Web by a pro-Kerry organization in Austin, Texas, Ben Barnes, a former lieutenant governor of Texas, apologized for his role in getting a young George W. Bush into the Texas Air National Guard while young men who were not from prominent or wealthy families "died in Vietnam."

Find the full story on Salon.

posted by John 12:12 AM

Friday, August 27, 2004

Department of Things We Kinda Already Knew

An Israeli mole in the Pentagon? We're shocked, shocked. Did I say shocked?

posted by Jerry Bowles 8:04 PM

The Bush Vote

Why has John Kerry not sparked with women voters?

According to this Lifetime survey, women are not warming to Big John (as opposed to smaller John.) Interestingly, the gender gap is narrower than usual among voters who have made up their minds. In the survey, women, especially younger women, responded that neither Bush nor Kerry understand them. Since women also make up the larger portion (60%) of undecided voters, this may mean trouble for Kerry within the increasingly narrow range of voters who have not made up their minds.

What could they be thinking? That Bush is right on women’s key issues, i.e. health care, equal pay and violence against women? Setting aside the abortion issue, around which both men and women split about the same, Bush has a mixed record on health issues, advocating tax credits for low- and middle- income women so that they can sign up for private health plans, which fits right in with the whole “ownership society” Bush economic philosophy. Kerry advocates a phase-in of the single payer system. With yesterday’s announcement of another 1.4 million Americans losing heath care coverage last year, it’s clear that the “ownership society” framework continues to fail more and more Americans, including women, seeking health care. Bush did usher in the overhyped and overwrought prescription drug benefit, which remunerates some senior women, who make up the large portion of older Americans, some of the time. If, as most people predict, four more years means ever-diminishing government support, women, and men and children as well, will be even more vulnerable to losing access to health care than with the Kerry plan.

Equal pay? Women still earn about 76 cents for every dollar that a man earns. The Bush administration eliminated the Equal Pay Matters Initiative, a federal program to address the pay gap. But more importantly, because women make up the larger portion of lower-income heads of households, the decline in the economy in the last three years has hit women harder than men.

Violence against women? On a specific level, Bush’s Attorney General and cat phobic (and if feline = feminine, what does that say?) downgraded the Justice Department’s Office on Violence Against Women, which had previously reported directly to him. Critics charged that this would demote the attention paid to these kinds of crimes as well.

So why is Kerry not seducing the gals? As in most respects of this campaign, the issues do not seem to matter, are certainly not being covered in the press, or are being eclipsed by perhaps irrelevant issues of “character.”

What sort of character, or perhaps “characters,” do women look for in Presidential candidates?

If you will recall, whoever was the Jazz Age’s Karl Rove in 1920, the first year that women voted, put Warren G. Harding on the ticket because he was cute, and although newly-enfranchised women tended to vote along the party lines established by their male counterparts, it worked. Fast forwarding to the present day, estrogen magnet John Edwards got the nod to a large degree because of the cuteness factor as well. (Not to demean my sex, because actually, Edwards’ appeal is more related to his ability to “connect.” More on that subject later.)

John Kerry, sadly, is not cute. Further, and perhaps more importantly, he is, for all intents and purposes, a Wasp and one without a public sense of humor. Women may marry Wasp men, otherwise, to paraphrase Cole Porter, how else would you get Wasp roe, but they make lousy sex symbols. You can name on the fingers of one hand the leading men of the last half century who hailed from the Northeastern Protestant establishment (Jimmy Stewart, Henry Fonda.) Give us a sweaty Marlon Brando or a hung-over Colin Farrell, but not a Brooks Brother, thank you very much.

Worse, his tendency to pontificate is a HUGE turn-off. Too many of my sex have spent too many dates listening to some guy go on and on, usually about something less interesting than politics, like his job or that oh-so-fascinating topic of sports, but nonetheless we have spent too many hours in butt-twisting agony waiting for the opportunity to break in, or at least, to be noticed. And it’s for certain that if we allow that evening to progress that this particular customer is going to disappoint in the bedroom.

Does the private Kerry really behave this way? To judge by the women he has wooed and won, and by his success as a father, “not.” His failure yet to attract women voters as well as he should is, I am sorry to say, symptomatic of the passionless face of his campaign. It should be easier. Bush has a bounce and a sense of humor that women, and men, find appealing, but he is also prone to macho displays that arouse nothing but contempt.

Not to oversimplify, but if men respond to women as either madonnas or whores, then women respond to men as either daddies or little boys. Daddies draw them in because they protect and sympathize, and boys because they can be their mothers. (It may be very primal, but women actually are empowered by feeling needed.) By putting Laura Bush all over the ads and speeches, it’s pretty obvious that Bushco is hoping that women will be drawn to Bush for the same reason that Laura was, by telling themselves that this guy really needs them.

On the other hand, and if it’s not too late, Kerry can arouse something akin to the charm of his vice presidential candidate by presenting not just the stern bore “daddy” but also the understanding, “I feel your pain,” Father-Who-Knows-Best he must be somewhere deep inside (although he would be advised to avoid the services of Naomi Wolf and the color brown). The Front Porch campaign seems to show this and could use some more coverage, and perhaps the New York Times could run more front page photos of Kerry with little kids.

And maybe, just maybe, he could interrupt himself to ask us how our day has been.

Oh, and p.s., the Dems could do a better job of their women's website. Here is the Republican site, and here is the Democratic.

posted by Evelyn 5:28 PM

How Dumb is W Anyway?

It is a rare day indeed when you encounter an important question in one newspaper and the definitive answer in another. In a column in today's Washington Post, Howell Raines, the much-missed former editor of the New York Times dares to raise a question about the "D" word in regard to our president:

...a contrived debate over Kerry's well-documented war record diverts voters' attention from a truly important national security question related to the intellectual capability of the incumbent: Was George W. dumb enough to be talked into adopting a flawed strategy for a phony war by Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney?

In her post below, Opus points you to the answer--an interview with the Boy Genius himself in today's New York Times that should prove to even the most faithful that "Bush: Like a Rock Only Dumber" is more than just a sad bumper sticker.

posted by Jerry Bowles 5:27 PM

Another flu vaccine botch... get ready for 36,000 KIA

In a "wag the dog" move, the CDC and HHS director Tommy Thompson two days ago announced that they expect an "influenza pandemic." Of course they didn't tell us why. What kind of oversight can one expect from Thompson, the former Wisconsin governor who lied about the costs of the Bu$h Medicare prescription drug "benefit" and financed expensive advertisments to prove it? Today, CDC top banana Julie Gerberding is downplaying the organization's "concerns" over the contamination problem(Miami Herald, reg. reqd.) that is plaguing this year's supply. CDC estimates that 36,000 Americans die from "the flu" each "flu season" (whatever that creative accounting catchphrase means). Just wait for Tom "the undertaker" Ridge to come on TV in his black frock coat and tell us all we need hall passes to go "outside" due to the "Al-Sadr Flu."

Chiron Corp., based in Emeryville, CA, provides the vaccine in the US. However, in a global economy "outsourcing" move, the juice is produced at a plant outside Liverpool, England that has a history of contamination problems. These drug companies are sold and traded as fast as baseball cards and the swap meet business environment is hardly the way for quality control to stay on track. Just think if Fergus and Amanda came to work after a bad night watching Manchester United play Liverpool, you too could be one of the 36,000 victims.

posted by Groom 2:30 PM

How Big is 45 Million Uninsured?

Try the total population of everyone living in California, Oregon and Washington state combined. There are more uninsured in America than African Americans (37.1 million) and four times the population of Greece (10.6 million). See this eyepopping report by American Progress' Jeanne Lambrew.

posted by Jerry Bowles 11:36 AM

Democracy is Messy (Continued)

Iraqi police report they have discovered 25 bodies in the basement of a religious court in Najaf set up by Muqtada al-Sadr. Police say the bodies, some of which were seriously mutilated, belonged to civilians and police officers. From Radio Netherlands

posted by Jerry Bowles 10:45 AM

Oy. Also? Veh.

(This is an edited version of a post at my blog)
Elizabeth Bumiller and David Sanger were, shall we say, unimpressed with President Bush after their recent interview with him for the New York Times. Their article barely tries to contain their feelings about his changes in position and lack of involvement and awareness.

After starting, as might be expected, with the usual nonsense about The Ads, they got the President to admit to a "miscalculation" regarding post-invasion Iraq. Gee, ya think?. After you've clicked on that link, consider how obscene this is:

Mr. Bush deflected efforts to inquire further into what went wrong with the occupation, suggesting that such questions should be left to historians, and insisting, as his father used to, that he would resist going "on the couch'' to rethink decisions.

Anyone want to allow this man to be in power long enough for us to go to war again?

Remember yesterday, when folks were surprised that the administration allowed its Secs Commerce and Energy and its Science Advisor to put out a report that allowed that heat-trapping gases are a cause of global warming, which, by the way, exists? Yeah, well, Bush was surprised, too.

The new report was signed by Mr. Bush's secretaries of energy and commerce and his science adviser. Asked why the administration had changed its position on what causes global warming, Mr. Bush replied, "Ah, we did? I don't think so."

Take this moment to readjust your eyeballs, which by now may have rolled completely back into your head. After dispensing with some poll information (yawn), Sanger and Bumiller note that:

Showing none of the alarm about the North's growing arsenal that he once voiced regularly about Iraq, he opened his palms and shrugged when an interviewer noted that new intelligence reports indicate that the North may now have the fuel to produce six or eight nuclear weapons.
He said that in North Korea's case, and in Iran's, he would not be rushed to set deadlines for the countries to disarm, despite his past declaration that he would not "tolerate'' nuclear capability in either nation. He declined to define what he meant by "tolerate.''

That's because he doesn't know. He's been coached on his talking points, but he himself has no actual policy. Geez. We're almost at the point where everyone should stop pretending and just turn to Condi (who was there) and say, "so, what have the rest of you decided, and why haven't you told the President?" But wait, because if you turn away, you might miss this:

"I don't think you give timelines to dictators,'' Mr. Bush said, speaking of North Korea's president, Kim Jong Il, and Iran's mullahs.

Get those jaws off the floor and keep reading. This is your President speaking

Mr. Kerry argued in his interview that North Korea "'was a far more compelling threat in many ways, and it belonged at the top of the agenda,'' but Mr. Bush declined to compare it to Iraq, apart from arguing that Iraq had defied the world community for longer than the other members of what he once called "the axis of evil.'' Nor would he assess the risk that Pyongyang might sell nuclear material to terrorists, though his national security aides believe it may have sold raw uranium to Libya in recent years.

So...are you registered to vote yet?

posted by Opus 8:52 AM

Timing is Everything

From the Daily Misleader we learn that yesterday's release of those devastating new poverty and health care numbers was a blatant attempt by the Bush administration to bury the bad news.

Specifically, the Administration had its top political appointee at the Census Bureau release the numbers a month earlier than usual, during the August congressional recess when many reporters and Americans take their summer vacations. The rescheduling of the announcement also means that the bad numbers will not come out in September immediately after the Republican National Convention, when they have traditionally been released.

With the President's economic and health care agenda leaving millions behind, the Associated Press reports, "the statistics today show the number of Americans living in poverty increased by 1.3 million last year, while the ranks of the uninsured swelled by 1.4 million."

If only these clowns had been half as clever in coming up with an occupation plan for Iraq.

posted by Jerry Bowles 12:02 AM

Thursday, August 26, 2004

Republic? Doomed?

Over on the Lit-Ideas list, where I hang out with folks who share an interest in philosophy and literature, politics has reared its ugly head. A couple of fine examples of what Richard Rorty calls "the cultural left" are preaching their "fashionable despair." I am moved to write, as follows. I offer these remarks here because I think it a good idea to step back now and again from the alarms and excursions of campaigning to ask ourselves what this is all about.

====================

May I recommend to those now eager to despair of the Republic, the first couple of paragraphs of Federalist No. 1. Hamilton (writing as "Publius") begins with a challenge to his readers:

It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.

Almost immediately, however, he introduces a note of caution,

If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.

The great experiment may fail, and the reasons are clear,

This idea will add the inducements of philanthropy to those of patriotism to heighten the solicitude which all considerate and good men must feel for the event. Happy will it be if our choice should be directed by a judicious estimate of our true interests, unperplexed and unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good. ***But this is a thing more ardently to be wished than seriously to be expected***[emphasis added]. The plan offered to our deliberations affects too many particular interests, innovates upon too many local institutions, not to involve in its discussion a variety of objects foreign to its merits, and of views, passions, and prejudices little favorable to the discovery of truth.

But Hamilton's purpose is not the wailing and moaning of those who despair. If it were, the Federalist Papers would end with this page and the American Constitution would not be regarded as one of the great works of political statesmanship.

What I find refreshing about reading the Federalist Papers is that the authors are fully aware that human motives are various, and that cool, objective, public-spirited reason is constantly contending with greed, ambition, and factional loyalty, a situation in which only the hopelessly naive will expect that the announcement of a clear and simple idea manifestly in the public interest will always carry the day. There is a deep realization here that democracy is a messy business and that no set of rulers whatsoever, whether royal, patrician, or plebian in origin, should be expected to behave in ways universally regarded as True, Beautiful, and Good.

That is why the remainder of the Federalist Papers and the Constitution they defend are concerned not with what voters or their representatives may think but rather with what they can do— with, in other words, constructing a system of checks and balances that prevents ambition, greed, and factional loyalty from getting too far out of hand. Reason is given a chance. Its victory is not assured.

There is also a proper note of caution concerning the motives that we attribute both to our political opponents and ourselves. First, the opponents,

I am well aware that it would be disingenuous to resolve indiscriminately the opposition of any set of men (merely because their situation might subject them to suspicion) into interested or ambitious views. Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions; and it cannot be doubted that much of the opposition which has made its appearance, or may hereafter make its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least if not respectable--the honest errors of minds led astray be preconceived jealousies and fears.

Now us, on the right side, as we perceive it,

Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question.

Are the institutions that the Founders created perfect? Of course not.

But who among us would prefer the institutions of imperial Rome in the era depicted in "I Claudius"? Or those of the German States during the Thirty Years War? Or those of imperial China when a dynasty was falling apart? Do we really believe the astonishing claim, based on a highly tendentious reading of a mere couple of recent decades of North American history, that we already live in that sort of society?

Can our rulers make stupid mistakes, be motivated by simplistic and clearly erroneous ideas, and take actions with catastrophic consequences? Clearly the answer is "Yes." It has ever been so, throughout human history. Does any other system of government offer a better hope of correction than a democratic republic in which their errors can be recognized and the perpetrators voted out of office?

I await a convincing answer, and Philosopher Kings, Omniscient Computers, and similar fantasies will not do.

posted by John 10:13 PM

Bread Lines for Bush

Speaking of Bushvilles, now comes the bad news from the Census Bureau that the number of Americans living in poverty increased by 1.3 million last year, while the ranks of the uninsured swelled by 1.4 million. Approximately 35.8 million people lived below the poverty line in 2003, or about 12.5 percent of the population, according to the bureau. That was up from 34.5 million, or 12.1 percent in 2002.

I'm willing to bet a dollar against a doughnut that if these nice folks were surveyed a very large percentage would say they plan to vote for George Bush on November 2 because he loves Jesus, hates abortion and is tough on terror.

posted by Jerry Bowles 5:04 PM

Trying to take the initiative

Kerry challenges Bush to weekly debates throughout remaining two months.

Bush spokesman's response:

There will be a time for debates after the convention, and during the next few weeks, John Kerry should take the time to finish the debates with himself," responded Bush-Cheney spokesman Steve Schmidt. This election presents a clear choice to the American people between a president who is moving America forward and a senator who has taken every side of almost every issue," he said.

Now, there's a quick point that comes to mind: if what Steve Schmidt is saying is true--that Kerry takes every side of every issue--wouldn't it be in 43's theoretical favor to have Kerry debate on every issue so to prove the accusation? And will Kerry use this argument to mock Bush if he fails to debate?

posted by Blackdogred 4:58 PM

Unemployment... blame Charlie

According to ABC News, the 10,000 folks who applied for unemployment last week did so as a result of Hurricane Charlie. That's the lie that was running on the ABC crawler this morning. Probably still there. Never mind that the Census Bureau just released statistics indicating that 36 million Americans, or 12.5 percent of the total US population, now live below the poverty line, up 1/2 percent from last year. Time to get off the boat and get on the bus.

posted by Groom 4:22 PM

Will we be seeing a new term--bagchild?

There's an affecting picture on the front page of msnbc.com (at least, it's there right now) for the story "Deepening Poverty: Ranks of uninsured grow by 1.4 million, Census Bureau says."

How soon before we'll be seeing Bushvilles?

posted by Vicki 2:40 PM

It's starting

Bush trying to position himself as bravely pretending to disavow Kerry ads with help from slut and 2008 GOP presidential candidate John McCain.

This is standard Rovian politics. After two-three weeks of unrelenting attacks on Kerry by Bush surrogates 43 will portray himself as outraged, outraged I tell you, about all these ads by "shadowy" groups. He will group all 527s together, mumble some words about Kerry's honorable service, and the media will credit him with statesmanship and fairplay.

In the meantime, the ads have (1) driven down Kerry's numbers, (2) made Kerry spend money on ads before the GOP convention while they have (3) given the Bush campaign an amazing amount of free publicity in the constant yap about the subject on cable TV and radio. They have (4) virtually made the official Abu-Ghraib report which faults the Pentagon all the way to the top disappear from airwaves and newspapers and (5) distracted Americans from the faltering economy and (6) the continuing carnage in Iraq. Plus, plus, plus.....

And one rhetorical question: when will someone in the mainstream media point out that if there was as strong as connection between Al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein as there is between the SBVFT and the Bush administration the Bushco rationale for going to war in Iraq could have been reasonably argued?

posted by Blackdogred 2:30 PM

Swift Boat Incredulants For Proof

Turns out that -- when backed to the wall -- Swift Boat Nixon hitman John O'Neill does pretty good "nuance," too. From the Associated Press this morning:

During an Oval Office conversation in 1971, John O'Neill tells President Nixon he was in Cambodia in a swift boat during the war — a claim that is at odds with O'Neill's recent statements that he wasn't in the country.

"I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border," O'Neill is heard telling Nixon in a conversation that was taped by the former president's secret recording system. The tape is stored at the National Archives in College Park, Md.

In an interview Wednesday with The Associated Press, O'Neill did not dispute what he said to Nixon on June 16, 1971, but he insisted he was never actually in Cambodia.

"I think I made it very clear that I was on the border, which is exactly where I was for three months," O'Neill said of the conversation. "I was about 100 yards from Cambodia."

* * * * *

In the book [he co-authored "Unfit For Command" -- Regnery White Supremacist Press, 2004], O'Neill wrote that Kerry's accounts of having been in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968 "are complete lies."

He wrote that "Kerry was never ordered into Cambodia by anyone and would have been court-martialed had he gone there."

Uh huh. And that danger of court-martial is surely why O'Neill took great pains -- in that recorded 1971 conversation, directly with his Commander-in-Chief -- to make it crystal-clear precisely where he himself had been in relation to the Vietnamese-Cambodian border. Right!

Glad we cleared that up!

posted by Michael 11:14 AM

Finally, A Protest We Could Get Behind

I had planned to lay in a week's supply of granola, duct tape the windows and catch up on back issues of Foreign Affairs until the Republicans leave but the news that members of a group called Axis of Eve plan to expose their anti-Bush undies next Wednesday night in Battery Park has me reconsidering. Although now officially a dirty old man, visions of "I see England, I see France" are still a motivating force. This being New York, though, I suspect most of those wearing thongs will be men.

posted by Jerry Bowles 9:29 AM

What part of attack politics doesn’t Kerry understand?

John Kerry was out humping the bush yesterday, calling for Lord Rummy to resign over Abu Ghraib… none of the major morning newspapers covered it. If he would have demanded Rummy skedaddle due to the broader failures of the war it’s doubtful that the bigs would have put their ink on it. The bottom line is that Americans love attack politics. It’s like mom and apple pie, and fantasy football… when you’re undecided, do you really want to back a candidate who doesn’t have the knack to attack?

Jerry seems all bent out of shape over the LA Times poll results giving Bu$h his first “lead”, a "lead" that owes itself in part to the Swiftie attacks. But let’s take a closer look at the overall snapshot. The aggregatation formula used by the LA Times poll crew is a basket of recent polling data, and older polling data. Less than 1/3 of the data employed is “fresh.” Some of the polls are conducted by “independent” polling organizations, like Quinnepac. But the majority are conducted by partisan polling companies engaged in the business of retail politics, hired by one political party or another. All of those outfits, including Mason-Dixon, engage in “push polling,” a technique which employs “scientific” polling as cover for slick neurolinguistic programming designed to alter the opinion of a “survey taker.”

To me, the most telling data among the “fresh” results from the LA Times poll postings is that Ralph Nader still has his gloms on 4% in Florida and in New Jersey, and could still win 3% of the popular vote in November (if election is not “postponed”). I'm no fan of Nader. But Ralphie boy being alive and well puts any pollster’s “margin of error” into the deep shit category.

A better time to read ‘em and weep would be a week after the GOP convention. Then we’d have a more accurate snapshot on the 13% who are currently “undecided” in Arizona, the 7% in Washington State, the 9% in Jersey and the 6% in Michigan. This election has never been Kerry’s “to lose” as Jerry suggests. To beat the “champion” the challenger must win decisively, land the knockout punch. Instead, he’s trying to win on points. Maybe by “Labor” Day Sen. Kerry will have brought in an ”attack coach” to teach him how to beat up on his opponent(s). If not, he better start passing out the Snickers bars because, sadly, his campaign and the Dems won’t be going anywhere for a while.

posted by Groom 7:13 AM

To Live And Die in LA

The latest Los Angeles Times poll is out and it's not good news for those of us desperate for a royal flush in November. For the first time this year in a Times survey, Bush leads in the presidential race, drawing 49 percent among registered voters, compared to 46 percent for Kerry. In the last Times Poll, done just before the Democratic convention last month, Kerry was ahead by 2 percentage points.

Yes, I know both results are within the margin of error and the race is too close to call, but Bush is showing small gains in several polls and the overall trend does not look positive. If Shrub comes out of the convention up more than 5% points it may be time to start looking at real estate in Toronto.

What is most dispiriting about all this is that Bush is so beatable. If the Democrats can't defeat the man who has launched a disasterous, deadly and unnecessary war, wrecked the economy, bankrupted future generations as far as the eye can see, and made it impossible for Americans to travel anywhere in the world without being spit on, or worse, who can they beat?

Don't tell me about all the money Kerry's raised or the big crowds or blame the decline on the fact that the Bushies aren't playing fair. This was Kerry's race to lose and, from where I sit, it sure looks like he's doing a hell of a good job of it.

posted by Jerry Bowles 12:02 AM

Wednesday, August 25, 2004