is probably justice denied, as this New York Times editorial points out. Attorney General John Ashcroft has at long last recused himself from the investigation surrounding the Wilson/Plame incident, conceding what all rational observers already knew: Mr. Ashcroft's political interests are simply too closely tied to the Bush administration to allow him to conduct a fair and impartial inquiry. A special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald was swiftly appointed by Deputy Attorney James Comey. The New York Times:
"We may never know what damage was caused by Mr. Ashcroft's delay of nearly two months in taking the proper action."
Indeed.
12.31.2003
12.30.2003
Shoveldad
Monday afternoon was warm and clear, the kind of North Carolina winter's day that you think just can't get any more beautiful. But it did. My daughter, Emma Cassidy, was born around 4:15 p.m. Somewhere between the sound of her first cry and the look on my wife's face, I forgot all about the weather. And everything else for that matter.
They didn't get the memo...
OOOPS!! Consumer confidence slips in December.
You see, that's what happens when the media distorts and lies so much that people stop believing what they see and read --- when you have good news to overinflate into a supposed "recovery", the people ignore it!
You see, that's what happens when the media distorts and lies so much that people stop believing what they see and read --- when you have good news to overinflate into a supposed "recovery", the people ignore it!
12.28.2003
What the Hell?!?
Via Atrios, we have this link to Dubyaspeak, and this totally incoherent clip from Dim Son. "Peeance, freeance"?? Kinda ties in to this previously posted ad, doesn't it?
"You put a gun in my hands. . ."
Tristero has had a run on good posts recently, and you should read 'em all. In particular, read his piece on foreign "policy" ala Wolfowitz.
It's good, and he's put some thought into the origins of Wolfowitz' naivety.
When I finished reading it, I realized I was humming Bob Dylan's "Masters of War."
It's good, and he's put some thought into the origins of Wolfowitz' naivety.
When I finished reading it, I realized I was humming Bob Dylan's "Masters of War."
Monkey Musings
DrFrankLives' occasional debate partner, Todd Morman, has a righteous rant about our bottom-feeding media over at Monkeytime that's well worth a read, even though I'm three weeks late in finding it. Go check it out.
12.26.2003
"Its Bonkers, its Insane"
So says a former senior US Intelligence official, referring to the fact that the Bush administration has now hired Israel to train US assassination squads in Iraq. Quoted by Julian Borger in the Guardian, this former official commented further:
"This is basically an assassination programme. That is what is being conceptualised here. This is a hunter-killer team . . . It is bonkers, insane. Here we are - we're already being compared to Sharon in the Arab world, and we've just confirmed it by bringing in the Israelis and setting up assassination teams."
Also quoted was Brigadier General Michael Vane, who, as reported by Borger, discussed the topic in correspondence to Army magazine earlier this year:
"We recently travelled to Israel to glean lessons learned from their counterterrorist operations in urban areas," wrote General Vane, deputy chief of staff at the army's training and doctrine command.
Colonel Ralph Peters, a former army intelligence officer and a critic of Pentagon policy in Iraq, said yesterday there was nothing wrong with learning lessons wherever possible.
"When we turn to anyone for insights, it doesn't mean we blindly accept it," Col Peters said. "But I think what you're seeing is a new realism. The American tendency is to try to win all the hearts and minds. In Iraq, there are just some hearts and minds you can't win. Within the bounds of human rights, if you do make an example of certain villages it gets the attention of the others, and attacks have gone down in the area."
When, exactly, is it “within the bounds of human rights” to “make an example of “an entire village? Well, “Never,” according to some, and even as the US considers the adoption of Israeli tactics, such tactics are under fire from within Israel's own armed forces. A number of Israeli Black Hawk helicopter and F-16 fighter pilots were recently ousted form the prestigious Israeli air force for refusing to carry out orders which involved the killing of civilians and writing a letter detailing the reasons for their refusal. Said one such pilot, "You hear it in the streets of Israel; people want revenge. But we should not behave like that. We are not a mafia."
The triggering event for these pilots was last years Israeli bombing of the home of Hamas military leader, Salah Shehade, which killed him and 14 members of his family, including 9 children.
From a December 3, 2003 article in The Guardian comes this report, including quotes from Israeli pilots involved:
"I served more than seven years as a pilot," said Captain Alon R, who, like all the younger pilots, hopes to return to combat flying and so declines to use his full name in order to retain his security clearance. "In the beginning, we were pilots who believed our country would do all it could to achieve peace. We believed in the purity of our arms and that we did all we could to prevent unnecessary loss of life.
"Somewhere in the last few years it became harder and harder to believe that is the case."
One captain described the bombing as deliberate killing, murder even. Another called it state terrorism, though some colleagues swiftly stomped on that interpretation. But they all agreed that the attack sowed the doubts that resulted a year later in the letter that sent shockwaves through the Israeli military.
"The Shehade incident was a red light for us, a final warning," said Capt Alon R. "With Shehade I began to re-evaluate my beliefs. We killed 14 innocent people, nine of them children. After my commander gave an interview in which he said he sleeps well at night and his men can do the same. Well, I can't. We refused to see it as an innocent mistake."
Capt Assaf L, who served as a pilot for 15 years until sacked for signing the letter, had similar doubts.
"You don't have to be a genius to know that the destruction from a one-tonne bomb is massive, so someone up there made a decision to drop it knowing it would destroy buildings," he said. "Someone took the decision to kill innocent people. This is us being terrorists. This is vengeance."
Lieutenant-Colonel Avner Raanan is among the most respected pilots to have signed the letter. He served for 27 years and was awarded one of Israel's highest military decorations in 1994. "If you look at the past three years, you see that, if we had a suicide bombing, the Israeli air force made a big operation in which civilians were killed, and that looks to innocent eyes like revenge," he said.
At its core, the letter questions the legality of the "targeted assassinations" that have claimed the lives of more civilian bystanders than their Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade targets. In October, 14 civilians were killed when the air force fired missiles at a car in Gaza's Nuseirat refugee camp.
"Is it legitimate to take F-15's and helicopters designed to destroy enemy tanks, and use them against cars and houses in one of the most heavily populated places in the world?" Capt Alon R asked.
Oblivious to this controversy, the US has brought Israeli specialists to train US Special Forces at Fort Bragg, NC, and according to Borger’s article, “US special forces teams are already behind the lines inside Syria attempting to kill foreign jihadists before they cross the border, and a group focused on the "neutralisation" of guerrilla leaders is being set up, according to sources familiar with the operations.”
On the Israeli side, Israel admits that it has shared information with the US about its West Bank and Gaza operations, but demurs regarding involvement with the US in Iraq. The Guardian quotes an Israeli official as follows:
"When we do activities, the US military attaches in Tel Aviv are interested. I assume it's the same as the British. That's the way allies work. The special forces come to our people and say, do debrief on an operation we have done," the official said.
"Does it affect Iraq? It's not in our interest or the American interest or in anyone's interest to go into that. It would just fit in with jihadist prejudices."
As if generalized “jihadist prejudices” weren’t enough, Borger reports that one of those involved in the planning of this offensive is Lieutenant General William "Jerry" Boykin, who has generated controversy with his recent comments characterizing the Iraqi conflict in religious terms, and by stating that the US was “at war with Satan.” I suppose than when your enemy is the devil himself, the deaths of civilians, even children are more easily justified.
"This is basically an assassination programme. That is what is being conceptualised here. This is a hunter-killer team . . . It is bonkers, insane. Here we are - we're already being compared to Sharon in the Arab world, and we've just confirmed it by bringing in the Israelis and setting up assassination teams."
Also quoted was Brigadier General Michael Vane, who, as reported by Borger, discussed the topic in correspondence to Army magazine earlier this year:
"We recently travelled to Israel to glean lessons learned from their counterterrorist operations in urban areas," wrote General Vane, deputy chief of staff at the army's training and doctrine command.
Colonel Ralph Peters, a former army intelligence officer and a critic of Pentagon policy in Iraq, said yesterday there was nothing wrong with learning lessons wherever possible.
"When we turn to anyone for insights, it doesn't mean we blindly accept it," Col Peters said. "But I think what you're seeing is a new realism. The American tendency is to try to win all the hearts and minds. In Iraq, there are just some hearts and minds you can't win. Within the bounds of human rights, if you do make an example of certain villages it gets the attention of the others, and attacks have gone down in the area."
When, exactly, is it “within the bounds of human rights” to “make an example of “an entire village? Well, “Never,” according to some, and even as the US considers the adoption of Israeli tactics, such tactics are under fire from within Israel's own armed forces. A number of Israeli Black Hawk helicopter and F-16 fighter pilots were recently ousted form the prestigious Israeli air force for refusing to carry out orders which involved the killing of civilians and writing a letter detailing the reasons for their refusal. Said one such pilot, "You hear it in the streets of Israel; people want revenge. But we should not behave like that. We are not a mafia."
The triggering event for these pilots was last years Israeli bombing of the home of Hamas military leader, Salah Shehade, which killed him and 14 members of his family, including 9 children.
From a December 3, 2003 article in The Guardian comes this report, including quotes from Israeli pilots involved:
"I served more than seven years as a pilot," said Captain Alon R, who, like all the younger pilots, hopes to return to combat flying and so declines to use his full name in order to retain his security clearance. "In the beginning, we were pilots who believed our country would do all it could to achieve peace. We believed in the purity of our arms and that we did all we could to prevent unnecessary loss of life.
"Somewhere in the last few years it became harder and harder to believe that is the case."
One captain described the bombing as deliberate killing, murder even. Another called it state terrorism, though some colleagues swiftly stomped on that interpretation. But they all agreed that the attack sowed the doubts that resulted a year later in the letter that sent shockwaves through the Israeli military.
"The Shehade incident was a red light for us, a final warning," said Capt Alon R. "With Shehade I began to re-evaluate my beliefs. We killed 14 innocent people, nine of them children. After my commander gave an interview in which he said he sleeps well at night and his men can do the same. Well, I can't. We refused to see it as an innocent mistake."
Capt Assaf L, who served as a pilot for 15 years until sacked for signing the letter, had similar doubts.
"You don't have to be a genius to know that the destruction from a one-tonne bomb is massive, so someone up there made a decision to drop it knowing it would destroy buildings," he said. "Someone took the decision to kill innocent people. This is us being terrorists. This is vengeance."
Lieutenant-Colonel Avner Raanan is among the most respected pilots to have signed the letter. He served for 27 years and was awarded one of Israel's highest military decorations in 1994. "If you look at the past three years, you see that, if we had a suicide bombing, the Israeli air force made a big operation in which civilians were killed, and that looks to innocent eyes like revenge," he said.
At its core, the letter questions the legality of the "targeted assassinations" that have claimed the lives of more civilian bystanders than their Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade targets. In October, 14 civilians were killed when the air force fired missiles at a car in Gaza's Nuseirat refugee camp.
"Is it legitimate to take F-15's and helicopters designed to destroy enemy tanks, and use them against cars and houses in one of the most heavily populated places in the world?" Capt Alon R asked.
Oblivious to this controversy, the US has brought Israeli specialists to train US Special Forces at Fort Bragg, NC, and according to Borger’s article, “US special forces teams are already behind the lines inside Syria attempting to kill foreign jihadists before they cross the border, and a group focused on the "neutralisation" of guerrilla leaders is being set up, according to sources familiar with the operations.”
On the Israeli side, Israel admits that it has shared information with the US about its West Bank and Gaza operations, but demurs regarding involvement with the US in Iraq. The Guardian quotes an Israeli official as follows:
"When we do activities, the US military attaches in Tel Aviv are interested. I assume it's the same as the British. That's the way allies work. The special forces come to our people and say, do debrief on an operation we have done," the official said.
"Does it affect Iraq? It's not in our interest or the American interest or in anyone's interest to go into that. It would just fit in with jihadist prejudices."
As if generalized “jihadist prejudices” weren’t enough, Borger reports that one of those involved in the planning of this offensive is Lieutenant General William "Jerry" Boykin, who has generated controversy with his recent comments characterizing the Iraqi conflict in religious terms, and by stating that the US was “at war with Satan.” I suppose than when your enemy is the devil himself, the deaths of civilians, even children are more easily justified.
My New Hero(ine), AL Kennedy
Yes, he's a Brit, and yes, this is from the Guardian, so get over it already. Then read the piece. It's an entertaining and sadly accurate critique of the duplicity and dishonesty that characterizes the Bush administration's foreign policy. I think you'll agree, Kennedy nails this one.
CORRECTION: Gaffer notes in the comments section that it's A.L. Kennedy, not Al, and that "he" is actually a "she." Ooops. I really should have known that, shouldn't I?
CORRECTION: Gaffer notes in the comments section that it's A.L. Kennedy, not Al, and that "he" is actually a "she." Ooops. I really should have known that, shouldn't I?
New Year's Resolutions
Paul Krugman lists his suggested resolutions for political reporters in 2004.
They're good.
Don't hold your breath.
They're good.
Don't hold your breath.
12.24.2003
Top Ten Dumb Guy Comments About ROTK
This is from Letterman, by way of The One Ring.Net . Number 1 is the pay off.
Good luck Shoveldog
From what Shoveldog told me the other day, the impending arrival of shovelbaby is not too far away. Three bloggers, three kids under 2 1/2. We need to get together and watch them all destroy something!
Shoveldog, I'll give you the same advice I gave the Zombie - WEAR COMFORTABLE SHOES - you will be standing on a hard floor for about 10 hours, and none of the women in the room, including the physician, will give a crap about your shin splints.
Enjoy it. And take pictures. I've got a great one, that only my wife and I have ever seen, of little man's first yell. You're going to be absolutely amazed at your wife's strength. Just be there for her and hang on for the ride, because there is nothing like it in the world.
Congratulations, and Merry Christmas.
Shoveldog, I'll give you the same advice I gave the Zombie - WEAR COMFORTABLE SHOES - you will be standing on a hard floor for about 10 hours, and none of the women in the room, including the physician, will give a crap about your shin splints.
Enjoy it. And take pictures. I've got a great one, that only my wife and I have ever seen, of little man's first yell. You're going to be absolutely amazed at your wife's strength. Just be there for her and hang on for the ride, because there is nothing like it in the world.
Congratulations, and Merry Christmas.
Salon Magazine occasionally kicks ass
Check out the image on that story. Perfect.
Once I get home, I'll host that image from my other website, and I'll post it here. But until then, click away.
And Merry Christmas. Enjoy your families.
Once I get home, I'll host that image from my other website, and I'll post it here. But until then, click away.
And Merry Christmas. Enjoy your families.
12.23.2003
Seriously.
Sorry, DrFrankLives, yours was funny, but this one's funnier.
Seriously.
(link via Notes From Atlanta)
Seriously.
(link via Notes From Atlanta)
It's Different Over There. . .
While "I'm moving to Canada" has been the frequent refrain of many a stateside blogger in response to the mounting embarrassments and outrages of the Bush administration, as I think I've noted before, I would have to opt for Britain. Yes, I'm a confessed anglophile, a longtime admirer of all things British: British humor, writing, music, beer, and even British food, particularly pub fare. Some of the most interesting people I've ever met are members of a local group of British expatriots who call themselves "The Lost Colony," and some of the most memorable events of my life occurred on a trip to the Lake District to scatter the ashes of a dear friend's father at a small church in his beloved Wastwater.
I link to British news media at least weekly, and this week, my favorite newspaper, the Guardian announces its picks for best blogs in The Best of British Blogging.
While my previous links to British blogs have been along the lines of Bare Your Bum at Bush, the list you'll find here includes a broader, much less political, range of blogs, all of which are worth a read. It's different over there.
I link to British news media at least weekly, and this week, my favorite newspaper, the Guardian announces its picks for best blogs in The Best of British Blogging.
While my previous links to British blogs have been along the lines of Bare Your Bum at Bush, the list you'll find here includes a broader, much less political, range of blogs, all of which are worth a read. It's different over there.
12.22.2003
Tort Reform, the Media, and Urban Legends
This one is a must read. While most of us realize the involvement of the insurance industry in the "tort reform" movement, Dwight Meredith of Wampum does a brilliant job of exposing the complicity of the media. Best piece I've seen on the subject, and one of the best pieces I've seen recently on any subject.
12.19.2003
Best of the MoveOn Ads
Check this one out - It's called "What are we teaching our children?"
Brilliant. Simple, non-professional, clear. The kids are priceless.
If the link is broken, do yourself a favor, join MoveOn and view the ads.
Brilliant. Simple, non-professional, clear. The kids are priceless.
If the link is broken, do yourself a favor, join MoveOn and view the ads.
12.18.2003
Players' Union Right To Block A-Rod Trade
The much-discussed trade between the Rangers and Bosox (Alex Rodriguez for Manny Ramirez - baseball's two highest paid players) is officially dead. The baseball players union stepped in and blocked the deal for violating the collective bargaining agreement. Most of the media - and the Boston Red Sox - have been extremely critical of the union. The subject article provides an alternative perspective that seems quite sensible to me -- then again, I'm a die-hard Yankees fan : )
12.16.2003
"This is not America"
If you're in need of a little blood-boiling, read this article from Salon about the "police riots" in Miami recently. Sickening.
12.14.2003
Why the Heisman is a joke
Slate's Allen Barra has a great take on why Philip Rivers was a more worthy candidate for "most outstanding player" than Jason White and why the Heisman is a crock (although at least Larry "Kent State, Ball State, Texas A&M, Rutgers, and Temple" Fitzgerald didn't win).
Saddam Hussein Captured In Iraq
DNA tests confirm that Saddam Hussein is in US custody, hours after being discovered in a "spider hole" near Tikrit. The BBC story linked above is probably the only objective coverage of the capture that you will find, as CNN and other mainstream media outlets are already treating this major news event as nothing more than a lead-in to discussions of the 2004 presidential campagns. I'm tempted to do the same, but I'm going to restrain myself, at least until I see how the administration handles Bush's noontime address to the nation. Then I'll make my prediction as to how a captive Saddam will be used to "justify" the administration's WMD claims.
12.13.2003
I told you this was coming. . .
When Atrios announced that Monday, December 15th would be "Write Like Nedra Pickler Day" , he failed to mention that he, his readers, and the Democratic Party as a whole, seek nothing less than the complete destruction of America and indeed, of life as we know it.
One Upmanship
"Worst wire story ever printed?" Probably, but right back atcha: Take that, DrFrankLives. Same author, different day, same GOP bullshit. What editor is letting this excrement make it into print?
By the way, Atrios is your headquarters for all things Nedra. Check out the last paragraph in this post. I foresee a wave of "Nedra Pickler versions' appearing throughout the blogosphere. It would be really funny if it weren't so scary.
By the way, Atrios is your headquarters for all things Nedra. Check out the last paragraph in this post. I foresee a wave of "Nedra Pickler versions' appearing throughout the blogosphere. It would be really funny if it weren't so scary.
12.12.2003
When Republicans Attack. . .
David Neiwert brought my attention to the recent GOP ad, "When Democrats Attack" which prompted my rant here, and which was notable largely because the spectacle ofDemocrats actually attacking anything with conviction is so rare these days that it invites comment. Republicans, on the other hand, attack so frequently, especially on a personal level, that a new attack rarely warrants anything other than a yawn. Unless, of course they're attacking Bush.
Yeah, you heard me right, and I realize I'm a little late on this one, but I finally read a story whose headline on Truthout.org which caught my attention several weeks ago, and I'm glad I did. Penned by Doug Bandow for The American Conservative, the article includes the following:
". . . this president deserves to be criticized. Sharply. By anyone who believes in limited, constitutional government. First, George W. Bush, despite laudable personal and family characteristics, is remarkably incurious and ill read. Gut instincts can carry even a gifted politician only so far. And a lack of knowledge leaves him vulnerable to simplistic remedies to complex problems, especially when it comes to turning America into the globe’s governess.
Second, despite occasional exceptions, the Bush administration, backed by the Republican-controlled Congress, has been promoting larger government at almost every turn. Its spending policies have been irresponsible, and its trade strategies have been destructive. The president has been quite willing to sell out the national interest for perceived political gain, whether the votes sought are from seniors or farmers. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 encouraged the administration to push into law civil-liberties restrictions that should worry anyone, whether they are wielded by a Bush or a Clinton administration.
The president and his aides have given imperiousness new meaning. Officials are apparently incapable of acknowledging that their pre-war assertions about Iraq’s WMD capabilities were incorrect; indeed, they resent that the president is being questioned about his administration’s claims before the war. They are unwilling to accept a role for Congress in deciding how much aid money to spend.
Some of Bush’s supporters have been even worse, charging critics with a lack of patriotism. Not to genuflect at the president’s every decision is treason. In two decades of criticizing liberal politicians and positions, I have rarely endured the vitriol that was routinely spewed by conservatives when I argued against war with Iraq over the last year. Conservative papers stopped running my column; conservative Web sites removed it from their archives. That was their right, of course, but they demonstrated that it was not just the Clintons who were fair-weather friends.
Third, President George W. Bush has made Woodrow Wilson the guiding spirit of Republican foreign policy. A candidate who criticized nation building is now pursuing global social engineering. The representative of a party that once criticized foreign aid is now pushing lavish U.S. social spending abroad, demanding that it be a gift rather than a loan.
And the administration has advanced a doctrine of pre-emption that encourages war for allegedly humanitarian ends. Attempting to justify the Iraqi war retrospectively by pointing to Saddam Hussein’s manifold crimes, the president apparently believes he may attack any nation to advance human rights. Ironically, the Bush administration has adopted as its policy the question posed by then UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright to then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell: what’s the use of having this fine military you keep talking about if we don’t use it?
The negative practical consequences of this policy are all too evident. Ugly foreign governments from Iran to North Korea have an incentive to arm themselves, quickly, with WMD to deter a U.S. preventive assault.
Iraq has become a magnet for terrorist attacks while becoming a long-term dependent under U.S. military occupation.
Anger towards—indeed, hatred of—Washington is likely to continue growing, even in once friendly nations. It will be difficult to maintain an imperial foreign policy with a volunteer military."
When do you think we'll hear Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly call Bandow a traitor? A treasonous surrender monkey? Don't hold your breath.
Yeah, you heard me right, and I realize I'm a little late on this one, but I finally read a story whose headline on Truthout.org which caught my attention several weeks ago, and I'm glad I did. Penned by Doug Bandow for The American Conservative, the article includes the following:
". . . this president deserves to be criticized. Sharply. By anyone who believes in limited, constitutional government. First, George W. Bush, despite laudable personal and family characteristics, is remarkably incurious and ill read. Gut instincts can carry even a gifted politician only so far. And a lack of knowledge leaves him vulnerable to simplistic remedies to complex problems, especially when it comes to turning America into the globe’s governess.
Second, despite occasional exceptions, the Bush administration, backed by the Republican-controlled Congress, has been promoting larger government at almost every turn. Its spending policies have been irresponsible, and its trade strategies have been destructive. The president has been quite willing to sell out the national interest for perceived political gain, whether the votes sought are from seniors or farmers. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 encouraged the administration to push into law civil-liberties restrictions that should worry anyone, whether they are wielded by a Bush or a Clinton administration.
The president and his aides have given imperiousness new meaning. Officials are apparently incapable of acknowledging that their pre-war assertions about Iraq’s WMD capabilities were incorrect; indeed, they resent that the president is being questioned about his administration’s claims before the war. They are unwilling to accept a role for Congress in deciding how much aid money to spend.
Some of Bush’s supporters have been even worse, charging critics with a lack of patriotism. Not to genuflect at the president’s every decision is treason. In two decades of criticizing liberal politicians and positions, I have rarely endured the vitriol that was routinely spewed by conservatives when I argued against war with Iraq over the last year. Conservative papers stopped running my column; conservative Web sites removed it from their archives. That was their right, of course, but they demonstrated that it was not just the Clintons who were fair-weather friends.
Third, President George W. Bush has made Woodrow Wilson the guiding spirit of Republican foreign policy. A candidate who criticized nation building is now pursuing global social engineering. The representative of a party that once criticized foreign aid is now pushing lavish U.S. social spending abroad, demanding that it be a gift rather than a loan.
And the administration has advanced a doctrine of pre-emption that encourages war for allegedly humanitarian ends. Attempting to justify the Iraqi war retrospectively by pointing to Saddam Hussein’s manifold crimes, the president apparently believes he may attack any nation to advance human rights. Ironically, the Bush administration has adopted as its policy the question posed by then UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright to then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell: what’s the use of having this fine military you keep talking about if we don’t use it?
The negative practical consequences of this policy are all too evident. Ugly foreign governments from Iran to North Korea have an incentive to arm themselves, quickly, with WMD to deter a U.S. preventive assault.
Iraq has become a magnet for terrorist attacks while becoming a long-term dependent under U.S. military occupation.
Anger towards—indeed, hatred of—Washington is likely to continue growing, even in once friendly nations. It will be difficult to maintain an imperial foreign policy with a volunteer military."
When do you think we'll hear Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly call Bandow a traitor? A treasonous surrender monkey? Don't hold your breath.
Dazed and Confused
He doesn't use those words, but that's the gist of Bob Herbert's NY Times OpEd regarding the current state of the Democratic party. Read it. It's good. You'll see some familiar, over-used expressions, like "circular firing squad", but there are also new, and in my mind, accurate descriptors of the Democratic party, the most resonant of which is this zinger: "It's a party for the faint of heart." As Herbert points out, the Dems have the moral high ground on just about every issue, but "are too timid to take advantage of it." Amen, brother.
Herbert is right when he says that the Right is laughing at the Gore/Dean tempest-in-a-teapot, and he is damn dead-on right when he argues that if the Dems lose in 2004, it won't be because of the nominee, whoever that might be, but rather, because the party has cowered, floundered, and has lost its focus:
"To regain control of the White House, the Democrats need to give voters, who are frightened by terrorism and disoriented by the pace of 21st-century events, new reasons to hope. That can only be done by a thoughtful, united, energized and creative party. A party with a plan and a ferocious will to win."
Accurate, but unnecessarily tactful. What the Democrats need is balls. Balls to stand up to the GOP, call a lie a lie and not back down. Quit cowering from the rabid right wing pundits, go on the offensive, and don't worry about being criticized for negative rhetoric. The Democrats need the guts to stand up and speak the truth with the same conviction that the Republicans employ for their lies. How hard can it be? We're the ones telling the truth here. The confidence and smugness of Fox News, the dismissive attitude of Bush administration spokespersons, the smirks from W, all of which infuriate the left, put the Dems on the defensive when what they should be doing is watching and learning. The fact that a man like George W. Bush could be groomed enough to even look like a candidate for president should tell us something about the importance of packaging. Herbert calls it a "will to win." The Dems have the issues, they have competent candidates, they have the facts. Now if they could just grow a set of cojones.
Herbert is right when he says that the Right is laughing at the Gore/Dean tempest-in-a-teapot, and he is damn dead-on right when he argues that if the Dems lose in 2004, it won't be because of the nominee, whoever that might be, but rather, because the party has cowered, floundered, and has lost its focus:
"To regain control of the White House, the Democrats need to give voters, who are frightened by terrorism and disoriented by the pace of 21st-century events, new reasons to hope. That can only be done by a thoughtful, united, energized and creative party. A party with a plan and a ferocious will to win."
Accurate, but unnecessarily tactful. What the Democrats need is balls. Balls to stand up to the GOP, call a lie a lie and not back down. Quit cowering from the rabid right wing pundits, go on the offensive, and don't worry about being criticized for negative rhetoric. The Democrats need the guts to stand up and speak the truth with the same conviction that the Republicans employ for their lies. How hard can it be? We're the ones telling the truth here. The confidence and smugness of Fox News, the dismissive attitude of Bush administration spokespersons, the smirks from W, all of which infuriate the left, put the Dems on the defensive when what they should be doing is watching and learning. The fact that a man like George W. Bush could be groomed enough to even look like a candidate for president should tell us something about the importance of packaging. Herbert calls it a "will to win." The Dems have the issues, they have competent candidates, they have the facts. Now if they could just grow a set of cojones.
12.11.2003
The court case that could reshape US democracy
AKA Veith et al v. Jubelirer: the Gerrymandering Case. The Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday on this important case dealing with partisan redistricting in Pennsylvania. Given this situation in PA and the nonsense that went on in Texas, it's apparent that something needs to be done about this systemic problem. Unfortunately, the Dems are probably just as much to blame. Here's hoping that the Robed Nine see the forest for the trees. Strange that the first reasonable in-depth article I found on this subject comes from the UK....
Rivers Not Invited To Heisman Ceremony
Four Heisman Trophy finalists have been named (White, Fitzgerald, Manning, Perry) and invited to NYC for the Awards Ceremony. Philip Rivers was not one of them (my guess is that he came in fifth). This is a travesty, but no matter: I'm confident Rivers will have a successful NFL career. FYI, as an NC State fan I am clearly biased, but I am merely arguing that Rivers has done enough to deserve an invite to NYC.
Winning the Heisman might be mixed blessing for Jason White though. Consider the following:
- only four Heisman winners currently start for NFL Teams:
Ricky Williams, RB, Miami Dolphins (1998)
Charles Woodson, CB, Oakland Raiders (1997)
Eddie George, RB, Tennessee Titans (1995)
Doug Flutie, QB, San Diego Chargers (1984)
- since 1960, quarterbacks have won the Heisman seventeen times - only Flutie is a current NFL starter and only Roger Staubach, Jim Plunkett and Vinnie Testaverde have had successful NFL careers.
Almost every Heisman winner has come from a top team (the award is really for the best player in the country that plays for an elite team). And that's not unreasonable. But the conventional wisdom is that Heisman-winning QB's lead their teams to elite status. Given their utter lack of success in the NFL over the past 20 years, is it possible that Heisman-winning quarterbacks are instead carried to victory by outstanding team play?
Winning the Heisman might be mixed blessing for Jason White though. Consider the following:
- only four Heisman winners currently start for NFL Teams:
Ricky Williams, RB, Miami Dolphins (1998)
Charles Woodson, CB, Oakland Raiders (1997)
Eddie George, RB, Tennessee Titans (1995)
Doug Flutie, QB, San Diego Chargers (1984)
- since 1960, quarterbacks have won the Heisman seventeen times - only Flutie is a current NFL starter and only Roger Staubach, Jim Plunkett and Vinnie Testaverde have had successful NFL careers.
Almost every Heisman winner has come from a top team (the award is really for the best player in the country that plays for an elite team). And that's not unreasonable. But the conventional wisdom is that Heisman-winning QB's lead their teams to elite status. Given their utter lack of success in the NFL over the past 20 years, is it possible that Heisman-winning quarterbacks are instead carried to victory by outstanding team play?
Dean wants to militarize space
(cross posted on my dailykos diary page)
Dean is tacking right before he ever wins the nomination.
This from Political Wire:
The attempt to moderate Howard Dean's image has begun. While the Democratic front-runner is "known to many voters as a staunch opponent of the Iraq war," he "enthusiastically supports missile defense development and declines to back a proposal to ban weapons in space," the Los Angeles Times reports.
How many such stories will it take before the liberals now backing Dean realize they've been had? The funny thing is, such comments won't change the Bush campaign against Dean, which wil be $250 million dollars worth of "LIBERAL LIBERAL GAY LOVING VERMONT LIBERAL TAX AND SPEND LIBERAL WEIRDO COMMIE WOOLY HEADED LIBERAL LIBERAL" That's a campaign they can't run against John Edwards. John will make them spend money in Georgia and North Carolina. On August 16th, if Dean is the nominee, whatever he is saying now, the Democratic Party will effectively abandon everything south of DC and East of Missouri.
But the fact remains - Dean is NOT a liberal - he's hardly progressive. His current incarnation is very dissimilar to the guy that governed Vermont. (Which is, by the way, effectively the mayorship of a very white mid-size city. Would you elect the mayor of Salt Lake City to the Presidency?) Tying this into Shoveldog's post below - unlike Dean, Edwards is NOT the product of a staff. He's the real deal - you can't credit his policies without crediting him.
Even Clinton wasn't for weapons in space. Remember Clinton, the guy the left thought took the Democratic Party too far to the right? Yeah, well, Howard Dean, as I have been saying since day one, makes Clinton look like Nader.
Dean is tacking right before he ever wins the nomination.
This from Political Wire:
The attempt to moderate Howard Dean's image has begun. While the Democratic front-runner is "known to many voters as a staunch opponent of the Iraq war," he "enthusiastically supports missile defense development and declines to back a proposal to ban weapons in space," the Los Angeles Times reports.
How many such stories will it take before the liberals now backing Dean realize they've been had? The funny thing is, such comments won't change the Bush campaign against Dean, which wil be $250 million dollars worth of "LIBERAL LIBERAL GAY LOVING VERMONT LIBERAL TAX AND SPEND LIBERAL WEIRDO COMMIE WOOLY HEADED LIBERAL LIBERAL" That's a campaign they can't run against John Edwards. John will make them spend money in Georgia and North Carolina. On August 16th, if Dean is the nominee, whatever he is saying now, the Democratic Party will effectively abandon everything south of DC and East of Missouri.
But the fact remains - Dean is NOT a liberal - he's hardly progressive. His current incarnation is very dissimilar to the guy that governed Vermont. (Which is, by the way, effectively the mayorship of a very white mid-size city. Would you elect the mayor of Salt Lake City to the Presidency?) Tying this into Shoveldog's post below - unlike Dean, Edwards is NOT the product of a staff. He's the real deal - you can't credit his policies without crediting him.
Even Clinton wasn't for weapons in space. Remember Clinton, the guy the left thought took the Democratic Party too far to the right? Yeah, well, Howard Dean, as I have been saying since day one, makes Clinton look like Nader.
12.10.2003
Finally Somebody Notices
Matthew Yglesias has actually read John Edwards' issues page, and he links to it in a post entitled "Damn He's Smart." Yes, Matt, he is, and he's articulate, and he's electable, and a lot of us have been saying that to anyone who will listen for months now.
Matt also says: When and if Howard Dean gets around to hiring a policy staff (at a minimum, after winning the election) he should think about hiring whoever wrote this stuff.
Hmmm. I think I'll let DrFrankLives respond to that one.
Matt also says: When and if Howard Dean gets around to hiring a policy staff (at a minimum, after winning the election) he should think about hiring whoever wrote this stuff.
Hmmm. I think I'll let DrFrankLives respond to that one.
12.09.2003
CNN/AP transcribe RNC Press Release
For fair use, I am reprinting large swaths of this story, because it is the most blatant sock puppetry I have ever seen. The AP "reporter" who wrote this story did nothing but repeat the RNC talking points he or she or it was fed before the debate. There is no way the piece of lichen that wrote this story could have actually listened. Check this out:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The nine Democratic presidential candidates criticized President Bush's record on the economy and fighting terrorism in their debate Tuesday night in New Hampshire, but some of their jabs left out important facts.
Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut declared it would take a Democratic president to "get this economy going," but the economy has been gaining momentum over the last several months since Bush's second tax cut took effect. (Debate story) [edit - can you believe that one!? Bush's tax cut has turned the economy around?]
Weekly claims for unemployment insurance have fallen since April, and economic growth and productivity in the third-quarter reached 20-year highs.
Two of the candidates used a favorite attack line against Bush, but their statements also ignored the improving economy.
Lieberman said "3.5 million people have lost their jobs." Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean twice cited the 3 million jobs lost under Bush.
It is true that about 3 million jobs were lost during the early months of the Bush presidency.
But that trend has been reversing for several months as the jobless rate has dropped from a peak of 6.4 percent in June to 5.9 percent last month.
Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a University of Pennsylvania professor who studies political rhetoric, said the debate was filled with hyperbole and exaggeration typical of candidates trying to unseat an incumbent president.
"If you were trying to get facts from this debate, you are going to get confused," Jamieson said.
"You have the party out of power exaggerating the negative impact of the administration and ignoring the positive impact."
Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry got off the mark when he told a story about a New Hampshire couple.
As he told it, Lisa and Randy Denuccio can't drink their water or take showers because they live next to a lake that is contaminated with the gasoline additive MTBE.
But in a telephone interview Tuesday night, Lisa Denuccio said the couple now showers with the water from their town rather than the old polluted well.
This one reeks of Ceci Connolly's hatchet jobs on Al Gore. Ignore the point of the story - pollution is endemic and the government is ignoring it at the behest of contributors, and nitpick to make the candidate look like a liar over a minor point.
"We can't do without that," she said of the showers. However, she says they still drink bottled water.
Several of the nine Democrats attacked the tax cuts Bush pushed through Congress.
But none mentioned that Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who has served both Republican and Democratic presidents, has cited those cuts as a reason for the recent growth of the economy.
North Carolina Sen. John Edwards boasted that he does not take money from Washington lobbyists because they have too much influence on politics.
But he neglected to mention that his campaign manager, Nick Baldick, has been a registered lobbyist with clients like Blue Cross-Blue Shield and Burger King.
Well, he didn't say he had a staff of complete amateurs. He said he has never taken money from Washington lobbysits or PACS. This is reporting?
On foreign policy, Wesley Clark and Dean accused Bush of "not fighting terrorism."
Although al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden remains at large, the administration's war has substantially thinned the ranks of the terror network, including the arrest of September 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.
The administration also has thwarted dozens of attacks through increased cooperation with allies.
On the Iraq front, Dean declared, "I think we need to bring in foreign troops," suggesting Americans have been going it alone.
While some big Western allies, like Germany and France, have refused to provide troops for Iraq, the campaign has received thousands of troops from the likes of Britain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Hungary, Denmark and Ukraine.
Can you spot the administration talking point here?
NATO countries have sent about 24,000 soldiers, compared to 130,000 U.S. troops.
Clark said it was a "strategic blunder" to go to war with Iraq, but in the past he has said he would have voted for the resolution authorizing Bush to launch military strikes against Saddam Hussein.
Even Ted Koppel, the ABC newsman who moderated the debate, waded into the gray area of truth when he declared that Dean had raised more money than anyone in the campaign.
While Dean's $25 million through September tops the Democratic field, it is dwarfed by the more than $100 million Bush has already raised as a Republican with no primary opponent.
THis could be the worst wire story ever printed. Seriously.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The nine Democratic presidential candidates criticized President Bush's record on the economy and fighting terrorism in their debate Tuesday night in New Hampshire, but some of their jabs left out important facts.
Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut declared it would take a Democratic president to "get this economy going," but the economy has been gaining momentum over the last several months since Bush's second tax cut took effect. (Debate story) [edit - can you believe that one!? Bush's tax cut has turned the economy around?]
Weekly claims for unemployment insurance have fallen since April, and economic growth and productivity in the third-quarter reached 20-year highs.
Two of the candidates used a favorite attack line against Bush, but their statements also ignored the improving economy.
Lieberman said "3.5 million people have lost their jobs." Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean twice cited the 3 million jobs lost under Bush.
It is true that about 3 million jobs were lost during the early months of the Bush presidency.
But that trend has been reversing for several months as the jobless rate has dropped from a peak of 6.4 percent in June to 5.9 percent last month.
Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a University of Pennsylvania professor who studies political rhetoric, said the debate was filled with hyperbole and exaggeration typical of candidates trying to unseat an incumbent president.
"If you were trying to get facts from this debate, you are going to get confused," Jamieson said.
"You have the party out of power exaggerating the negative impact of the administration and ignoring the positive impact."
Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry got off the mark when he told a story about a New Hampshire couple.
As he told it, Lisa and Randy Denuccio can't drink their water or take showers because they live next to a lake that is contaminated with the gasoline additive MTBE.
But in a telephone interview Tuesday night, Lisa Denuccio said the couple now showers with the water from their town rather than the old polluted well.
This one reeks of Ceci Connolly's hatchet jobs on Al Gore. Ignore the point of the story - pollution is endemic and the government is ignoring it at the behest of contributors, and nitpick to make the candidate look like a liar over a minor point.
"We can't do without that," she said of the showers. However, she says they still drink bottled water.
Several of the nine Democrats attacked the tax cuts Bush pushed through Congress.
But none mentioned that Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who has served both Republican and Democratic presidents, has cited those cuts as a reason for the recent growth of the economy.
North Carolina Sen. John Edwards boasted that he does not take money from Washington lobbyists because they have too much influence on politics.
But he neglected to mention that his campaign manager, Nick Baldick, has been a registered lobbyist with clients like Blue Cross-Blue Shield and Burger King.
Well, he didn't say he had a staff of complete amateurs. He said he has never taken money from Washington lobbysits or PACS. This is reporting?
On foreign policy, Wesley Clark and Dean accused Bush of "not fighting terrorism."
Although al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden remains at large, the administration's war has substantially thinned the ranks of the terror network, including the arrest of September 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.
The administration also has thwarted dozens of attacks through increased cooperation with allies.
On the Iraq front, Dean declared, "I think we need to bring in foreign troops," suggesting Americans have been going it alone.
While some big Western allies, like Germany and France, have refused to provide troops for Iraq, the campaign has received thousands of troops from the likes of Britain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Hungary, Denmark and Ukraine.
Can you spot the administration talking point here?
NATO countries have sent about 24,000 soldiers, compared to 130,000 U.S. troops.
Clark said it was a "strategic blunder" to go to war with Iraq, but in the past he has said he would have voted for the resolution authorizing Bush to launch military strikes against Saddam Hussein.
Even Ted Koppel, the ABC newsman who moderated the debate, waded into the gray area of truth when he declared that Dean had raised more money than anyone in the campaign.
While Dean's $25 million through September tops the Democratic field, it is dwarfed by the more than $100 million Bush has already raised as a Republican with no primary opponent.
THis could be the worst wire story ever printed. Seriously.
Senator Paul Simon has Died - Long Live the Bowtie
Senator Paul Simon, the Illinois Democrat whose policy depth, sharp wit and quirky charisma - based almost entirely on having little charisma - endeared him to the Democratic Party, and whose strong progressive stances made him a personal hero of mine, has died from complications of open heart surgery.
He was a good man. A fine public servant.
Wear a bowtie tomorrow.
He was a good man. A fine public servant.
Wear a bowtie tomorrow.
12.08.2003
Don't know about Al, but. . .
Here's what everybody else is thinking: Matt Yglesias' piece has a subtle title but I think I get his drift. Atrios weighs in , also using Matt's word of choice, having violated his primary-free zone earlier this week. Kos pats himself on the back for having previously identified the "new media meme" of the 'inevitability' of Dean's nomination.
Al's timing sucks, but I can't say I'm surprised by that, or by his choice. Maybe Al really wants the VP slot.
(That was a joke.)
Al's timing sucks, but I can't say I'm surprised by that, or by his choice. Maybe Al really wants the VP slot.
(That was a joke.)
WHAT THE HELL IS HE THINKING?
Sources say Gore may endorse Dean.
Not like the people need to actually VOTE or anything, Al.
For crying out loud.
Not like the people need to actually VOTE or anything, Al.
For crying out loud.
12.07.2003
On the Defensive
I seldom, if ever, disagree with David Neiwert. Not even a little bit. His insights and his writing skills are second to none, and it is no exaggeration to say that I recommend his site to someone on a daily basis. And maybe I need to give this a little more thought, but at this point, I just can't get on board with some of his ideas about the latest Republican campaign ad."When Democrats Attack" strings together clips of various Democratic presidential nominees making harsh but accurate statements about the policies of George W. Bush, and decries the Democrats' campaign as "pessimistic" and "negative." Neiwert sees this ad as evidence that "Bush Hatred" will be a prevalent theme for the GOP in the 2004 election, and I agree. Neiwert is also correct when he points out that, if such a campaign is effective, it may in part because the electorate is already fatigued from the negativity and relentless Clinton hatred which spewed from the right during the 1990's.
It's Neiwert's proposed response that loses me. I suppose the first problem is that he immediately forms the conclusion that the Democrats need to respond, that they need to "counter" the ad. But that's really the problem, isn't it? The Democrats are always on the defensive. We legally request a recount in Florida and we're demonized as trying to steal the election. We protest an unjust and unnecessary war and we're traitors. The negative statements highlighted by this ad represent one of the few instances in recent years that the Democrats have gone on any type of a sustained offensive at all, and I view the GOP's response as evidence that this approach was to some extent successful. So why do we need to "counter" "When Democrats Attack?" Why not keep attacking, and demand substantive responses? Letting the other side choose the battlefield and frame the debate is always a mistake.
Neiwert has the right idea when he suggests saying "We're tired of pessimism and angry protest too -- especially the kind based on personal attacks and not policies." But while the message is right, framing it as a response to the language used in "When Democrats Attack" or similar ads is unnecessary, and could cost the Democrats what little initiative they have. In chess, it's called gaining a "tempo"; it's always an advantage to force your opponent to react. "When Democrats Attack" is an admission that, for once, the GOP is not controlling the tempo, and that advantage shouldn't be squandered by going off message.
Neiwert also suggest that the Democrats break out tapes of Coulter and O'Reilly, with all their invective, to show that the Republicans started this, of at least that they do it, too. Again, a mistake. For starters, it loses tempo. Second, pundits are distinguishable from politicians, especially presidential candidates. Tapes of fundamentalist preachers? Same argument. Not applicable. Tapes of Jesse Helms obliquely threatening Clinton? Irrelevant, and we should remember that many folks in the South still regard Helms as a hero, and would probably cheer to be reminded of those statements. Recrimination is seldom a good strategy, as it all but concedes the original charge.
Neiwert next suggests putting up the facts to go with the Democrats' negative rhetoric, and then point out that their anger and negativity is justified. No need. The facts were already out there, the GOP ad just selectively edited them out. It 's not as if these candidates are out there making baseless accusations, they're using indiputable facts. The point is that the Democrats don't need to respond to this ad or this strategy, they just need to keep saying the same things, and keep backing them up with facts. Don't get distracted by this ad, and start worrying about being labelled as negative. Does the GOP ever worry about being negative?
Neiwert is undoubtedly correct, however, when he suggests that the Democrats positive message should be clear and concise, and he states it as well as anybody I've heard:
"Finally, when it comes time to articulating their own vision, Democrats should make it very simple: 'An America like the one we had before George Bush took office. Peaceful, prosperous, and fair.'"
Well said, David. The Democrats should stay on point with their positive message, keep up the attacks on Bush policies, and ignore diversionary tactics like "When Democrats Attack."
ON SECOND THOUGHT: Told you I needed to think about it some more. I woke up this morning still thinking about this, and while I'm still of the opinion that always being on the defensive is wrong, in this case, where a response lets you re-iterate your original message, well, it's certainly tempting. I suppose the proper response could avoid the trap of letting the GOP define the debate, and get the democrats' message out there a third time. I could certainly see something along these lines: (Ominous music, much like this) "THE REPUBLICANS ARE ON THE DEFENSIVE. UNABLE TO RESPOND TO THE SUBSTANCE OF DEMOCRATIC CRITICISM OF BUSH ADMINISTRATION POLICIES, THE GOP HAS RESORTED TO ATTACKING THE MESSENGER. IT WON'T WORK. BECAUSE WHAT CAN'T BE ATTACKED IS THE TRUTH: GEORGE W. BUSH IS A MISERABLE FAILURE (insert employment and deficit statistics), GEORGE BUSH HAS DECLARED WAR ON AMERICA, (tax relief for the wealthy) and so on. Yeah, I could sign off on that one. I vote we hire Eric Blumrich. And I'll let Neiwert write it; he's better than I am.
It's Neiwert's proposed response that loses me. I suppose the first problem is that he immediately forms the conclusion that the Democrats need to respond, that they need to "counter" the ad. But that's really the problem, isn't it? The Democrats are always on the defensive. We legally request a recount in Florida and we're demonized as trying to steal the election. We protest an unjust and unnecessary war and we're traitors. The negative statements highlighted by this ad represent one of the few instances in recent years that the Democrats have gone on any type of a sustained offensive at all, and I view the GOP's response as evidence that this approach was to some extent successful. So why do we need to "counter" "When Democrats Attack?" Why not keep attacking, and demand substantive responses? Letting the other side choose the battlefield and frame the debate is always a mistake.
Neiwert has the right idea when he suggests saying "We're tired of pessimism and angry protest too -- especially the kind based on personal attacks and not policies." But while the message is right, framing it as a response to the language used in "When Democrats Attack" or similar ads is unnecessary, and could cost the Democrats what little initiative they have. In chess, it's called gaining a "tempo"; it's always an advantage to force your opponent to react. "When Democrats Attack" is an admission that, for once, the GOP is not controlling the tempo, and that advantage shouldn't be squandered by going off message.
Neiwert also suggest that the Democrats break out tapes of Coulter and O'Reilly, with all their invective, to show that the Republicans started this, of at least that they do it, too. Again, a mistake. For starters, it loses tempo. Second, pundits are distinguishable from politicians, especially presidential candidates. Tapes of fundamentalist preachers? Same argument. Not applicable. Tapes of Jesse Helms obliquely threatening Clinton? Irrelevant, and we should remember that many folks in the South still regard Helms as a hero, and would probably cheer to be reminded of those statements. Recrimination is seldom a good strategy, as it all but concedes the original charge.
Neiwert next suggests putting up the facts to go with the Democrats' negative rhetoric, and then point out that their anger and negativity is justified. No need. The facts were already out there, the GOP ad just selectively edited them out. It 's not as if these candidates are out there making baseless accusations, they're using indiputable facts. The point is that the Democrats don't need to respond to this ad or this strategy, they just need to keep saying the same things, and keep backing them up with facts. Don't get distracted by this ad, and start worrying about being labelled as negative. Does the GOP ever worry about being negative?
Neiwert is undoubtedly correct, however, when he suggests that the Democrats positive message should be clear and concise, and he states it as well as anybody I've heard:
"Finally, when it comes time to articulating their own vision, Democrats should make it very simple: 'An America like the one we had before George Bush took office. Peaceful, prosperous, and fair.'"
Well said, David. The Democrats should stay on point with their positive message, keep up the attacks on Bush policies, and ignore diversionary tactics like "When Democrats Attack."
ON SECOND THOUGHT: Told you I needed to think about it some more. I woke up this morning still thinking about this, and while I'm still of the opinion that always being on the defensive is wrong, in this case, where a response lets you re-iterate your original message, well, it's certainly tempting. I suppose the proper response could avoid the trap of letting the GOP define the debate, and get the democrats' message out there a third time. I could certainly see something along these lines: (Ominous music, much like this) "THE REPUBLICANS ARE ON THE DEFENSIVE. UNABLE TO RESPOND TO THE SUBSTANCE OF DEMOCRATIC CRITICISM OF BUSH ADMINISTRATION POLICIES, THE GOP HAS RESORTED TO ATTACKING THE MESSENGER. IT WON'T WORK. BECAUSE WHAT CAN'T BE ATTACKED IS THE TRUTH: GEORGE W. BUSH IS A MISERABLE FAILURE (insert employment and deficit statistics), GEORGE BUSH HAS DECLARED WAR ON AMERICA, (tax relief for the wealthy) and so on. Yeah, I could sign off on that one. I vote we hire Eric Blumrich. And I'll let Neiwert write it; he's better than I am.
12.06.2003
Delivering the Votes?
John Edwards, speaking out on an issue that has been discussed in the blogs for months, called on George W. Bush to return campaign contributions received from Walden O'Dell, CEO of Diebold Election Systems, the manufacturer of a line of electronic voting machines to be used in the 2004 elections. O'Dell, whose contributions in excess $100,000 have earned him the title of "Pioneer" in the lexicon of Bush fundraising, was quoted several months ago in the New York Times as saying that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."
Edwards puts the financial issue into proper context when he suggests that such contributions "could damage confidence in elections." As to O'Dell's statement, Edwards states "People who make voting machines need to be real careful when they talk about delivering elections." I can only concur.
Edwards puts the financial issue into proper context when he suggests that such contributions "could damage confidence in elections." As to O'Dell's statement, Edwards states "People who make voting machines need to be real careful when they talk about delivering elections." I can only concur.
Whoa, How Have I Missed This Guy?
Atrios links to a Dennis Kucinich ad, which I learned, through the comments to this post, was the brainchild of one Eric Blumrich, whose balls-to-the-wall site is here. With his terrific Flash Animation and some great cutting edge music, Eric has created some of the most effective media I've seen recently, and he's using it to highlight the moral and intellectual stagnation of the Bush admimistration. Watch the Kucinich ad, then check out the other great animations and downloads.
12.04.2003
Pandagon Delivers
See your favorite loathsome conservatives get their come-uppance! See the Freepers in a state of offpissment! Read the"Twenty Most Annoying Conservatives of 2003!"
The man is so fake, even the turkey was a plant
Al Gore was a liar. Remember that line? Remember the media telling you that Gore couldn't tell the truth if he tried, that he didn't know who he was, and that he was the creature of his handlers - nothing real about him?
Remember how harsh they were? Remember how they claimed that Gore had a dam opened up so he could do a photo op in a canoe during a drought -- even though the release was a scheduled release for the protection of fish which was only moved up a couple of hours for the VPs visit? Remember how merciless they were?
Now, imagine that Al Gore flew in to Baghdad to deliver Thanksgiving dinner to the troops, and posed with a beautiful turkey that the troops weren't allowed to eat. What would they have done to him?
That's what Bush did. The turkey he's holding with that ****-eating grin on his face? Yeah, the troops couldn't eat it. It was a prop. They got pressed turkey rolls in sloppy gravy. Of course, the Bush administration says the White House wasn't responsible for it. The turkey was just there.
So many wild turkeys running around in Iraq you know, just happened to kill one and fix it up on the day of the President's visit. Coincidence. Just a table dressing.
Right. And the sailors on the USS Lincoln thought up that damn mission accomplished banner, too. Right?
The man posed in a warehouse full of boxes, but it wasn't sufficiently compelling tv, so they had to put a pcture behind him - of a warehouse full of boxes. In England, he brought 5 chefs with him - so he wouldn't have to eat the Queen's food. Not only that, Buckingham Palace was evidently not British enough, so he brought an expensive backdrop for photo ops that said 'UNITED KINGDOM" on it 100 times. Now, he poses with a big turkey which the troops CAN'T EAT. Not to mention, he "bravely" flew into an airport we supposedly secured 6 months ago, under cover of darkness, staying for two hours and getting the hell out before he had to actually stay there and face the conditions the soldiers actually live in. (forget that Hilary stayed for 3 days.) What a brave, brave man.
Edwards has it right - this man is a complete phony. A total fraud.
Remember how harsh they were? Remember how they claimed that Gore had a dam opened up so he could do a photo op in a canoe during a drought -- even though the release was a scheduled release for the protection of fish which was only moved up a couple of hours for the VPs visit? Remember how merciless they were?
Now, imagine that Al Gore flew in to Baghdad to deliver Thanksgiving dinner to the troops, and posed with a beautiful turkey that the troops weren't allowed to eat. What would they have done to him?
That's what Bush did. The turkey he's holding with that ****-eating grin on his face? Yeah, the troops couldn't eat it. It was a prop. They got pressed turkey rolls in sloppy gravy. Of course, the Bush administration says the White House wasn't responsible for it. The turkey was just there.
So many wild turkeys running around in Iraq you know, just happened to kill one and fix it up on the day of the President's visit. Coincidence. Just a table dressing.
Right. And the sailors on the USS Lincoln thought up that damn mission accomplished banner, too. Right?
The man posed in a warehouse full of boxes, but it wasn't sufficiently compelling tv, so they had to put a pcture behind him - of a warehouse full of boxes. In England, he brought 5 chefs with him - so he wouldn't have to eat the Queen's food. Not only that, Buckingham Palace was evidently not British enough, so he brought an expensive backdrop for photo ops that said 'UNITED KINGDOM" on it 100 times. Now, he poses with a big turkey which the troops CAN'T EAT. Not to mention, he "bravely" flew into an airport we supposedly secured 6 months ago, under cover of darkness, staying for two hours and getting the hell out before he had to actually stay there and face the conditions the soldiers actually live in. (forget that Hilary stayed for 3 days.) What a brave, brave man.
Edwards has it right - this man is a complete phony. A total fraud.
12.03.2003
I'm doing something right...
Today, my wife picked up my son at the day care and asked him if he wanted to go to the hockey game tonight.
Little man's reply?
"YEAH! Want beers!"
I'm so proud... [sniffle]...
Little man's reply?
"YEAH! Want beers!"
I'm so proud... [sniffle]...
The Medicare bill is a Washington-style mafia bustout
In The Hill, Josh Marshall draws a great analogy between the short-sighted policies of the Bushcists (it's not just Medicare) and a mafia "bust-out:"
"What we’re seeing in Washington today has an uncomfortable resemblance to what, in mafia lingo, is called a bust-out.
It goes something like this.
Say you’re a gambler and I’m a mobster. I’ve lent you lots of money. But now you can’t cover your debt. I could pursue the matter through your kneecaps or toss you out of an office window, but instead I take a more constructive approach.
You own a shoe store. I take it over your operation, order everything under the sun and fence all the merchandise for as much money as I can get as quickly as I can. I run out every line of credit you have and generally squeeze the place of every dollar I can get out of it. And then when I can’t squeeze anymore, I torch the place and collect on the insurance money.
Sure, it’s not the most sustainable business model. But I have my money back, and what happens to you is your problem."
I never would have pegged Karl Rove as a fan of The Sopranos. . .
MORE
"What we’re seeing in Washington today has an uncomfortable resemblance to what, in mafia lingo, is called a bust-out.
It goes something like this.
Say you’re a gambler and I’m a mobster. I’ve lent you lots of money. But now you can’t cover your debt. I could pursue the matter through your kneecaps or toss you out of an office window, but instead I take a more constructive approach.
You own a shoe store. I take it over your operation, order everything under the sun and fence all the merchandise for as much money as I can get as quickly as I can. I run out every line of credit you have and generally squeeze the place of every dollar I can get out of it. And then when I can’t squeeze anymore, I torch the place and collect on the insurance money.
Sure, it’s not the most sustainable business model. But I have my money back, and what happens to you is your problem."
I never would have pegged Karl Rove as a fan of The Sopranos. . .
MORE
12.02.2003
Fatherhood
I've been taking some time off from the political ranting. Trying to raise money for the Edwards campaign (send it now, guys, he needs it). Plus, until about a week ago, I've been buried in a huge case at work. That's been put off for a few weeks, thanks to the timely intervention of a Federal judge, so I've been able to take a breath and focus on my kid.
Which brings me to this post. Cue Andy Rooney:
"Have you ever noticed......"
That fatherhood results in the performance of acts you would never have contemplated prior to fatherhood? Case in point - last night, the family and some close friends are out at a loud steakhouse for dinner - the only kind of place we can eat anymore. Two two year olds are at the table, competing for who can be the loudest and make the adults laugh the most.
Midway through dinner, my son heads out across the restaurant at full speed, yelling - "Daddy daddy - come on - go potty!"
Through the laughter of the patrons of the restaurant, all of whom moved to the other end of the dining area once we arrived, I hear my wife say "he's all yours."
So there I stood, in the mens' room, trying hard not to let a curious and precocious two year old touch anything, anywhere, with any part of his body, stripping off his shoes and pants, and pulling off the diaper, and trying to suspend him over the toilet so he can do his business.
This, of course, is impossible. So I say what the heck, and I put down a seat guard, while holding the squirming, suprisingly strong little guy in one arm, hoping all the while that he won't pee on my suit. Then I put him down. Keep in mind that I have painstakingly hung his pants up on the door and put his shoes well out of pee range. Towards the seat he goes. At the last minute, just before his butt hits the seat, now carefully wrapped for his protection, INTO THE WATER GOES HIS LEFT FOOT - SOCK AND ALL.
So there I am, holding a half-naked little kid with a sock soaked in public toilet water, trying desperately to avoid getting peed on, with no more diapers and no way to call for help. MrsFrankLives, of course, was enjoying her salad at the other end of the restaurant.
So, I encourage my boy to do his business, tell him what a good boy he is for doing it, remove the sopping sock, wipe said kid off, put on the pants and shoes, wash hands (all four of them), explain the wonders of the automatic handdryer, and off we go - little man has his first experience going commando.
Of course, you know what happens next on our way to the diaper bag. Middle of the restaurant. LOOK MOMMY - NO DIAPER! Uproarious laughter from the assembled patrons.
And I was still holding a wet sock.
Which brings me to this post. Cue Andy Rooney:
"Have you ever noticed......"
That fatherhood results in the performance of acts you would never have contemplated prior to fatherhood? Case in point - last night, the family and some close friends are out at a loud steakhouse for dinner - the only kind of place we can eat anymore. Two two year olds are at the table, competing for who can be the loudest and make the adults laugh the most.
Midway through dinner, my son heads out across the restaurant at full speed, yelling - "Daddy daddy - come on - go potty!"
Through the laughter of the patrons of the restaurant, all of whom moved to the other end of the dining area once we arrived, I hear my wife say "he's all yours."
So there I stood, in the mens' room, trying hard not to let a curious and precocious two year old touch anything, anywhere, with any part of his body, stripping off his shoes and pants, and pulling off the diaper, and trying to suspend him over the toilet so he can do his business.
This, of course, is impossible. So I say what the heck, and I put down a seat guard, while holding the squirming, suprisingly strong little guy in one arm, hoping all the while that he won't pee on my suit. Then I put him down. Keep in mind that I have painstakingly hung his pants up on the door and put his shoes well out of pee range. Towards the seat he goes. At the last minute, just before his butt hits the seat, now carefully wrapped for his protection, INTO THE WATER GOES HIS LEFT FOOT - SOCK AND ALL.
So there I am, holding a half-naked little kid with a sock soaked in public toilet water, trying desperately to avoid getting peed on, with no more diapers and no way to call for help. MrsFrankLives, of course, was enjoying her salad at the other end of the restaurant.
So, I encourage my boy to do his business, tell him what a good boy he is for doing it, remove the sopping sock, wipe said kid off, put on the pants and shoes, wash hands (all four of them), explain the wonders of the automatic handdryer, and off we go - little man has his first experience going commando.
Of course, you know what happens next on our way to the diaper bag. Middle of the restaurant. LOOK MOMMY - NO DIAPER! Uproarious laughter from the assembled patrons.
And I was still holding a wet sock.
The Bubble of American Supremacy
Decent critique of the Bush war on terrorism by George Soros in the December issue of the Atlantic Monthly. Soros rightly describes the ultimate folly of neoconservative international relations:
"The war on terrorism as pursued by the Bush Administration cannot be won. On the contrary, it may bring about a permanent state of war. Terrorists will never disappear. They will continue to provide a pretext for the pursuit of American supremacy. That pursuit, in turn, will continue to generate resistance. Further, by turning the hunt for terrorists into a war, we are bound to create innocent victims. The more innocent victims there are, the greater the resentment and the better the chances that some victims will turn into perpetrators."
. . . and argues for a policy of collective security consisting of cooperation and preventative action. Frankly, I'm surprised that Soros favors this approach rather than the policy of "deterrence and containment" that made him an obscenely wealthy man.
"The war on terrorism as pursued by the Bush Administration cannot be won. On the contrary, it may bring about a permanent state of war. Terrorists will never disappear. They will continue to provide a pretext for the pursuit of American supremacy. That pursuit, in turn, will continue to generate resistance. Further, by turning the hunt for terrorists into a war, we are bound to create innocent victims. The more innocent victims there are, the greater the resentment and the better the chances that some victims will turn into perpetrators."
. . . and argues for a policy of collective security consisting of cooperation and preventative action. Frankly, I'm surprised that Soros favors this approach rather than the policy of "deterrence and containment" that made him an obscenely wealthy man.
12.01.2003
They're kidding, . . . right?
I'm probably a little late on this one, and I'm sure somebody has already ranted on this, but here goes: I picked up the by now outdated December print issue of "The American Prospect" for a little lunch reading, and began to peruse "Deaniacs React," a selection of letters to the Editor praising a November 2003 article on Howard Dean. The first such letter sent me into spasms with this line: "It is now easier for me to place Dr. Dean in the tradition of Henry David Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson and even Nathaniel Hawthorne." Thoreau? Emerson? Please tell me he's kidding. Sure, the Bush administration has left the Democratic Party desperate for a savior, but do we have to annoint the first schmuck that comes along? The guy listens to some kids who tell him to use the internet and now he's Nathaniel Hawthorne?
I had to walk that one off, so after my trip to the men's room, (in the process of which I was gratified to learn that Chili's "is committed to your restroom experience,") I read the second letter, which contains this gem: "As a Dean supporter myself, I have found it hard to put the dynamic into words, but Franke-Ruta's article brings into focus the feeling of camaraderie with the Founding Fathers." Camaraderie with the Founding Fathers? What do they do at these Dean Meetups, hold a seance? It gets worse: "Although we gather at Meetups rather than taverns or tearooms and have faster forms of communication than those that existed in 1776, we talk about a lot of the same concepts. . . Several centuries ago, a few philosophers decided the fate of this nation; now many thousands of thier philosophical descendants, through the Dean campaign's technology. . ." blah, blah, blah, you get the picture. The "Dean campaign's technology"? What, he owns the rights to the web? Hell, I thought Al Gore invented the internet, now I learn that Dean bought the thing when I wasn't looking.
Look, these projections, (see my previous rant) are not only delusional, they're dangerous. Anybody remember a guy named Nader? Zealotry of any stripe blinds followers to the truth, and these fanatics are no exception. We need a candidate who can send Bush packing, and these glassy-eyed disciples won't even consider the possiblility that the Rove Propaganda Machine will chew this guy up and spit him out. And yeah, I know, many a blogger and commentator has dutifully noted that Dean's candidacy is not fairly judged by the excess zeal of the aptly named "Deaniacs," but listen to me, this is important: Without the fanatics, there is no Dean candidacy. Do. you. understand the words. that are coming out of my mouth? Or keypad? Or computer, whatever? Candidate Dean is anti-war, he likes balanced budgets, and okay, those are good things, and I gotta admit, we'd all be better off with a Dean presidency than a W dictatorship. But he's gotta get there, and from my perspective, he's not particularly articulate, he changes important postitions, contradicts himself every other week, he doesn't understand the South, and when he's in front of the camera, he looks like a deer in the headlights that's eaten one too many corn cobs. (They'll do that, you know.)
Everything else, including Dean's spiritual link with dead authors and founding fathers, is "projected" onto the man by well meaning zealots. Look guys, projections show up best on a blank canvas. Does that tell you anything?
I had to walk that one off, so after my trip to the men's room, (in the process of which I was gratified to learn that Chili's "is committed to your restroom experience,") I read the second letter, which contains this gem: "As a Dean supporter myself, I have found it hard to put the dynamic into words, but Franke-Ruta's article brings into focus the feeling of camaraderie with the Founding Fathers." Camaraderie with the Founding Fathers? What do they do at these Dean Meetups, hold a seance? It gets worse: "Although we gather at Meetups rather than taverns or tearooms and have faster forms of communication than those that existed in 1776, we talk about a lot of the same concepts. . . Several centuries ago, a few philosophers decided the fate of this nation; now many thousands of thier philosophical descendants, through the Dean campaign's technology. . ." blah, blah, blah, you get the picture. The "Dean campaign's technology"? What, he owns the rights to the web? Hell, I thought Al Gore invented the internet, now I learn that Dean bought the thing when I wasn't looking.
Look, these projections, (see my previous rant) are not only delusional, they're dangerous. Anybody remember a guy named Nader? Zealotry of any stripe blinds followers to the truth, and these fanatics are no exception. We need a candidate who can send Bush packing, and these glassy-eyed disciples won't even consider the possiblility that the Rove Propaganda Machine will chew this guy up and spit him out. And yeah, I know, many a blogger and commentator has dutifully noted that Dean's candidacy is not fairly judged by the excess zeal of the aptly named "Deaniacs," but listen to me, this is important: Without the fanatics, there is no Dean candidacy. Do. you. understand the words. that are coming out of my mouth? Or keypad? Or computer, whatever? Candidate Dean is anti-war, he likes balanced budgets, and okay, those are good things, and I gotta admit, we'd all be better off with a Dean presidency than a W dictatorship. But he's gotta get there, and from my perspective, he's not particularly articulate, he changes important postitions, contradicts himself every other week, he doesn't understand the South, and when he's in front of the camera, he looks like a deer in the headlights that's eaten one too many corn cobs. (They'll do that, you know.)
Everything else, including Dean's spiritual link with dead authors and founding fathers, is "projected" onto the man by well meaning zealots. Look guys, projections show up best on a blank canvas. Does that tell you anything?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
