Monday, November 15, 2004
Between 1968-1988, over six presidential campaigns, the Democratic party won one close race in 1976 after the elected Republican had resigned in disgrace. The average Dem electoral total over those six elections was only 113 measley votes.
By comparison, the Dems have won the popular vote 3 out of the last 4 Presidential races. In the one race we lost, the incumbent won by the smallest margin for sitting President since 1916. For those four races the Dem electoral vote average is 317. During these races, Republicans have not even come close to being competitive in NY and CA. CA used to be a pretty reliable red state.
We have work to do. We need to appeal more to our working class roots than we have been lately. We need to do better with hispanic voters than we did this time. We need to expand the party and get out our vote, but in looking back over the last 26 years, the trend over time is more positive than negative.
Just a thought.
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
But Repugs just won the Senate seats one would guess they would win, given the states involved, except for Colorado and possibly Alaska. Yes, they beat Daschle by 4 thousand votes in deep red SD after a barrage of media dollars attacking him. Yes, Repugs picked up 4 out of 5 gerrymandered seats in Texas. But there was not a real realignment.
But Kerry still was only 136,500 votes from being President. According to my calculations that is about .001% of the total vote. With only 182,500 well-placed additional votes, Kerry wins with 289 electoral votes. That is only .00158% of the total votes cast.
Yes, it is disappointing. Yes, we need to reassess, and learn the lessons of this campaign. But Republicans do not have a lock on the Whitehouse by a long shot, no matter how the media wants that to be the story.
Monday, November 01, 2004
Kerry should win the popular vote by 2.5-5 percentage points. He will crack 50%. I can see scenarios in which Kerry wins with anywhere from 272 to 330+ electoral votes.
The Senate: Dem pickups in AK, IL, CO, KY (upset special); Repug pickup in SC.
Dream win: PA
NIghtmare loss: LA without a run-off
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
The man is so totally delusional. Cue it up, boys!
Friday, October 08, 2004
Bush: ranting, delusional, angry, tired, flustered, impatient...loser.
A quick trip to the Freerepublic showed that either they are in la la land, (or I am), or they are afraid of showing fear. Or their red-hot hatred of Kerry outweighs everything else. Bush's base loves the fighting Bush. He's preaching to the choir. The problem is, the respective choirs are already in place. Both guys are now competing for the folks milling around outside.
It will be interesting to see how the SCLM spins this. Will they go out of their way to be "balanced" in their appraisal?
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
The talking heads on MSNBC are too deep inside the beltway to get it. Ron Reagan knew better, but is too much of milquetoast to fight the crowd. I've never seen more out of touch morons, but then again, I don't hang out in "Rush Rooms", if they still exist, or Republican functions. Cheney intimidates them and they have a different sense of what plays to whom. I doubt most undecideds were impressed with his scowl, his hands in front of his mouth, or his passing up opportunities to even speak. At least hit your talking points, provided you have more than "Kerry's not a real man."
Edwards also realized he was in a key swing state and, when possible, tied his answers to Ohio. Not so much that it was obvious as pandering, but perhaps enough to be local soundbites. Smart move, unnoticed by most TV pundits.
Cheney was caught in a few lies, which needs to be hammered relentlessy as part of a patttern of deception. Also, this issue needs to be put in proper perspective:
Cheney said Edwards diminished the Iraqi sacrifice by not including their deaths in those of "coalition" losses. (We'll ignore the fact that the "coalition" has killed more innocent Iraqi civilians than insurgents for now.) Well, Cheney diminishes the sacrifice of AMERICAN soldiers by cooking the books and including Iraqis as members of the "coaltion". What country is he running in? Enron-like accounting. Halliburton-like accounting. Minimizing the loss of American lives for political purposes. Disgusting.
Spread these memes. We won tonight. Round three...
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Text: President Bush speaks on Osama bin Laden. September 17, 2001
VO: George W. Bush [9/17/01]: "...there's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, `Wanted: Dead or Alive.'"
Text: Six months later...March 13, 2002
VO: George W. Bush [3/13/02]: "I don't know where he is. I, ah [laugh] I repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."
Text: Three years later..."U.S. General Says bin Laden al-Zawahri Still Directing Attacks" Source: USA Today, 9/11/04 "Bin Laden is said to be Organizing for a U.S. Attack" Source: New York Times, 7/9/04
VO: Word tonight that Osama bin Laden is very much alive, and coordinating plans for new attacks on America and American allies.
VO: George W. Bush [3/13/02]: "I don't know where he is... I truly am not that concerned about him."
VO: The Democratic National Committee is responsible for the contents of this advertisement.
The better ad:
George Bush claims he talks straight and you always know where he stands. Really?
On Sept. 13, 2001, George Bush made this promise:
Video: "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
But only 6 months later, as he prepared to invade Iraq, he changed his mind about Bin Laden:
Video: "I don't know where he is. I, ah [laugh] I repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."
3,000 Americans dead, planned by Bin Laden, and Bush is "truly not that concerned."?
This has to be the biggest flip-flop of all time.
Do you really trust this man to keep us safe?
Its time for a change. America deserves better leadership.
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Q Scott, on the National Guard documents on "60 Minutes," the First Lady says she believes these are forgeries. The RNC has accused the Democratic Party of being the source of these documents. Knowing then what you know now, would you still have released those documents when you did?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's a hypothetical question, John. We received those documents from a major news organization. We had every reason to believe that they were authentic at that time.
If the basic thrust of the memos was false - if, say, Bush came forward and said "Hey, wait a minute! Those can't be real! I never disobeyed a direct order..." then why would our dear Scotty say such a thing?
My previous post:
There are two major options in the "Memo Debate:' 1) They're forged; or 2) They're not forged.
Frankly, I don't claim to know the answer. Interesting questions have been raised, but the arguments I have heard to disprove the possibility that they might be real have proven hasty and inadequate. Either way, however, I think the memos have served to distract from the larger issues. Also, either way, the following exchange between Dan Rather and Dan Bartlett raises interesting questions that should be the focus of discussion.
Q: Is your suggestion that these documents, at least a couple of them, could have been fabricated?
DAN BARTLETT: I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying that the fact that documents like this are being raised when, in fact, all they do is reaffirm what we've said all along, is questionable.
The President's spokesman did not dispute the validity or content of the memos. In fact, he said they "reaffirm what we've said all along."
The White House has not issued a statement about any of the memos, one of which was addressed to George W. Bush, ordering him to get a physical. Even faced with the question of whether Bush disobeyed a direct order, Bartlett, nor the White House since, has denied the veracity of that memo. Nor did they claim Bush never received that memo. They took it totally in stride as if, "Of course that memo was written. It is consistent with our version of events. We have no reason to dispute it." The only thing he ever questions is the timing of their release.
DAN BARTLETT: The two official documents that notified that he did not take the flight exam, which is exactly -- it is explained in your document that he did not take the flight exam because he was going to Alabama in a non-flying capacity because, in Alabama, they weren't flying the same plane that President Bush was trained on.
Q: But what about these two documents is rumor and innuendo?
DAN BARTLETT: ... But these documents state exactly what we said, and that is President Bush didn't take the flight exam because he was going to a unit that didn't fly his plane. And in that very document you're showing it says that he was working out with the staff to find a unit that he could train with, but it was going to be in a non-flying capacity.
Far from disavowing the memo, Bartlett embraces it and confirms that Bush did exactly what it said.
Q: But these are two official memorandums. Any idea of why these would not be in the record?
DAN BARTLETT: I can't explain why that wouldn't be in his record, but they were found in Jerry Killian's personal records themselves, is what I've been told. But it reaffirms exactly what President Bush said. Everybody knows President Bush didn't take his flight exam. After flying for 400 -- more than 500 hours in the cockpit, President Bush, after his fourth year in service, asked for permission to go in a non-flying capacity to Alabama. There was not reason for President Bush to take a flight exam if he wasn't going to be flying.
Again, "there's nothing new here. We don't dispute it. It doesn't surprise us." Rather continues:
Q: Okay. So you seem to paint that as an option, that he could have taken the flight exam if he wanted to continue to fly, but didn't really have to take it. But this first document, dated 4th of May 1972, specifically says, "You are ordered to report for a physical examination." So he either ignored, or didn't fulfill a direct order, not an option.
DAN BARTLETT: Well, in fact, the memorandum shows -- the other memorandum in your possession shows that he spoke to the commander who made that order to talk about his personal situation in the fact that he was going to Alabama. So at every step of the way, President Bush was meeting his requirements, granted permission to meet his requirements. And that's why President Bush received an honorable discharge.
Bartlett again embraces and confirms the content of the memos, including the "note to file" describing the phone conversation. Bush has not corrected this position.
Two reasons come to mind for this response: 1) The Bush folks know the official documents are valid; or 2) They are forged and they know they are forged, i.e. the "Karl Rove bugged his office again" theory
They may know they are valid because, as has been previously alleged, Dan Bartlett "scrubbed" them from the file in 1998. Or they may suspect all of them are valid, because Bush knows he ignored the memo ordering him to get a physical.
If the memos are ultimately discredited and Bush calls "foul!", the media will need to be reminded that they were never denied, in fact, they were confirmed and eagerly embraced as true, but meaningless. Which tends to point a suspicious finger in the direction of one Karl Rove. We need to keep the media focused on these key facts.
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Narrator: After 9/11, the Bush administration instructed the Environment Protection Agency to provide misleading information, telling New Yorkers the air was safe to breath when it was not. The government agency charged with protecting the public from dangers in the environment was instructed to mislead the public about their safety.
Respiratory illnesses are dramatically up for people who trusted this President.
New Yorker: “We were lied to. I can’t believe they lied to us after all we had been through.”
American citizens need to be able to trust their government. Now more than ever.
Thursday, September 09, 2004
Here's my ad:
When Bush’s Senior Economic Advisor estimated that a war with Iraq would cost up to 200 billion dollars, he was first “corrected” and later fired.
Less than two months before the war, Donald Rumsfeld said it would cost about 50 billion, but indicated the U.S. share would be less.
Media Stakeout, 1/19/03
One month before the war, Bush’s spokesman said, “There are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction.”
Ari Fleischer, White House Press Briefing, 2/18/03
Days after the invasion of Iraq, Bush’s Undersecretary of Defense said, ““There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money…the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.”
Paul Wolfowitz, House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03
But when Congress proposed that Iraq reconstruction be paid back by Iraqi revenues, George W. Bush promised to veto the entire 87 billion dollar package, including money for troop support. Washington Post 10/30/03
Over 200 billion dollars and counting. More than 1000 troops lost.
Are you tired of being misled?
Don't you think it’s time for a new direction.
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
For his part, from his first stop this morning on a football field in Lee's Summit to a late-afternoon rally at a fairgrounds here, Mr. Bush ridiculed Mr. Kerry for his saying on Monday that Iraq was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time."
"He woke up yesterday morning with yet another new position," Mr. Bush told more than 10,000 people gathered for a breakfast-hour rally. "And this one is not even his own. It is that of his one-time rival, Howard Dean.
"He even used the same words Howard Dean did, back when he supposedly disagreed with him. No matter how many times Senator Kerry flip-flops, we were right to make America safer by removing Saddam Hussein from power."
Well, a lot of people may have said it-- cause it's true. But Dean's most famous comment was this:
Dean said in Monday’s speech to the Pacific Council in Los Angeles that Bush had “launched the wrong war, at the wrong time, with inadequate planning, insufficient help and at extraordinary cost.
Granted, that's close-- but not as close as these guys:
Gen. Zinni: Heads Should Roll
By SAM HAMOD
In a slashing criticism of the Bush White House and Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon leadership, General Zinni, former Commander of Central Command of U.S. Military, and Special Envoy to the Middle East in the Bush Administration until he resigned in disgust, said "Heads should roll at the Pentagon--Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith and those who foisted the Iraq war on the U.S. despite my objectioins and those of most U.S. Generals including, Schwartkopf, Skowcroft, Clark, Shinseki and others."
Speaking on 60 MINUTES,May 23, Zinni said, "The plan was wrong, it was the wrong war, the wrong place and the wrong time--with little or no planning." He stated that there were serious "derelections of duty," "criminal negligence," and poor planning that put U.S. forces in harm's way and left Iraq in chaos after the invasion. Further, he added that the Pentagon's man on the ground, Paul Bremer, had made "mistake after mistake after mistake."
The immediate reason that Mr Bush opened Pandora's box in the Middle East and invaded Iraq was his moral certitude that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that he was working in close partnership with Osama bin Laden and al-Qa'ida. Those convictions turned out to be delusions. This denouement does great harm to Mr Bush's credibility and to that of the United States; it has got us into a ghastly mess in Iraq; and it has diverted attention, resources and military might from the war that should have commanded the Bush administration's highest priority - the Afghan war against al-Qa'ida and international terrorism. Meanwhile Afghanistan is a mess too. Mr Bush chose the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Does it really matter who said it first? The real question is, is it correct? I prefer Kerry's company on this one. Kerry should point out that he's quoting Zinni and read the quote in his stump speech.
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
You want a man of accomplishment? They give you George W. Bush. He managed to get in Andover, Harvard and Yale with little effort and fewer brains. As Social Chair, he managed to take a bunch of eggheaded bookworms at the DKE house at Yale and showed them how to close a book on occasion and have some good clean fun. That’s leadership, by God. He showed it was possible to find some spots in West Texas that weren’t polluted underneath the surface with gooey, sticky oil flowing willy nilly. The man’s an environmentalist! He darn near killed the will to drill in Texas!
But his true greatness? One day in September of 2001 he grabbed a megaphone and showed real backbone. It sold McCain, and he’s a tough sonuvagun. It sold Dennis Miller and he made a career (purposefully past tense) being a damn cynic. That’s right. Kerry has his four months, but Bush, efficiency expert, has managed to base a whole lie on one day. Beat that, medal boy!
Monday, August 30, 2004
And I am proud to join you this evening in commending to all Americans the man who now represents your best wishes and mine for the future of our country, my friend, Governor George W. Bush, the next president of the United States….
It is easy to forget in politics where principle ends and selfishness begins. It takes leaders of courage and character to remember the difference.
Tomorrow, our party will nominate such a leader. George W. Bush believes in the greatness of America and the justice of our cause. He believes in the America of the immigrant's dream, the high lantern of freedom and hope to the world.
He will confidently defend our interests and values wherever they are threatened. I say to all Americans, Republican, Democrat or Independent, if you believe America deserves leaders with a purpose more ennobling than expediency and opportunism, then vote for Governor Bush.
If you believe patriotism is more than a sound bite and public service should be more than a photo-op then vote for Governor Bush.
My friend, Governor Bush, believes in an America that is so much more than the sum of its divided parts. He wants to give you back a government that serves all the people no matter the circumstances of their birth. And he wants to lead a Republican Party that is as big as the country we serve.
He wants nothing to divide us into separate nations. Not our color. Not our race. Not our wealth. Not our religion. Not our politics. He wants us to live for America, as one nation, and together profess the American Creed of self-evident truths.
I support him. I am grateful to him. And I am proud of him. He is a good man from a good family that has, in good times and bad, dedicated themselves t o America.
Okay, maybe the last line was sincere:
I have such faith in you, my fellow Americans. And I am haunted by the vision of what will be.
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
Bush Campaign Lawyer Quits Over Ties to Ads Group
CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - A top lawyer for President Bush's re-election campaign resigned on Wednesday after disclosing he has been providing legal advice to a group that accuses Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry of lying about his Vietnam War record.
Benjamin Ginsberg was the second person to quit the Bush campaign over ties to the group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which has been attacking Kerry's record through television commercials and a book.
Likewise, Mike Russell, spokesman for the Swift Boat group, denied any coordination with the Bush campaign, and said Ginsberg had agreed to continue advising the group.
"I was at the nexus of making sure (coordination) didn't happen. To suggest otherwise is flat wrong," Ginsberg said.
Glad he cleared that up. He was at the nexus that didn't exist.
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry's military service "dishonest and dishonorable" and urged the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well.
"It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me," McCain said in an interview with The Associated Press, referring to his bitter Republican primary fight with President Bush.
The unmentioned villain in McCain’s recollection was none other than the same President Bush he endorsed at the 2000 Republican Convention and now campaigns with. Any reasonable person knows McCain can’t respect Bush and any political observer knows he tweaks him whenever he can. But he continues to play “good soldier” by campaigning with the Shrub and even letting the chimp hug him as if they pledged DKE together. Bush hasn’t condemned anything but the right of all 527s to air ads, honest or not—spotting the ethical issue has never been a Bush family strong suit. But McCain continues to boost up the ugly beast that eviscerated his chances for the Presidency in 2000. Why? Playing good soldier keeps him viable for 2008, or so he thinks. In fact, the Republican orthodoxy will have none of it, but the man is an admitted addict:
Some Republicans think the answer is more complex. "John wants to prove where his loyalties lie for anyone who questioned that," says Bill Dal Col, a Republican strategist who ran Steve Forbes' 2000 presidential campaign.
Others think McCain, who is 67 and has fought skin cancer, may want to run for president again.
"He's clearly looking downstream," says Scott Reed, a Republican strategist who managed Bob Dole's 1996 presidential campaign. "Being a good Republican who's very popular with independents and Democrats is an attractive package for a future run for national office. McCain's team is aggressively working to keep as many options on the table as possible."
McCain issues a standard disclaimer. "I'm running for re-election to the Senate and I don't have any ambitions beyond that," he says. But quoting his late friend Morris Udall, a former Arizona congressman and Democratic presidential candidate, he adds, "Presidential ambition is a disease which can only be cured by embalming fluid."
And so, McCain compromises his principles—again. His presidential hopes were not the only thing he lost in South Carolina. He sacrificed his integrity there, too:
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: I believe the flag should be removed from your capitol. I should have done this earlier, when an honest answer could have affected me personally. I did not do so for one reason alone: I feared if I answered honestly, I could not win the South Carolina primary. So I chose to compromise my principles. I broke my promise to always tell the truth.
He’s compromising those principles once again. McCain is more honest than most politicians. Not many would have ever admitted so forthrightly what he did in South Carolina in 2000. But he’s far from pure when it comes to his “principles.” And at 67 he’s probably running out of chances to demonstrate true integrity.
Monday, August 23, 2004
As a veteran and one who felt this anger, I would like to talk about it. We are angry because we feel we have been used in the worst fashion by the administration of this country.
So many of those best men have returned as quadriplegics and amputees, and they lie forgotten in Veterans' Administration hospitals in this country which fly the flag which so many have chosen as their own personal symbol.
We found that the Iraqis, whom we had enthusiastically molded after our own image, were hard-put to take up the fight against the threat we were supposedly saving them from.
They wanted everything to do with the war, particularly with this foreign presence of the United States of America, to leave them alone in peace, and they practiced the art of survival by siding with whichever military force was present at a particular time, be it Iraqi insurgents, loyal baathists or American.
We found also that, all too often, American men were dying in those deserts for want of support from their allies. We saw first hand how monies from American taxes were used for a corrupt dictatorial regime.
We watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of Arabs.
We listened while, month after month, we were told the back of the enemy was about to break.
We watched while men charged into insurgent strongholds because a general said that it has to be taken, and, after losing one platoon, or two platoons, they marched away to leave the area for reoccupation by the insurgents.
Now we are told that the men who fought there must watch quietly while American lives are lost so that we can exercise the incredible arrogance of "Iraqization" the Iraqis.
Each day, to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Iraq, someone has to give up his life so that the United States doesn't have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can't say that we have made a mistake.
We are here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We're here to ask where are Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and so many others? Where are they now that we, the men they sent off to war, have returned? These are the commanders who have deserted their troops. And there is no more serious crime in the laws of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded. The Marines say they never even leave their dead. These men have left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude.
We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service as easily as this administration has wiped away their memories of us.
Who recognizes the original author?
Kerry needs to approach his 1971 Senate testimony in the same way. He was a returning soldier who had seen his friends maimed and killed for a war that was being administered very badly by the civilian leadership. He was driven by both passion and principle and he is driven by those same qualities today as he sees another generation of young people, many the same age as his own children, killed and maimed as an incompetent administration refuses to admit it has made a single mistake.
Contrary to those with a political agenda who want to distort his record of service with valor as well as his words in opposition to the war, Kerry never claimed to have seen soldiers engage in the worst of the atrocities he mentioned. But he had heard them testify that they had done so "at times."
Contrary to critics who say he slandered the vets he served with, he was chosen by many of them to speak for them in their opposition to how Washington politicians waged a war for more than ten years that they never had a feasible plan to win. His passion may have led to stronger language at times than he would use now as a more mature statesman than he used as a twenty-something Vet returning from Viet Nam, but his passion for the truth and for taking proper care of our troops in battle and our vets after they return burns just as strong.
Now, as then, John Kerry sees an administration that has stumbled badly and our nation's bravest young people are paying the price. Now, as then, John Kerry sees an administration that has acted arrogantly and has alienated much of the world. Now, as then, John Kerry is ready to fight based on principle and to insists that no one who joins our military will have their commitment to this country result in them being placed in harms way unless it is absolutely necessary.
Don't back away, don't apologize, don't cede the moral high ground, don't let them define your defining moment up till now.
Sunday, August 22, 2004
For example, on or around August 1st, John Kerry said the following:
"If the diplomacy that I believe can be put in place can work, I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops not just there but elsewhere in the world, in the Korean peninsula, perhaps, in Europe, perhaps."
On August 18th, the Bush administration Press Secretary, in response to Kerry's critique of the Bush redeployment, Scott McClellan recited that quote thusly:
"And I would point out that on August 1st, Senator Kerry said, and I quote, `I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops, not just there' -- he was referring to Iraq - `not just there, but elsewhere in the world. In the Korean Peninsula, perhaps, and Europe, perhaps, there are great possibilities open to us, but this administration has had very little imagination.' And then he went on. That was on `This Week' on August 1st.
The phrase he left out was a major qualifier, don't you think?
"If the diplomacy that I believe can be put in place can work, ..."
This is the kind of editing that conservatives accuse Michael Moore of doing when they call him a fraudulent propagandist along the lines of Leni Riefenstahl.
Then the conservative rags jump in on the action, as did Bill Kristol from the Weekly Standard:
"I will have significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops. . . . I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops, not just there but elsewhere in the world. In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps. There are great possibilities open to us. But this administration has very little imagination."
Distorting through elipses. I've seen worse. Earlier this year Drudge used three little dots to excise over 20 paragraphs from John Kerry's 1971 Senate testimony. I'm sure they weren't important.
This "overlooked" phrase is at least consistent with Kerry's position that Bush has failed on the diplomatic front and that he would do better. One can disagree with his position, but it has consistently been his position. It would have taken up precious little space to include it, but it would have been harder to stick to the "flip-flop" meme that Republican orthodoxy demands.
Then the mainstream media follows suit like a well-behaved puppy.
The talking heads start flashing up the abbreviated quote and Kerry's surrogates just don't know what to do. Which is where Kerry's best chance is to stop the flip-flop in its infancy. He didn't create it, but by God, a good communications staff can blow it out of the water. Mischaracterized and out of context quotes need to be taken on right away before they take on a life of their own. Press releases, emails etc. need to immediately go out with clarifications of what was a said along with a tweak for those in the Bush administration for their distortions and dirty tricks. Counter meme with meme. If no one currently on staff is up to the task, I'm available and get by on very little sleep.
Monday, August 09, 2004
Kerry: Still Would Have Approved Force for Iraq
GRAND CANYON, Ariz. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said on Monday he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found.
Taking up a challenge from President Bush, whom he will face in the Nov. 2 election, the Massachusetts senator said: "I'll answer it directly. Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively."
Yes, I know authority for force is not the same as a declaration of war, but without the threat, what would be the point? I've learned to love you John, but gimme a break.
Monday, July 19, 2004
I am writing to you and a few other bloggers asking for help. My name is Tom Mauser and my son Daniel was killed at Columbine High School. If we don’t stand up to President Bush and the NRA right now, the assault weapons ban will expire and AK47s and Uzis will be back on our streets.
Here is what you can do to help:
1) Sign my petition to extend the assault weapon ban: Tom'sPetition.org
When you sign up, we will automatically create a bloggable Personal Petition Page.
2) Link to your Personal Petition Page from your site and encourage your readers to sign up. Our special petition software will show you the number of people that sign up because of your effort, and even generate a map showing how the supporters are distributed across America.
Help honor the legacy of my son and prove that bloggers can make a difference!
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
Okay, since it is rarely the expected choice and Edwards is the expected choice, that means it will be Edwards since Kerry is not expected to pick the expected choice, meaning he is not expected to pick Edwards...right?
I’m not proud of it. But I admit it.
I don’t have much new to add that I haven’t seen somewhere else. I think Edwards should put NC into play, but more importantly, I think he infuses an energy and vitality that will benefit the campaign across the country. He’ll attack with a smile and in regard to the anticipated Cheney debate I say—bring it on. He’s likeable, positive and closes well. In the waning days, undecideds seem to say, “I just like that guy.” I’ll take it. Not that the Presidency is a popularity contest, as evidenced by the popular vote in 2000 that left the free world scratching its collective head regarding our version of “democracy.” I can’t wait to see him and the misses on Oprah. And just think, for Edwards it all started on The Daily Show, uh, sorta.
I also think it helps down the ticket, particularly in NC and SC. Edwards has the ability to put the Democratic Party in a much better light in the South than it has been in a long time. The policies don’t even need to change, just the packaging. Don’t get me wrong. Barring a Bush collapse, which I hold out hope for, I only see a few Southern pick-ups as realistic—Louisiana, Arkansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, and Virginia. But I also think Edwards will play well in rural Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri, West Virginia (no, it’s not the South), Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota.
And while other future hopefuls may not like it, I like the idea of setting up Edwards for a future as President. Sure, some of us may need to change our plans, but I’m willing to put off running for 16 years if we get on a roll.
Saturday, June 26, 2004
But following a recent string of fatal attacks on Iraqi officials by the insurgents, Iraqi Minister of Defense Hazim Shaalan tells Newsweek that "we will hit these people and teach them a good lesson they won't forget. Americans and allied forces have certain restrictions we won't have." He declined to be more specific, except to say, "It's our country, its our culture and we have different laws than you do." (A few days later, after yet another suicide bombing, he was more blunt: "We will cut off their hands and behead them.")
Cutting off their hands and beheading them seems a little gratuitous, don'tcha think? I mean, even our Supreme Court might think it was cruel and unusual to cut off their hands when you plan to turn right around and behead them anyway.
So Iraq is now in "control"-- well, of the really nasty stuff, anyway:
The handover of power in Iraq is being brought forward to today.
A formal announcement will be made later today, Tony Blair said.
The informal announcement was made by Iraq's foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari.
The handover of power to an interim Iraqi government was supposed to take place on June 30.
Mr Zebari said the deteriorating security situation in the country was one of the reasons why the date had been brought forward.
Well, Mr. Accountability is finally gonna see that "heads will roll." Glad to see democratic government finally coming to the Middle East.
Friday, June 25, 2004
“Most of Europe supported the decision in Iraq. Really what you're talking about is France, isn't it? And they didn't agree with my decision. They did vote for the UN Security Council resolution. ... We just had a difference of opinion about whether, when you say something, you mean it.”
Translation: "I'm a man of my word and the French are bunch of cowering, mealy mouth little weasels, that's all. Little difference of o-pin-ion. How 'bout commitin' some troops now, fellas?"
Destroyed' Lewinsky Speaks Out on Clinton Memoir
Jun 25, 7:50 AM (ET)
By Jeffrey Goldfarb, European Media Correspondent
LONDON (Reuters) - Monica Lewinsky says she feels betrayed by Bill Clinton's failure to acknowledge how he destroyed her life in his newly released memoirs.
In an interview with British broadcaster ITV to be shown on Friday, the former White House intern best known for her affair with the 42nd U.S. president says she was disappointed at how their relationship is addressed.
"I really didn't expect him to talk in detail about the relationship," she said, according to a partial transcript of the interview provided by ITV.
"But what I was hoping, and did expect was for him to acknowledge and correct the inaccurate and false statements that he, his staff and the (Democratic National Committee) made about me when they were trying to protect the presidency," she said.
In response to Clinton's recent remark to U.S. news show "60 Minutes" that he had the affair "for the worst possible reason -- because I could," Lewinsky said she "was really upset" when she first heard it.
"I have spent the past several years working so hard to just move on, and to try and build a life for myself," said Lewinsky, 30, who has been a spokeswoman for diet company Jenny Craig and host of the reality TV show "Mr. Personality."
Lewinsky, who told her own account of the affair in the 1999 book "Monica's Story," said she reluctantly spoke out about Clinton's tome "My Life" because he tried to rewrite history.
"He says he was proud of the way that he defended the presidency, at my expense," she said....
Lewinsky insists during the ITV interview that she had a relationship with Clinton even though he never uses the word in the book, instead opting for "inappropriate encounter" on page 773 of the 957-page autobiography.
"This is something that I never wanted to talk about publicly and I know he wished had never become public. But this was a mutual relationship, from the way it started all the way through," Lewinsky said.
ITV will broadcast excerpts of the interview during its lunchtime, evening and late-night news. There also will be a half-hour special, "Monica Lewinsky: My Side of the Story," at 2200 GMT on ITV1.
Jack Ryan Says He's Quitting Senate Bid
Jun 25, 3:34 PM (ET)
By DAVID ESPO and RON FOURNIER
WASHINGTON (AP) - Illinois Republican senatorial candidate Jack Ryan, his candidacy in turmoil over sex club allegations, decided to quit his quest for Congress on Friday. "I am today withdrawing from the race," he said in a statement prepared by his campaign.
"It's clear to me that a vigorous debate on the issues most likely could not take place if I remain in the race," added the statement, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press.
"What would take place, rather, is a brutal, scorched-earth campaign - the kind of campaign that has turned off so many voters, the kind of politics I refuse to play."
Jackie don't play that. And Jeri don't play what Jackie wants to play.
Monday, June 21, 2004
Its a long way to November, but I think Obama can at least chill the champagne.
Ryan papers contain allegations he pressured wife for public sex
Monday June 21, 2004
By MAURA KELLY LANNAN
CHICAGO (AP) Republican Senate candidate Jack Ryan pressured his wife, actress Jeri Lynn Ryan, to have sex in clubs while others watched, she charged in divorce documents released Monday.
The ``Boston Public'' and ``Star Trek: Voyager'' actress said she angered Ryan by refusing. She did acknowledge infidelity on her part, which she said took place after their marriage was irretrievably broken.
In the documents Ryan denied the allegations, saying he had been ``faithful and loyal'' to his wife.
Jeri Lynn Ryan charged during a custody hearing that Ryan took her on surprise trips to New Orleans, New York and Paris in 1998, and that he insisted she go to sex clubs with him on each trip.
She said that after going out to dinner with Ryan in New York, he demanded that she go to a club with him.
``It was a bizarre club with cages, whips and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling,'' she said. She said Ryan asked her to perform a sexual act while others watched, and she refused.
She said they left and Ryan apologized to her and said it was out of his system. But then, she said, he took her to Paris and again took her to a sex club.
She said she cried and became physically ill at the club, and her husband got angry with her. She said she could never get over that incident.
Saturday, June 12, 2004
Terrorism up, not down in 2003: State Department Report States
BY BARRY SCHWEID
WASHINGTON — The State Department acknowledged today it was wrong in reporting terrorism declined worldwide last year, a finding that was used to boost one of President George W. Bush's top foreign policy claims — success in countering terror.
Instead, both the number of incidents and the toll in victims increased sharply, the department said. Statements by senior administration officials claiming success were based "on the facts as we had them at the time; the facts that we had were wrong," department spokesman Richard Boucher said.
The report, issued in April, reported attacks had declined last year to the lowest level in 34 years and dropped 45 per cent since 2001, Bush's first year as president.
Among the mistakes, Boucher said, was that only part of 2003 was taken into account.
Secretary of State Colin Powell said today the errors were partly the result of new data collection procedures. "I can assure you it had nothing to do with putting out anything but the most honest, accurate information we can," he said.
"Errors crept in that frankly we did not catch here," Powell said of the report, which showed a falloff in the number of attacks worldwide in 2003 and the virtual disappearance of incidents in which no one died.
Representative Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said this week the administration had refused to address his contention that the findings were manipulated for political purposes. Waxman had written Powell asking for an explanation.
Boucher said a reply to Waxman was in preparation. "We wanted to make sure that we give the congressman the best and most accurate picture of what we know and what's going on as we can," he said.
He said the errors began to become apparent in early May. "We got phone calls from people who were going through our report and who said to themselves, as we should have said to ourselves: `This doesn't feel right. This doesn't look right.' And who started asking us questions," he said.
One of Bush's major foreign policy claims is that his post-Sept. 11 strategy to counter terror was showing success.
Ken Mehlman, the president's campaign manager, said in April, "Ultimately the most important thing that people want to see on the war on terror is, what is your vision for dealing with it and what is your record."
"Obviously one of the most important issues in this election is the question of how do we continue to fight and win the war on terror so we keep our homeland safe," Mehlman said.
At the same time, Vice-President Dick Cheney and Mehlman have questioned whether Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry was qualified to conduct a war against terrorism.
When the annual report was issued April 29, senior administration officials used it as evidence the war was being won under Bush.
J. Cofer Black, who heads the State Department's counterterrorism office, cited the existence of only 190 acts of terrorism in 2003 as "good news" and predicted the trend would continue this year.
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said at the time, "Indeed, you will find in these pages clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight."
His office did not respond today to a request for a statement in light of disclosures some of the findings in Patterns of Global Terrorism were inaccurate and understated.
"When we are sure we have the new facts, the right facts, we will prepare an appropriate analysis and give you our assessment at that moment," Boucher said.
They were quick enough to cite it as good news. Maybe a Dem intern could fact check next time. Amazing.
Wednesday, June 02, 2004
Paris bans protests ahead of Bush's visit
Demonstrations have been banned in central Paris throughout this week to ensure no hostile protests are in evidence to disturb President George W. Bush's brief presence in the French capital on Saturday, where he will be dining with President Jacques Chirac.
This blanket ban cannot conceal the groundswell of French hostility to the US president and the unpopularity of his policies on Iraq and the broader Middle East.
It nevertheless underscores Mr Chirac's determination to make Mr Bush's stay in France for the 60th anniversary of the D-Day celebrations a friendly occasion and a chance to improve the chilly state of Franco-American relations.
Saturday, May 29, 2004
Bush dynasty ex-wife set to spill the beans
By Steve Bloomfield and Sophie Goodchild
30 May 2004
A new book on the Bush dynastyis set for release just six weeks before November's knife-edge presidential election. The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty by Kitty Kelley will have an initial print run of 500,000, and the main source is believed to be Sharon Bush, the ex-wife of Neil, President George W Bush's wayward brother.
The book could be the most damaging yet for the President, with the publishers, Random House, promising it will "cause controversy".
Monday, May 10, 2004
Assistant Secretary of Defense Charles Abell has a master's from Columbus University, a diploma mill Louisiana shut down. Deputy Assistant Secretary Patricia Walker lists among her degrees, a bachelor's from Pacific Western, a diploma mill banned in Oregon and under investigation in Hawaii.
CBS News requested interviews with both officials. The Pentagon turned us down, saying, "We don't consider it an issue."
But using such a degree is a crime in some states. Alan Contreras cracks down on diploma mills for Oregon, a state that's taken the lead on this issue.
"You don't want somebody with a fake degree working in Homeland Security," says Contreras. "You don't want somebody with a fake degree teaching your children or designing your bridges."
But we found employees with diploma mill degrees at the new Transportation Security Administration, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Departments of Treasury and Education, where Rene Drouin sits on an advisory committee. He has degrees from two diploma mills including Kensington University.
Kensington was forced out of business by officials in California and Hawaii. Another Kensington alum, Florida State Rep. Jennifer Carroll, just stepped down from the National Commission on Presidential Scholars.
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
In his own simple words, before he envisioned leading the Free World (or even Texas):
"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes."
Now, his surrogates are smearing Kerry. Was one of his Purple Hearts a little "questionable"? Did he throw away his actual Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts, or just his ribbons? And has he "allowed" people to be confused about the difference? Was he brave, cowardly, medal hungry or just an atrocity seeking mad man when he left his boat, ran down a VC and killed him?
Lost in these distractions is another story of which I am hot on the trail. What happened to Bush's medals? Or ribbons? I've heard rumors (mostly because I listen to myself sometimes) that although Bush wasn't granted medals, or ribbons, or whatever, except an honorable discharge which Republicans seem to think warrants more respect than three Purple Hearts, that Bush routinely stole other soldiers medals and sold them to support his cocaine habit....Developing...
Monday, April 19, 2004
Friday, April 09, 2004
According to White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, President Bush watching the statue fall on television, and said, "They got it down."
"The president is filled with joy for the fact that the Iraqi people soon will be free," Fleischer added.
Likening the scenes of Iraqis destroying symbols of Saddam's power to the 1989 fall of the Berlin Wall, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called it a "very good day" for the Iraqi people.
Then there were utter morons like this guy about a week later:
Hardly a month into it, the war to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein is winding down. The past 10 days have seen....
The taking of the Baghdad airport, as well as Basra and Baghdad itself. The collapse of resistance in Kirkuk, Mosul, Tikrit and Qaim. The repatriation of the Magnificent Seven POWs (plus one). The capture of key Saddamite operatives, the flight of others and the death of still others, such as Chemical Ali and possibly even the big enchiladas - Saddam and his two cretinous sons.
Cooperation with the Turks. Cheers, celebration, jubilation in the streets - Iraqis hugging Marines, saying, "I love Mr. Bush," and shouting, "America, yes!" Torture chambers found, missiles found, caches of likely biochemical weapons found. Warnings to Syria. Statues of Saddam defaced and toppled across the land.
Yet the people who said....
Let the UN do it. Give the inspectors more time. It's all about oil. The Europeans are irked - the Chinese, too. People will die; better start stocking up on body bags. War will cost too much. Preemption is wrong; war to liberate Iraq wouldn't be just; the protesters and the Dixie Chicks are right. It would be an American jihad - war against Islam, war against the Arabs. Iraq isn't our problem; Saddam isn't so bad.
...Are many of the same people who said....
What does stupid Bush know? Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and Wolfowitz are proven warmongers - not to mention the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Saddam might use biochems - verily, what if he does? The retired flag officers on TV are skeptical. The coalition forces are too few, too green, can't possibly win quickly. We'll get mired in Iraq à la Vietnam.
...Are many of the same people who, following the statue's destruction, liked these commentaries and headlines....
Celebration is unseemly and premature. Columnist Thomas Friedman: "No water, no food, no happy faces," so "hold your applause." Imams and intellectuals are voicing concerns. Cox News Service: "Sentiment in Baghdad is about 60-40 joy; many Iraqis are sullen and despise the U.S." ...
"Reaction in Europe Muted and Mixed." "Arabs Gloomy." "Some Iraqis Grateful to U.S. But Wary of Any Changes." "Muslims Unmoved by Fall of Saddam; Leaders Condemn U.S. as Colonizer."
...Are many of the same people who are saying now....
The United States has won the war but can't possibly win the peace. There is chaos, mayhem, looting, vigilantism and anarchy. Bush is a boob; he has put a retired general in charge of the interim transition government. In an Arab/Islamic country, democracy can't work.
When will Bush start moving on democracy? What about reconstruction? What about humanitarian assistance? The United States better leave soon, soonest - yesterday. The United States better not leave before the restoration of civil order. If the United States lingers too long, U.S. troops will be viewed in the Arab street as nothing more than latter-day Ugly Americans.
Bush and Blair are arguing over post-liberation Iraq. Who will run the place? Islam hates us; Arabs hate us; we are loathed. What about Arab/Islamic despair over the defeat of Saddam? We need to restore the Arabs' - Islam's - lost honor. Give the UN - and our crucial allies France, Germany, Russia and China - a wider role to get the crucial things done.
Questions: Who is ignorant (Jane Fonda said in Vancouver the other day that Americans are)? Who have their arms around the situation and really know what they're talking about? Who are doing what they said they would do and, thankfully, checking things off the list instead of constantly carping - who is out there in the fray securing liberty for Iraqis and protecting the people and interests of the United States?
Who is out there in the fray today? A bunch of underpaid, underresourced, overextended soldiers. Bush has gone fishing with his Dad and will probably squeeze a fundraiser or two in this week.
Cheney before the war:
MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who’s a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he’s written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.
Iraqis withold flowers on the anniversary of Saddam's collapse
On the anniversary of the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, Baghdad and parts of central Iraq were chaotic.
At a square in the capital where Saddam's statue was toppled a year ago, soldiers took down a new icon: pictures of the radical Shiite cleric whose followers have risen up against coalition forces in the south.
Another U.S. soldier was killed in an attack on a base elsewhere in the capital, and large groups of insurgents fought U.S. soldiers in two cities to the north, Baqouba and Muqdadiyah.
One Marine was killed in Fallujah and another wounded in exchanges of fire after U.S. forces called a stop to offensive operations in the city, a spokesman said.
The death - along with those of three Marines a day earlier announced yesterday - brought the toll of U.S. soldiers killed across Iraq this week to 46. More than 460 Iraqis have been killed in the fighting - including more than 280 in Fallujah, a hospital official said....
Elsewhere, fighting with al-Sadr's al-Mahdi Army militia diminished. Coalition forces largely left gunmen in control in three cities of south-central Iraq, and further south, coalition forces have largely succeeded in taming the uprising, though Italian soldiers still experienced light fighting in the city of Nasiriyah.
In Fallujah, Marines stopped their assault on Sunni insurgents to allow U.S.-picked Iraqi leaders - angry at the United States over the bloodshed from five days of heavy fighting - to hold talks with city leaders on how to reduce the violence.
The governing council issued a statement early today demanding an end to military action and "collective punishment" - a reference to the Fallujah siege.
Abdul-Karim Mahoud al-Mohammedawi, a Shiite on the governing council, said he was suspending his council seat until "the bleeding stops in all Iraq." He also met yesterday with al-Sadr, whom U.S. commanders have vowed to capture.
Meanwhile, in an indication of the emergence of a new enemy in Iraq, two pictures of al-Sadr hung from a sculpture in Baghdad's central Firdos Square, where one year ago Marines toppled a statue of Saddam.
A U.S. soldier climbed a ladder to tear down the posters, and the military warned that al-Sadr's followers were planning bomb attacks in the area. Hours later, a mortar landed nearby
A more pleasant memory from 30 years and one day ago:
Hammerin' Hank hits number 715
Tuesday, April 06, 2004
EL DORADO, Ark., April 6 -- President Bush endorsed a proposal Tuesday that would require states to test 12th-grade students and called for the replacement of an 87-year-old vocational education program.
Muslim Rivals Unite In Baghdad Uprising
BAGHDAD, April 6 -- On the streets of Baghdad neighborhoods long defined by differences of faith and politics, signs are emerging that resistance to the U.S. occupation may be growing from a sporadic, underground effort to a broader insurrection by militiamen who claim to be fighting in the name of their common faith, Islam.
On Monday, residents of Adhamiya, a largely Sunni section of northern Baghdad, marched with followers of Moqtada Sadr, the militant Shiite cleric whose call for armed resistance was answered by local Sunnis the same afternoon, residents said.
As protesters chanted anti-occupation slogans in Abu Hanifa Square, militants were seen hustling toward the site carrying AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenade launchers, residents said. The guerrillas opened fire on the U.S. armor deployed near the demonstration, attacking from positions in a neighborhood where militants appear to be not just tolerated but encouraged.
"I saw three mujaheddin on this street, and another three moving up this side," said Abu Hassan, pointing toward narrow lanes running toward the square on either side of the bakery where he works. On the other side of the counter, a customer spoke excitedly of guerrilla fighters arriving in several Toyota Coaster minibuses, then melting into the neighborhood.
"Everywhere among the houses they hid," said the young customer, who left without giving his name. "Then they started shooting at the American army."
Saturday, March 27, 2004
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Narrator: 3,000 Americans dead. Could it have been prevented? What could we have done differently? That's the question the 9/11 Commission is trying to answer. Its not about blame. Its about answers-- truthful answers. President Clinton has agreed to testify before the entire commission-- no time limits. President Bush refuses to testify under oath. Dick Cheney refuses to testify under oath. Condi Rice questions other people's credibility, but even she refuses to testfiy under oath. What are they hiding? Why won't they swear to tell the truth-- the whole truth? Call the White House. Tell them it is time to fully cooperate with the Commission so Americans can finally know the truth.
Rice Accuses Clarke of Conflicting Stories
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A fuming U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice accused former counter-terrorism aide Richard Clarke on Wednesday of shifting positions from backing President Bush's war on terrorism to now questioning it.
Clarke has accused Bush of a fixation on Iraq, but Rice said Clarke did not raise those concerns with her. She said after his resignation 13 months ago, she invited him to lunch three weeks before the start of the U.S.-led war against Iraq to thank him for his years of service.
Clarke had "not a word about concerns that Iraq was going to somehow take us off the path of the war on terrorism. It would've been easy to do, kick the others out, close the door, say 'I just want you to know I think you're making a mistake.' He didn't do it," she told reporters in her West Wing office.
Rice, in normal circumstances an even-keeled top White House aide, was unusually incensed during a half-hour briefing for reporters in her West Wing office, as she castigated her former employee. She also went on television to make her case.
Her comments reflected ongoing White House frustration with Clarke, who has threatened the underpinning of Bush's re-election strategy as an activist in the war on terrorism.
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
President Bush's campaign rolled out a curious new line of attack on Sen. John F. Kerry this week, highlighting a $1 trillion "tax gap" -- that is, the cost of his proposals and the money available to pay for them -- in the Massachusetts senator's economic platform.
"John Kerry's tax gap of $1 trillion would result in higher taxes on every American and is the wrong prescription for our economy," Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said this week. "Kerry's new government spending will put a burden on every American family."
In a nutshell, the Bush campaign says that Kerry so far has proposed about $1.7 trillion in new spending over the next 10 years while proposing to increase taxes by about $650 million by rescinding the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
Why is the attack curious? Because the Bush campaign accuses Kerry of doing nearly the same thing Bush did in 2000. In his campaign for president, the Texas governor went from campaign stop to campaign stop proposing hundreds of billions of dollars for new environmental, social and educational programs without ever outlining one major cut in any federal program.
Bush did all of this while proposing a $1.35 trillion tax-cut plan.
The reporters following the Bush campaign (I was one of them) pushed the candidate to explain how he planned to balance the books with huge tax cuts, massive infusions of new spending for education and social programs and no significant cuts in existing programs. The candidate's answer was always the same: The expanding economy and a predicted $4.6 trillion budget surplus would more than pay for tax cuts and spending increases. Even when it became clear in mid-2000 -- the heat of the campaign season -- that the economy was slowing down, the Bush campaign stuck by its story.
It was a smart political strategy, one that played off of a contemporary phenomenon -- the irrational exuberance of the era -- and a traditional one -- the certainty that voters will reward politicians who promise them it's possible to have everything.
Bush endeared himself to conservatives in 2000 by promising historic tax cuts. And, unlike his Newt Gingrich-era predecessors, he didn't alienate liberals and moderates with constant talk about slashing popular government programs.
As the rosy economic predictions that underscored the Bush campaign's economic platform evaporated in 2001, the president proposed even greater tax cuts while overseeing what the libertarian Cato Institute calculates to be the largest annual increases in discretionary spending since the Great Society programs of the Johnson administration in the late 1960s.
The result: a tax gap of more than $5 trillion in spending over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
"While George W. Bush has claimed to support deficit reduction, his policies and plans have led us from a $5.6 trillion surplus to an expected $5.2 trillion deficit -- a $10 trillion difference," the Kerry campaign responded on Monday. "Since George Bush has said he cares about the deficit, we can only assume that there is a $10 trillion tax gap that he will charge the American people."
In other words, the Bush tax gap is bigger than our tax gap.
I've concluded that these guys are so dishonest to their core that they can't even see their own hypocrisy. The sheer volume of dishonest crap that they throw at you-- depending on the ignorance of the average American voter to not be able to see through it on his or her own-- makes it almost impossible to effectively rebut it all in 30 second ads.
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush said Tuesday he would have acted more quickly against al-Qaeda if he had information before Sept. 11, 2001, that a terror attack against New York City was imminent.
"We have been chasing down al-Qaeda, ever since those attacks," Bush said.
In his first direct response to criticism raised in a new book by his former counterterrorism adviser, Bush denied that he ignored Osama bin Laden and the threat of the al-Qaeda terror network before the attacks while focusing on Iraq's Saddam Hussein.
"The facts are these, George Tenet briefed me on a regular basis about the terrorist threat to the United States of America, and had my administration had any information that terrorists were going to attack New York City on Sept. 11, we would have acted," Bush said.
In the same interview, Bush said that had he known the Mets would win the World Series in 1969, he would have bet his entire cocaine allowance on the "bastards."
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
George W. Bush is misleading us again. The Bush administration told us that Iraq would finance its own reconstruction from seized assets and oil production.
(show articles and headlines and pictures of a scowling Cheney and Smirking Bush)
That wasn't true. In a misleading attack ad, George Bush now claims the 87 billion dollars he asked for last fall was for our troops. What does he not tell you?
$20 billion was actually intended for reconstruction and for training Iraqi security forces. But there was also $82 million to protect Iraq’s 36 miles of coast line; new prisons at a cost of $50,000 per bed; a witness protection program at a cost of $1 million per family; $2 million for museums and memorials, and a whopping $9 million for a state-of-the-art postal service.
And who has made out like bandits-- literally? Companies with close ties to President Bush, like Halliburtion, a company that still pays Dick Cheney, have gotten contracts without bids. And according to Pentagon audits, have grossly overcharged the American taxpayer.
John Kerry thinks its time this administration is held accountable. Our troops need a real plan that provides true international support. And we deserve a President that tells us the truth.
Friday, March 12, 2004
(CBS/AP) Pentagon auditors found a Halliburton Co. subsidiary gave faulty cost estimates on a $2.7 billion contract to serve American troops in Iraq and Kuwait, and company officials acknowledged making mistakes, Defense Department documents show.
The estimate problems included a failure to tell contract managers that Halliburton had terminated two subcontracts for feeding troops, which affected costs on $1 billion worth of that work, the Defense Contract Audit Agency found. Halliburton also did not tell contract managers it had already awarded subcontracts worth $141.5 million for work it said would cost $208.8 million, the auditors found.
Trump may be television's most effective boss, but there's some question if his ranking on Wall Street is more akin to a series deserving of the ax after its first season. Trump, the TV star, has achieved eye-popping ratings. But Trump, the CEO, appears to have rating problems where they matter most — with the stock market and corporate debt-rating services. Trump Hotels & Casino's stock sells for little more than the cost of a ride on the New York City subway. Standard & Poor's and Moody's both recently cut their rating on Trump Hotels & Casino's debt. S&P called it "vulnerable," and Moody's called it "high risk.
Thursday, March 11, 2004
Pickle last week released a report detailing how two Republican staffers, who have both since left their jobs, exploited computer security weaknesses to access more than 4,600 documents. Republicans and Democrats alike have condemned the staffers' actions as improper, but they say prosecutors must decide whether actual crimes were committed....
Lawyers representing one of the former aides who took the documents, Manuel Miranda, released two lengthy documents criticizing Pickle's report. They said Miranda was a whistle-blower, not a thief, taking advantage of a computer security glitch to fulfill his duty to further the president's agenda on the judiciary.
Second Top Colorado Republican Says No to Senate
DENVER (Reuters) - Rep. Bob Beauprez said on Thursday he would not run for the U.S. Senate seat from Colorado being vacated by fellow Republican Ben Nighthorse Campbell, leaving his party still without a strong candidate to defend a crucial seat.
Republicans hold just a one-seat majority in the 100-member Senate, and Colorado party officials began scrambling for a successor to Campbell after Republican state Gov. Bill Owens -- their first choice -- dropped out of contention on Tuesday.
Owens even mentioned Beauprez twice when he said he would not run for family reasons.
In a conference call with reporters, Beauprez said this was not the time to run for the Senate and he hoped instead to be re-elected to his House seat for a second term.
"At some point in the future I may feel compelled to run for the U.S. Senate, but this is not the right time for me," Beauprez said from Washington.
Republicans need to find a big-name candidate soon. On Wednesday, Attorney General Ken Salazar, Colorado's highest- ranking Democrat, announced he would run.
Monday, March 08, 2004
Gephardt- Conventional wisdom suggests that Geppy will shore up labor support and play well in the entire Midwest. The reality is that Gep didn’t command labor support as a Presidential candidate and placed a pathetic fourth in Iowa after practically living there. Okay, but Gep secures the battleground state of Missouri, right? Who knows? He has never won a statewide race and may not be popular outside of his district. The truth is Gephardt is a good man who would be a miserable failure as a VP candidate. He is deadly dull, and provide no meaningful help anywhere, outside of the possibility of Missouri. Plus, it would piss off all the Deaniacs. Even without that consideration, however, from an electoral standpoint he brings little to the table. Most pundits though he would emerge as the anti-Dean, which shows how incredibly out of touch some of these folks are.
Edwards- The conventional wisdom criticism of Edwards is that he can’t even guarantee NC. That may be true, but I think misses his real attraction. Voters find the guy likeable. He creates positive buzz and energy and God knows, someone in the Kerry campaign has to be able to consistently enthuse people. Edwards may be the strongest choice. I think he would be well received in the rust belt and would help place some key Southern states in play. No, I don’t see him bringing Alabama and Mississippi into the Dem fold, but he could be a difference maker in LA, AR, FL, NC, TN, and WV. Ultimately, synergy is more important that geography and I think these two fit better that Kerry may realize. Kerry may not like the guy, but Kennedy does and might argue for him.
Graham- Good guy, lousy candidate. May not really help in FL and certainly won’t help anywhere else. Sure, he has great credentials, but people have to care about what you’re saying before they check your vita. And the excessive notetaking is just damn weird.
Richardson- Another blogosphere favorite that is way, way off. The guy is dull and uninteresting. Even worse, he probably has more baggage than any other top name being kicked around. The sloppy security around Los Alamos will only serve to enhance the Repug attacks on Kerry’s security credentials. Do you doubt it? Remember how much anti-war bloggers were loving Robert Byrd last year? Here is what he said to Richards in 2000:
SEN. ROBERT BYRD: I have to say, I am not calling for your resignation at this moment, but you have shown a supreme, a supreme contempt of the committees of this Congress. When you decided that you would go-- if the newspaper stories are correct-- when you decided that you would go before the Intelligence Committee when you were ready... you weren't ready yet…that was a supreme act of callous arrogance, and I resent it. I think it's a rather sad story that you had a bright and brilliant career that you had never, that you would never again receive the support of the Senate of the United States for any office to which you might be appointed. It's beyond... you have squandered your treasure, and I am sorry.
I was stunned when I watched Byrd eviscerate a cabinet member on the floor of the Senate like he did. And he’s a Democrat. Fuggetaboutit.
Conventional wisdom says Richards will energize Latinos in the Southwest. Don’t count on it. Tony Sanchez didn’t sufficiently mobilize Latinos in Texas and Cruz Bustamante didn’t mobilize Latinos in California. It’s a pipe dream. Let it go.
Cleland- I respect his sacrifice. I respect his service. I deeply resent how he was treated in 2002. That said, if he hadn’t been treated so shabbily, would this one-term Senator be on many lists? No superstar during his short Senate career, not a particularly strong campaigner or speaker. Not a good candidate for Vice President. Maybe Veteran’s Affairs.
Clark- Conventional wisdom is that Clark may have lessened his VP stature with his run for the Presidency. Well, the mystique is certainly gone, but he grew as a candidate, is quite capable of ripping Bushco a new one, and has a support base that while relatively small, is quite broad. Clark can be great on the stump or in an interview, and would be much better in a one-on-one debate than he was in the 9-10 member events referred to as debates in the fall. He can also be rather flat on the stump which, honestly, makes him no worse a campaigner than most politicians. He’s better than Graham, Gephardt, Richardson or Cleland, IMHO, He also shores up Kerry’s security credentials which seem to be the target of choice for Bushco. He may help in the South and Southwest, and certainly wouldn’t hurt. His biggest drawback is a tendency to say the wrong thing from time to time and then have to explain himself too much. As he adapts more to politics this should improve. He probably best serves Kerry as the Secretary of State or National Security Advisor, however.
McCain- Yeah, I know. Rumored as early as last summer, McCain didn’t really slam the door last Sunday. He said he couldn’t see not being a Republican. A Dem/Rep ticket could really allow Kerry to sell himself to independents as a true uniter. The problem is it would not play terribly well with the base who would fear an Anti-Choice candidate, albeit an unenthusiastic one, being next in line and McCain’s support for the Iraq war would also be problematic. Also, even though I can see McCain pulling the lever for Kerry before Bush, whom I still believe he despises, I’m still not sure McCain has given up on running for President in 2008 and would not want to damage himself with Republicans or assure a Dem victory. Don’t see it happening, but maybe…
Saturday, March 06, 2004
Less than 5 weeks into his Presidential term, Bill Clinton presided over the most significant foreign terrorist attack in the USA up to that time. On February 26, 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by Islamic fundamentalists. What followed? Arrests, convictions and 7 years and 11 months of relative safety on our shores. Millenial threats were thwarted and America went about its business. Yes, there were Al Qaeda attacks elsewhere in the world, but not here. Does Clinton get credit for this? Does that fact that our feeling safe from foreign terrorists came to a screeching halt less than 8 months into Bush II's administration raise questions of a collossal failure on his behalf? Why aren't these views at least equally common? Because the Repugs have framed the discussion, up until now. It is time to reframe it.
Thursday, March 04, 2004
GOP Aides Blamed for Leaking Documents
Report: Thousands of Files Were Accessed
The report released yesterday by Senate Sergeant-at-Arms William H. Pickle noted that two former Senate GOP staff members -- including the Republicans' top aide on judicial nomination strategy -- were primarily responsible for accessing and leaking computer memos on Democratic plans for blocking some of President Bush's judicial nominations.
Pickle made no recommendations about whether to pursue criminal prosecutions in the case, but he cited several federal laws that might be considered, including statutes involving false statements and receipt of stolen property.
Pickle and his investigators said forensics analyses indicated that 4,670 files had been downloaded between November 2001 and spring 2003 by one of the aides -- "the majority of which appeared to be from folders belonging to Democratic staff" on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said at least 100 of his computer files were also accessed by the GOP aides.
The report identified the two former staffers as Jason Lundell, a nominations clerk who originally accessed the files, and Manuel Miranda, a more senior staff member and later the top aide to Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) on judicial nominations. Miranda, the report said, advised Lundell and was said by other aides to have been implicated in leaking the documents to friendly journalists or other parties outside the Senate. Miranda had previously denied leaking the materials....
Some Republicans on the committee -- and many conservative groups on the outside -- said the Senate should have probed the contents of the memos, which they contended demonstrated the collusion between Democrats and liberal advocacy groups, rather than how the memos ended up in Republican hands.
Okay, what are we left with? Pro-death penalty, anti-gay, pro-unnecessary war, disrespectful of veterans, ruining the environment, saddling the next generation with debt to pay off wealthy contributors and frat brothers, and a policy making process that is shrouded in secrecy. If the Terry McAuliffe can't beat that collection of positions, I'd like a shot.