A P E I R O N

Why Does Republican John Danforth Hate America?

2005-04-06T09:31:00.000-06:00

I Write Letters

2005-04-01T23:49:00.000-07:00

I noted in my previous post my failed attempt to get into Bush's Colorado Town Hallesque Meeting. Since my original post the big news has centered on the ejection of the "Denver Three." If you've been following the story you know that they were ejected not because of the riot they incited or the salad dressing they threw at The Bubble Boy, but because of a bumper sticker on the car in which they arrived at the event.

Talking Points Memo today picks up on the comments of Rep. Bob Beauprez (CO-07). I was moved to write Josh Marshall the following missive.

Josh,

I just finished a good and hearty laugh after reading your post about Bob Beauprez. I'm laughing not at your analysis (which I hope pans out) but at the effrontery and mock exasperation of Rep. Beauprez. Far from seeing "the light of day," as you put it, Beauprez's statement demonstrates an unsurprising lack of candor.

I'm a Colorado resident and I'd like to share a little information with you.

Beauprez's curious phrasing -- "as I understand it" and "my understanding" -- makes me wonder. I would expect his understanding to be quite clear given the fact that his office was responsible for arranging the attendance for the event. Please see the attached e-mail, signed by Bob Beauprez, directing people to call his office to obtain tickets.

Incidentally, people who called Rep. Beauprez's office experienced another curiosity.

I called Beauprez's office and stated my desire to obtain tickets to see the president. The staffer replied "We're out of tickets." (Given that the venue is a 44,000 square foot aircraft hangar and that the e-mail invite to which I was responding had been sent out less than 24 hours earlier, I was a bit dubious that they had so quickly disbursed sufficent tickets to fill an aircraft hangar.) After a pause, Beauprez's staffer asked, "How did you find out about the event?" Armed with my trusty e-mail (forwarded to me by fellow non-Republicans) I said I had received an e-mail. To which the staffer perkily responded, "Well, let me see if your name is on a list..." Ahhh, "a list." I knew my name wouldn't be on her list (at least not the list that would grant me access to see the Bamboozler-In-Chief. A few seconds later she confirmed it with something like, "Sorry, we really are out of tickets." (Strangely, another person who called Beauprez's office a few hours later was treated to the same charade of "we're out of tickets but if you tell me who you are maybe we're really not out of tickets.")

It's worth noting, I think, that despite the venue's immense capacity (venue website claims up to 1,800 can be accomodated for a sit down dinner -- one presumes that without dinner tables even more people could be accomodated) media reports variously describe the attendance only as "several hundred" up to "roughly 1,000 people." The idea that they were out of tickets in a venue only at 10 to 50 percent of capacity is laughable. They were out of tickets only if you were not sufficiently vetted.

Beauprez's comment really strains credulity. So, if I may, I'd like to interpret the fine representative's comments. I've added his unstated text in [bold]:

"[If my staff had been doing their job properly] This kind of stuff should never really happen. At least as I understand it, these folks showed up[. After fooling my office staff I guess I've got to admit] – they’ve got every right to be there. There was a pro-Bush leaning crowd but by no means at all, my understanding, a 100% pro-Bush crowd [because, apparently, my staff screwed up]. And unless they did something wrong there’s no reason why the should be yanked out of there and escorted through the door. [The bottom line is that if my staff can't stop these average Americans before they get in the door, the president is going to have to risk coming in contact with normal people. When we start yanking people out of the audience, we run the risk of an investigation into how the tickets were distributed in the first place...]

I realize you're trying to run a respectable web site. But please don't ruin your credibility by trying to find something positive in the weasely words of a congressman who owes his two victories to the largesse of the political arm of the Bush White House

Cheers,
Mike
Erie, Colorado

P.S. Great blog. Keep up the good work.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: XXXX
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 10:42 AM
Subject: Invitation to Join President George W. Bush

Dear Friend:

I believe protecting Social Security for future generations must be among our highest priorities as a compassionate society. Millions of hard working Americans have come to rely upon this program for their retirement security and we have an obligation to make sure the benefits they have earned are protected. And we have a similar obligation to make sure these benefits are also available to our children and grandchildren when they retire.

President Bush shares these values and has made the protection of Social Security among his highest domestic priorities. I applaud the President for his leadership on this issue. While Social Security is solvent now, and will continue to be in the near future, it faces major challenges that must be addressed. The President understands this and has been a courageous leader in the effort to educate the American public about the problem, as well as the various options we have to address the problem.

It is my pleasure to invite you to a very special town hall meeting with the President of the United States to discuss this issue. On Monday, March 21st, at 4:00 p.m., President Bush will conduct a Colorado Town Hall Meeting on Protecting Social Security. This special meeting will take place at Wings Over the Rockies at the former Lowry Air Force Base.

Tickets are required and can be acquired through my office. If you are interested, please call my Wheat Ridge office at 303-940-5821, or drop by on Friday, March 18, or Saturday March 19, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. We are located at 4251 Kipling in Wheat Ridge. Tickets will be distributed in suite 370.

I hope you will take advantage of this unique opportunity to engage in a conversation with the President on this very important issue. I look forward to seeing you next Monday at Wings over the Rockies.

Sincerely,

Bob Beauprez

P.S. PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS EMAIL. For tickets or more information, please call my district office at (303) 940-5821.

The Bubble Boy and "Democracy"

2005-03-24T17:58:00.000-07:00

The Carpetbagger has the latest on Bubble Boy's inability to interact with those of opposing viewpoints.

Speaking for myself and my family, I can relate to the UA student who was denied access. We (my parents and I) separately tried to get tickets to see Dear Leader when he came to Colorado earlier this week. We learned via a forwarded e-mail that tickets could be obtained from the office of Rep. Bob Beauprez. Two separate calls to the congressman's office yielded the same result: No tickets but the nagging feeling that tickets were available for the "right" kind of people.

The almost direct quote from the staffer on the phone: "I'm sorry but we're out of tickets. But if you could give me your name and address I can check to see if we've got any extra tickets available." Seriously, that's what she said.

So much for democracy and dialog. You are not allowed to see the President of the United States unless you're on an approved list.

The transcript of his Colorado bamboozlepalooza event shows that George honestly thinks he's talking to "the people."

THE PRESIDENT: ...We're going to have a serious dialogue on Social Security. It's an issue that requires a lot of dialogue and a lot of discussion. And so I want to thank our panelists for joining us. I want to thank you all for your interest in this subject.

Later, when bantering with an invited stage guest, a junior from CU, he reinforced his belief that he's winning converts:

THE PRESIDENT: Good. Yes, well, this is a little political science exercise right now. This is called, taking the message to the people. (Laughter.) Because I believe the people will influence the outcome of this debate.

While I'm glad to see that Georgie remains safe in his bubble, oblivious to reality, I can't help but be sad for our country. Dissent is now, not only mocked, but actively avoided by replacing it with false replicas of "town hall" meetings. A meeting of the minds is precluded because only those with the approved point of view are allowed to participate.

Richard Cohen is an Idiot

2005-03-24T13:29:00.000-07:00

Where are the Democrats?

They're standing on the sidelines watching the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot.

Is this a good long-term strategy? Of course not. But as Republicans sail their "mandate" into the twin rocks of Social Security Reform and "The Terri Schiavo Health Care Initiative" there's absolutely no reason for Democrats to throw them a lifeline.

I think Democrats are playing the political angle -- and face it, that's all there is to the Schiavo circus: a political angle -- exactly right.

Cohen laments that it is a Republican who is left to voice this oh-so-true sentiment: "This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy." But is Cohen so deluded to think that if any Democrat had said this, rather than Christopher Shay, anyone would have listened? Any common idiot can see how the Limbaughs, Coulters, Hannitys, and Humes would have played a similar quote had it come from even the most conservative Democrat.

Grow the Flock - Hammer the Lenders

2005-03-22T14:43:00.000-07:00

Excellent suggestions for improving the country by building a competitive progressive party. Obviously we need to "grow the flock" of progressive voters in the country. The suggestion to focus on the massive debt levels of ordinary Americans strikes me as an excellent idea. I could evangelize for this on both a policy and personal basis.

Red State Hero

2005-03-20T19:55:00.000-07:00

Not a bad little appreciation for Julius Hodge.

Heh

2005-03-20T13:01:00.000-07:00

Calling the Republicans "brain-dead" is an insult to Terry Schiavo. Then again, this might explain why they're making such ~~heroic~~ hypocritic efforts in her case.

Bush Administration Lies to Allies (yawn)

2005-03-19T21:31:00.000-07:00

In their unstinting efforts to destroy US credibility, the Bush administration, we now learn, has been deceiving our Asian allies in our ongoing dispute with North Korea. Pyongyang, it seems, did NOT export nuclear material to Libya. North Korea provided uranium hexafluoride to Pakistan and Pakistan turned around and supplied it to Libya, apparently without the knowledge of the North Koreans. Despite knowing about this chain of events all along the United States told our regional allies that North Korea was a direct provider of the fissile material to Libya.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other, right? Except that the Pakistanis are our best buddies in the "War on Terror." Oh, and our Asian allies might not have wanted to join the ineffectual six party talks without the extra incentive of North Korea being Kaddafi's nuclear arms supplier.

Another one of those pesky "former Bush administration officials" gets it right:

"The administration is giving Pakistan a free ride when they don't deserve it and hurting U.S. interests at the same time," said Charles L. Pritchard, who was the Bush administration's special envoy for the North Korea talks until August 2003. "As our allies get the full picture, it doesn't help our credibility with them," he said.

I swear I've got to find a Bush flunky to explain it to me again. Is it: It's OK to lie as long as it hurts America? Or does it go: Lying is OK, it's the blowjobs that are impermissible? Or is the easy-to-remember: Some people are more equal than others, ergo Republican lies good, Democratic lies bad.

I'm sure one of these days I'll get the rules straight.

Jonah's Modest (And Idiotic) Proposal

2005-03-18T15:39:00.000-07:00

Via Atrios we have more nonsense from Jonah Goldberg. His aim, apparently, is to appear cute while simultaneously trying to demonstrate that he cares deeply about the environment.

Just a few random thoughts.

If Goldberg really believes that DDT is non-carcinogenic in humans I would like to invite him to inject about 10cc into his carotid artery. Ohh, but perhaps he's afraid of needles? Instead maybe he could just kick back a few DDT shooters the next time he's out boozing it up with friends.

"The inconvenient truth," he writes, "is that cats kill more American birds, particularly songbirds, than DDT and pesticides ever did." This, along with the "double standard" that allows the hunting of dogs for harassing livestock, leads Goldberg to demand "justice." The solution, of course, is to allow the hunting of cats.

Hey, Jonah, as long as we're throwing out stupid ideas to save the environment, how about this one: Tear down all the cities.

Hey, I like cities just like the next guy. Nevertheless, city demolitions makes more sense than you might think. Let's start with the big picture. If you know anything about American demographics, you know that most liberals live in cities. So razing the habitat of the American Democrat (Americus democratus) has huge political benefits!

But the important thing, of course, is saving the birds, right? Well, the inconvenient truth is that buildings and other man-made structures kill more American birds than cats and Republican hunters ever did. Some estimates put the number at 1 billion birds a year.

There's one final benefit to eliminating America's cities. By addressing the most acute threat to the bird population we can feel much better about returning DDT to its rightful place in the foodchain.

Now, whether or not he intends the rest of his post to be humorous, Goldberg does leave the impression that he does -- seriously -- prefer that DDT be a part of his daily dietary regime. To which I have but one question: Jonah, did you mother consume large quantities of fish while she was pregnant with you?

Mourning In America

2004-11-03T11:00:00.000-07:00

Taking Out The Garbage

2004-11-02T00:01:00.000-07:00

In my neighborhood, Tuesday is trash day. The streets are lined with everyone's blue containers of refuse. Fitting then that it's also the day our nation will be disposing of it's trash.

There's an old saying that fish and house guests stink after three days. You can add George W. Bush to that list as well.

Dick. George. It's time for you to go.

Update From The Field

2004-11-01T23:39:00.000-07:00

I must say, I'm feeling surprisingly good about Colorado. Depending on the poll, Kerry is down between between five and 1. Of course, given the margin of error, he may be even closer. My take from being out and about each of the past four days and quite a lot over the past two weeks is that he's close.

Take tonight, for instance.

I did some "visibility" work in a small town (Frederick) north of where I live. The small town is in an overwhelmingly rural Republican county. My "visibility" work consisted of standing on a highly trafficked (at least for a small town) street corner holding up a Kerry sign along with a few other people. I wasn't expecting much in the way of feedback. And it was very cold today and this evening when I headed out. I wasn't looking forward to it.

But I was pleasantly surprised. Hundreds of cars passed by. (Returning from work.) We received A LOT of horn honks and positive hand gestures. It really felt good. There were definitely a few negative hand gestures but not nearly as many as I would have expected given our location. The other thing I noticed is that there was not one -- not one! -- Bush/Cheney bumper sticker. Even on the huge diesel pick-up trucks that are ubiqutous in the area. We even got a "thumbs up" from a few of the big pick-ups which surprised the heck out of me.

During our 3 hours out we were joined by a couple of drivers who just liked what we were doing and decided to join us! One lady even brought us some hot chocolate! (As it was under 30 degrees it was much appreciated!)

As I said, I wasn't expecting much from the evening but I went home feeling pumped!

Even the one overtly negative thing has me pumped. At one point during the evening I heard an odd noise. I was enjoying my hot chocolate and so I didn't really pay attention until I realized it was a "splattering" sound. I looked down at my feet and there was a smashed egg! Imagine. We ticked some poor Bush/Cheney fan off so much that they threw an egg at us. Not only that; who drives around with an egg in their car? So we aggravated them so much that they went home and got the egg and then came back to lob it at us! Classy.

But hey, if they want to throw eggs or yell obscenities (uplifting Christian family values and all that) more power to them. I didn't see any Bush/Cheney volunteers braving the cold for their guy. We're pumped. Even in a rural Republican county there's a positive vibe.

Osama's Rumsfeldian Dilemma

2004-11-01T14:04:00.000-07:00

According to a "respected Middle East Media Research Institute" Osama bin Laden's video contains an implicit threat for Red State America:

Osama bin Laden warned in his October Surprise video that he will be closely monitoring the state-by-state election returns in tomorrow's presidential race — and will spare any state that votes against President Bush from being attacked, according to a new analysis of his statement.

If true, this would seem to pose a huge dilemma for America's terrorist enemy. A dilemma, by the way, for which Donald Rumsfeld can provide a solution.

As you recall, after 9/11 Rumsfeld immediately argued for an attack against Iraq. Richard Clarke, America's terrorist czar, pointed out that it was not Iraq but al Qaeda -- based in Afghanistan -- that had attacked us. Rumsfeld wisely responded that Afghanistan provided no targets against which America could retaliate. He was, of course, reacting to the objective fact that after years of war and Taliban neglect, Afghanisan languished as a fourth-world country reduced to rubble.

If, as this new translation argues, Osama truly views only Red States as his enemy he'll be in a real bind. Are there any iconic, high-value targets in Red States? Maybe Missouri's Independence Arch? (Of course that's in predominantly Blue St. Louis.) The Alamo? Maybe Mount Rushmore? Seriously, what Red State targets would Osama pursue?

I'm sure Osama will be calling his old friend Donald Rumsfeld for advice on this thorny dilemma.

Good News For GOP

2004-11-01T00:52:00.000-07:00

It's not lost on me that most things I write in this blog are anathema to conservatives. Of course the reason for that is because, unfortunately, most modern conservatives have fallen in the abyss of George W. Bush's Cult of Personality. The folly of and reasons for this sad state of affairs are topics for another post. The purpose of this post is to proclaim Good News about which Republicans can be happy. If you're a Republican, the following true story is offered to warm the cockles of your heart.

I have been very focused in recent weeks on canvassing and GOTV efforts. Over this past weekend I called over 250 registered voters who sporadically vote Democratic or are registered Independent. For my efforts I spoke to a lot of answering machines. When I actually spoke to a real person they were mostly very nice and excited about voting for Kerry on Tuesday (except for those who had already cast an early vote for Kerry).

Now here's the part that Republican's will love. One of the voters I called to speak with (we'll call him Joe) was not home. Joe's mom, however, was home. She was very nice. Like so many others I had spoken with, she told me that she and her husband had already cast their early ballot for Kerry. Joe, however, had been unable to cast an early ballot. Joe was planning to vote for Kerry on Tuesday. Fortunately (for Republicans) Joe was unexpectedly called out of town for work and would be 1000 miles away from his precinct on election day.

I offered to explore possible options for obtaining an emergency ballot for Joe. And I'm still in the process of trying to secure some kind of last minute absentee ballot. Alas, the chances of Joe being able to cast a ballot look very slim at this point.

So while the GOP has been busy preventing Mary Poppins and Mickey Mouse from voting in Ohio they've missed an excellent opportunity to suppress, much more easily and covertly, Democratic turnout. Next time around I suggest that all Republican bosses make up some excuse to send workers out of state on election day. Of course, you've got to do this at the last minute so as to prevent the great unwashed masses from securing an absentee ballot.

The benefit of this approach for Republicans is that it gives you two chances to prevent people from voting. And surely that's something to giddily satisfy Republicans everywhere.

Andrew's Answers

2004-11-01T00:23:00.000-07:00

Andrew Sullivan takes a crack at answering the question "Why Does Bob Smith Hate America."

Sullivan's short answer boils down to wyvern's witty comment: "The Conservative candidate is Kerry."

His longer answer:

It's not so easy to tell who's the liberal and who's the conservative anymore. You want a candidate who pumps unprecedented amounts of money into agricultural subsidies, uses tariffs to protect some American industries and adds a whole new entitlement to Medicare? That would be the, er, Republican, George W. Bush.

You want a future President who will be hard nosed about committing U.S. troops abroad, wants to balance every new spending item with a tax hike or a spending cut elsewhere and backs states' rights on social issues? Then go ahead and vote for the, er, Democrat, John Kerry.

You think there's too little federal control over education? Vote Bush. Want to expand health-care coverage primarily through the private sector? Vote Kerry.

Confused yet? You're not the only one. For conservatives there's plenty to worry about in Bush's record. By any measure, the government is bigger, more powerful and more intrusive than when he found it. Domestic spending has gone up at a greater rate than under any other President since Lyndon Johnson. The President hasn't found a single spending bill he wanted to veto. And he cannot even blame Congress. His own party controls all of it. In foreign policy, conservatives have long tended to be realists, acting only in response to hard-faced national interest, exercising prudence and caution, only reluctantly intervening in other countries' affairs. That's the kind of conservative Bush campaigned as in 2000, lambasting "nation building" in the debates and calling for fewer troops than Al Gore did.

But hey, you know where Bush stands, don't you?

Merry Christmas

2004-10-29T20:14:00.000-06:00

George Bush gets an early Christmas gift from a good friend.

Update: A "senior GOP strategist" agrees and calls bin Laden's message "a little gift." (via Atrios)

The New Onion?

2004-10-29T16:10:00.000-06:00

From my new favorite satire site, Redstate.org:

A sign that a campaign is desperate is when the campaign flails everything and the kitchen sink at their opponent, oblivious to the truth of the story.

...Bush has forced Kerry to play on Bush's terms, whether he likes it or not. The challenge for the administration, which has proven itself frequently inept at rapid response on Iraq, is to effectively cast Kerry as a desperate candidate flailing about and, in the process, attacking the commitment of our troops, which he is doing.

Desperation you say? By the looks of this I think Redstate is blissfully unaware of where the desperation exists.

And, by the way, I assume that by "Bush's terms" it is meant national security, Iraq, terrorism, etc. If so, I think it's fair to say Kerry is happy. As I've been saying for two years, national security is THE terrain on which Democrats should have been fighting the whole time. The strongest indictment against Bush is his ineffective security policies. Fittingly, we hope, his ineffective security policies will also be his undoing.

Also (and this is just a nit) is it really possible to "flail" an object an someone? Just curious.

I used to like Redstate. But the quality and thoughtfulness of the posts has really gone downhill lately. Where are the Tacitus posts?

Why Does Bob Smith Hate America?

2004-10-29T15:35:00.000-06:00

Conservative icon, former New Hampshire Senator Bob Smith, demonstrated his utter contempt for America by endorsing John Kerry today. In a letter to the future president, Smith wrote:

As someone who worked with you daily for 12 years as a United States Senator, I am acutely conscious of the fact that we disagree on many important issues. Despite our differences, you have always been willing to engage in constructive debate in an effort to forge sound public policy.

I deeply respect your commitment to our nation and your patriotism which, I believe, was forged when you-like I-proudly wore the uniform of the United States Navy in Viet Nam...

Because of the courage and character you demonstrated in Vietnam, I believe you when you say that you'll do a better job than President Bush to win the peace in Iraq, as well as to win the war against terrorism.

President Bush has failed to restrain federal spending, sending our deficit spinning into the stratosphere. I well remember that you were one of a handful of Democrats who crossed the aisle to forge a bipartisan coalition in the Senate to balance the federal budget [...]

John, for each of these reasons I believe President Bush has failed our country and my party. Accordingly, I want you to know that when I go into the booth next Tuesday I am going to cast my vote for you. So will my wife, Mary Jo, and all three of my children: Jason, Bobby and Jenny.

Moreover, I will do all that I can to encourage my friends in New Hampshire and Florida to join me in supporting you.

I wish you Godspeed, and every best wish for victory next Tuesday.

The shock that a principled conservative would criticize the Bush administration will surely leave pseudo-conservatives gasping for breath and grasping at straws. In their attempts to vilify Bob Smith these pseudo conservatives would do well to remember the reaction from other true conservatives the last time this "conservative giant" castigated the modern Republican party. When he briefly left the Republican party in 1999 Smith

gave a speech criticizing Republican leaders and the Republican Party for having betrayed its principles on core conservative issues such as abortion in the hopes of winning more elections. Upon hearing the news of Smith's decision to leave the GOP, conservative presidential candidate Gary Bauer's remarked "It's hard to imagine a Republican Party without Bob Smith. I'm not sure that a Republican Party without Bob Smith is a party worth fighting for". Fellow conservative GOP presidential candidate, Alan Keyes, heartily concurred with Bauer's assessment.

Now, it's true, I probably don't have a lot in common with Smith, Bauer, or Keyes. But I have never, nor would I, question the conservative bona fides of these men. Thankfully, I don't have to. Pseudo conservatives will do that for me.

I look forward to yet another instance of conservatives destroying their own. It really is quite entertaining to watch their sad, petty attempts to hang on to power and justify the stain that is George W. Bush.

Softening the Target

2004-10-28T23:17:00.000-06:00

It's pretty clear what's happening across the conservative media. They're busily softening up the post election terrain for all out assault:

Having done as much as possible to create the conditions for a confusing election, the GOP is getting ready to cast the inevitable results of that confusion -- people turning up in the wrong precincts, people who've moved from the neighborhood they originally registered and are trying to vote wherever they live now, and so forth -- as symptoms of outright election fraud. On Election Day, the GOP will challenge as many votes as they can at the polls, on whatever pretext is handy. They've already said they will. And then, if they're behind at the end of the day, GOP officials will start alleging massive voter fraud in Ohio, Florida, and elsewhere, whatever the facts on the ground are. That will give them a rhetorical advantage in the short-term -- if, say, John Kerry is far enough ahead that he declares victory, but there are still some votes to be counted or re-counted. And it's important for the long-term, too. If Kerry does win, but only narrowly, the GOP will allege that the Democrats stole the election, which will set the stage for later Republican efforts to shut down Kerry's ability to govern and deny him legitimacy.

You know, if Bush and his GOP brethren had devoted one tenth of the energy to the Iraq post-invasion as they have to their electoral theft strategy then right now Iraq would be the most democratic nation on earth.

Oh well. Priorities you know.

Kerry is going to need to win by more than the 10 point margin I've predicted in order to prevent the GOP's almost inevitable power grab. What, do you think, is the minimum margin necessary to prevent the GOP from challenging the results?

Happy Halloween

2004-10-28T20:21:00.000-06:00

"7 Mary Four and Five"

2004-10-23T00:49:00.000-06:00

487 In Progress

For the uninitiated, 487 is the police code for "Grand Theft."

Bush, AWOL Again

2004-10-21T23:52:00.000-06:00

Was Bush AWOL from his sixth-grade English class:

Mr. Bush ridiculed Richard C. Holbrooke, a Kerry confidant on foreign policy, for asserting that the nation is not in a "war on terror, in the literal sense."

"Senator Kerry's top foreign policy advisers question whether this is even a war at all," Mr. Bush told a cheering Republican crowd at the fairgrounds in Mason City, quoting comments Mr. Holbrooke, a former representative to the United Nations, made in a recent article in The New York Times Magazine. "Here's what he said, and I quote: 'We're not in a war on terror in the literal sense. It is like saying 'the war on poverty.' It is just a metaphor.' End quote."

Mr. Bush added, "Confusing food programs with terrorist killings reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the war we face and that is very dangerous thinking."

In a telephone interview, Mr. Holbrooke responded: "Perhaps I should be flattered that President Bush has misrepresented me as badly as he has misrepresented John Kerry. But this is serious business. Terror is a tactic, we are at war with Islamic extremists who use it as a tactic and the administration is fighting this war ineffectively."

That's MET-A-PHOR. Look into it.

Trend Spotted

2004-10-16T23:29:00.000-06:00

Regarding three different issues I've heard the following words come out of three different Bush sycophants: "John Kerry will do or say anything to become president."

I think it's fair to guess that whatever Rove decides to unleash in the next few weeks will use this stale mantra as it's theme.

Of course, despite it's staleness -- it was used against Al Gore (I recall Rush frequenly flogging the "say anything" phrase) -- it worked once. If this idiocy is not effectively countered it may work again.

You've Got To Be Kidding...

2004-10-16T14:17:00.000-06:00

You probably missed this news -- what with the raging gayness of MaryCheneyGate -- but I think the Friday night release another 31 pages of Bush National Guard records deserves at least a cursory mention.

For at least the fourth time this year the Keystone Kops at the Pentagon and the Texas National Guard conducted a late night document dump. This, of course, after they declared on each previous occasion of releasing documents that ALL documents had been released. In the immortal words of Dr. Evil: "Riiiiiiiight."

Incidentally, in my opinion, the documents do much to explain Bush's absence during those heady days in 1972 and 1973:

The 31 pages of documents turned over to AP Thursday night include orders for high-altitude training in 1972, less than three months before Bush abruptly quit flying as a fighter pilot.

High altidude training? Well, there it is. Bush didn't feel the need to show up for high altitude training. Afterall, what could the Texas Air National Guard possibly teach an inveterate Par-Tay Man like Bush about how to act when high?

The Theft Begins...

2004-10-16T13:41:00.000-06:00

As I noted yesterday, Karl Rove most assuredly has a plan to steal the should he come out on the losing side. The first public steps of that plan are on display today...

Bush's Electoral Thievery

2004-10-15T15:20:00.000-06:00

Like Marvin over at The Ivy Bush I'm feeling good about where Kerry stands today. But now is not the time to get soft and dewy-eyed. None of this, please:

I feel a little sorry for [Bush] today. He's clearly in over his head. He's clearly been outclassed. And his defeat is looking more and more inevitable.

Yes, Bush is in over his head (he has been for four years). Yes, he's been outclassed (we've known that since the mid term elections). And yes, if the election were held today we would be rid of the embarrassing Bush booger on the end of our collective finger.

But the election is 17 days away. The outcome is not a foregone conclusion because no one plays dirtier than the Bush family.

So no -- an emphatic NO! -- I do not feel sorry for George W. Bush.

In fact, I'm somewhat scared at what depths of depravity they're capable of. They have an ace in the hole (literally) in Karl Rove. These next 17 days will be Rove's swan song. He will not go gently into forced retirement. Like a cornered, wounded, rabid animal, Rove will direct the Bush machine to fight and flail furiously for at least the next three weeks. And even when all the votes are cast they will continue to fight. The next three weeks are going to be ugly. And where there is ugliness there is Rove.

And I don't mean to single out Marvin here. The (over) confidence is apparent elsewhere:

For this reason, Kerry enters the final two and a half weeks of the campaign with the race his to lose.

No, no, no! This race is not Kerry's to lose.

It is Bush's to steal.

Remember that when Bush and Rove start trying to snatch media and judiciary victory from the jaws of electoral defeat. There is a record here. We'd be wise to remember it.

It is not to early to begin to talk about Bush's electoral thievery. Because I guarantee that Rove already has a plan to talk about Kerry's attempt to steal the election.

So, your mission for the next three weeks is to talk incessantly about Bush's attempt to steal this election. He got away with it once. But we ought to be damned if we let him get away with it again.

George Bush -- A Retarded Sexual Deviant?

2004-10-15T12:14:00.000-06:00

That seems to be Karl Rove's opinion.

How else to explain this flyer in conjunction with the manufactured and much over-hyped outrage over Mary Cheney's gayness?

Sure, the less well-informed among us may fall for the rumors that the flyer was associated with a Tennessee Democrat with nominal ties to the Kerry/Edwards campaign.

DON'T BELIEVE IT FOR A SECOND.

The flyer (not to mention the Mary Cheney idiocy) has all the earmarks of a Karl Rove dirty trick. In fact, by Rove standards, calling Bush a retard is tame. When Rove starts manufacturing outrage by accusing Bush of being a pedophile then we'll know he's hitting his stride.

Steve Clemons has the details. Josh Marshall has the context.

My guess is that we're at the beginning of Karl's three week plan to paint Kerry as mean-spirited and wicked-tempered. Afterall, only a mean and hateful man would demean special needs kids or use homosexuality as a wedge issue.

Mean and hateful? Well, Karl would know.

Outshrilled

2004-10-15T09:10:00.000-06:00

Richard Cohen:

I've wagered on George Bush, not because I wanted him to win but rather because I thought he would. Now I'm changing my mind. It's not the tightening polls that have done it -- I knew that would happen -- but rather something I could not have predicted. The president is missing.

The president I have in mind is the funny, good-natured regular guy I once saw on the campaign trail -- a man of surprisingly quick wit and just plain likeability. I contrasted this man to John Kerry, who is as light and as funny as a mud wall, and I thought, "There goes the election."

Where it has mattered most -- the three debates -- Bush has been wooden, ill at ease and downright spooky. He makes bad jokes, cackles at them in the manner of a cinematic serial killer and has lacked the warmth that he not only once had but that I thought would compensate for a disastrous presidency and give him a second -- God help us -- term. In short, he could take over the Bates Motel in an instant.

God knows I hate Bush. And I've accused him of lots of things. But I don't believe I've ever equated him with a cold-blooded serial killer...twice in the same paragraph...in the op-ed pages of a major newspaper.

Republicanism Promotes Gayness!

2004-10-15T01:35:00.000-06:00

Republicans are all up in arms that John Kerry mentioned what various members of the Cheney family have themselves stated in various public forums over the years: Mary Cheney is gay! Horrors! What will we tell the children?

The Cheney's "indignation" is hypocritical and actually quite sad.

Yet while Republicans in general and the Cheney's in particular are busy crying crocodile tears about Mary's lesbianism, they've got a much bigger problem on their hands. No, it's not the sanctimoniousness of tearing down the only candidate (including Mary's own father, Dick) who had the guts to speak movingly about ensuring rights for all people regardless of how God made them.

No, the problem Republicans have is that their own policies are increasing the planet's GQ. GQ, as everyone knows, is "Gayness Quotient" which is a measure of the ratio of gay to straight creatures on planet Earth.

This news will come as quite a shock to Bible thumpers who view gayness as unnatural and contrary to God's law.

And the news gets even worse for homophobic social conservatives, many of whom have always suspected that gays were on a mission to convert them. It turns out that gayness is transmitted through the water supply! And, to add final insult to inglorious injury, this gay, water-borne deluge is moving downstream right into the heart of red state America.

According to a front page story in Friday's Washington Post:

Many of the river's male bass are producing eggs.

Scientists believe this inversion of nature is being caused by pollution in the water.

Yes, that's right. The South Branch of the Potomac River has gay fish. And the causes of this perversion of nature are the very Republican policies promoted by the homophobic George Bush and his sidekick Dick.

Mary Cheney? Looks like Republicans have bigger fish to fry.

And who says God doesn't have a sense of humor? Or justice.

Who Is George Today?

2004-10-13T22:46:00.000-06:00

The third debate is over and we now have the answer to the question that's kept us on the edge of our seats since the last debate.

Who was George tonight? With his plastic grin and lame jokes, I think the answer is obvious.

He tried to get a laugh with a bad PAYGO joke. He sort of giggled to himself as he said "I sure hope it's not the administration" that's responsible for the 36 percent rise in health care costs. And he seemed positively giddy when he tried to zing CBS (the network of moderator Bob Schieffer) with this line:

BUSH: In all due respect, I'm not so sure it's credible to quote leading news organizations about — oh, never mind.

He had other failed attempts at humor, but they're not worth repeating.

The important thing, at least from his handlers' perspective, is that he showed he can still take instructions. Clearly, his staff told him to liven up his first debate performance while at the same time not assaulting people as he nearly did in the second debate. His response was an odd, glued on smile that must have made his cheeks hurt by the end of the debate.

Verdict: Three debates and at least three different Georges.

Doesn't he realize that the American president must be consistent? Maybe he does and he's just not up to the job?

Cheerleader-In-Chief

2004-10-13T14:49:00.000-06:00

Johnny Sunshine on the Tonight Show:

I run, and I played a little football back when I was in school. And the president, I think, was there at those football games too. He was, I think, on the side maybe with his pompoms? Can you run fast with those cheerleading outfits on? I don't know.

Well said Johnny.

Kerry needs to follow that up tonight with something along these lines:

Mr. President, you can't fix the economy by talking about how strong it is. The country needs a real leader, not a cheerleader.

Make no mistake, George W. Bush is, underneath it all, an insecure man. A subtle and yet overt challenge to his leadership skills (not to mention his virility) might just cause an appearance of Stuttering Murderous Rage George.

Furious George

2004-10-13T14:32:00.000-06:00

Not only is Furious George a bad, angry little monkey, he also makes messes he doesn't know how to clean up.

From Banana Slug via AmericaBlog

Third Time's The Charm

2004-10-13T11:52:00.000-06:00

Tonight is the third and final presidential debate. The questions will focus on domestic affairs.

But the BIG QUESTION is this: Which George will show up tonight?

This is a seminal moment in television history.

Bigger than a Super Bowl half-time show featuring Janet Jackson's nipple.

Bigger than the final episode of Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire in which Rick Rockwell and Darva Conger perverted the meaning of marriage.

Bigger even than the Who Shot J.R. cliffhanger of 1980.

Will it be another episode of Furious George? Passive George? Intoxi-George? Grimace George? Wired George?

Will the moderator wear body armor to protect himself? Bob Schieffer is from CBS raising the possibility that Petulant George might cry (or at least whine).

How many times will Angry Timber Boy George use the word "librul?" How many times will Inconsistent George claim his opponent has raised taxes? (Sort of like McCarthy's "card-carrying Communists -- the number keeps changing.) How many codes (e.g. Dred Scott = Abortion) will Blinking Morse Code George try to send subliminably?

Will Pretty George wink knowingly at the moderator? Will Ineffective George try in vain (as in the first debate) to drink from an empty glass? (Sort of an apt metaphor, don't you think?) Will "I Hear Voices" George interrupt himself to demand that he be allowed to finish his remarks? Will Hard Work George start to fall asleep at the lectern at around 9:55 EST?

And just how many different Georges can make an appearance in one 90 minute debate?

Yes, it should be an exciting night. I'm all atwitter. The suspense is killing me.

Who will George try to be tonight? Tune in and find out.

If Amy Tan Says Tomato Then I Say Toe-MAH-Toe

2004-10-12T21:44:00.000-06:00

I don't often read Andrew Sullivan. His most recent post offers ample reason why:

POSEUR ALERT: "I'm voting for Kerry, because I have a brain and so does he" - Amy Tan, novelist. Barf. Every time I come close to supporting Kerry, I come across comments like this one that make me want to rush out and back Bush. Or I read the latest pearl of wisdom from Teresa. If I were running the Bush campaign I'd send a copy of this nauseating Slate symposium to every swing voter in the country. More effective than the Swiftees for the bobo angst-ridden pro-war blue-stater like, er, me.

Sullivan presents himself as an angst-ridden pro-war (homosexual) conservative and sometime ~~supporter~~ ~~defender~~ ~~opponent~~ ?? of George Bush. He purports to rationally analyze issues, albeit through his unique frame of reference. All that is well and good. And if he's honestly conflicted, who am I to quibble with his inability to make a decision.

But here's the thing. All of his supposed angst loses whatever patina of legitimacy it might have had when he writes, apparently seriously, that the flippant attacks of others on a candidate somehow affect his vote. More than that, who the fuck is Amy Tan and why the fuck do I care one way or another what she thinks? Why does her opinion (on a non-policy matter, no less) drive Sullivan toward or away from either candidate?

It's the dumbest reason I've ever heard upon which to even contemplate basing your vote.

NB: Yes, I do know who Amy Tan is and what books she's written. The point is that she's a nobody when it comes to this topic, at least insofar as proferring an opinion on substantive issues. And even on the non-policy viewpoint upon which she opined: Why does anyone -- Andrew Sullivan in particular -- care that Amy Tan think Bush has no brain?

Strong, Presidential Candidate Beats Angry Timber Boy in Second Debate

2004-10-12T21:11:00.000-06:00

Further evidence that Kerry won the second debate is now available. Via Political Wire:

Here's who independents thought was the winner:

Gallup: Kerry 53, Bush 37
ABC News: Kerry 44, Bush 34
Democracy Corps: Kerry 44, Bush 33

Elsewhere, the analysis is summarized thusly:

Women backed him 50 to 41. Bush rallied his base, but Kerry won over the middle.

Kerry is doing what needs to be done. He's pitching to the middle and they're supporting him.

Bush, on the other hand, continues his strategy of self-aggrandizement via willful divisiveness.

Call to Arms!

2004-10-11T20:37:00.000-06:00

In case you haven't already heard, Sinclair Broadcast Group is forcing its local affiliates to air an anti-Kerry movie in the days prior to the election. The reprehensible part is that they are planning to skirt FCC regulations by claiming that the paid political advertisement (c'mon, that's really what it is...) is "news" and thus not subject to the Equal Time Rule.

There are a variety of efforts underway to bring pressure against Sinclair and it advertisers. My personal belief is that direct appeals to Sinclair are likely to be ineffective as Sinclair is an avowed part of the eerie calliope that is the Right Wing Media Wurlitzer. So, I don't think they're going to give in to pressure. Unless it hits them where they live.

Furthermore, I do think their advertisers are susceptible to an effective boycott. And that's where you come in.

If you live in any of the areas listed below, please go here and find out what companies in your area are advertising on your local Sinclair station. Then, please take a moment to call a few of the advertisers and register your displeasure at Sinclair's blatent attempt to meddle with the election. Be tactful and polite, but let them know that you will have to give serious thought to shopping at an establishment that condones the efforts of a partisan media outlet to subvert the democratic process.

Please do this. Remember, if the advertisers don't know you're boycotting them then they don't know you're boycotting them.

I know I don't have a huge readership. But I also know that people from the bolded locations below read this blog at least ocassionally. Please go here take action.

Asheville
Baltimore
Birmingham
Bloomington
Cape Girardeau
Cedar Rapids
Champaign
Charleston
Cincinnati
Columbus
Dayton
Des Moines
Flint
Grand Island
Johnson City
Kansas City
Las Vegas
Lexington
Madison
Milwaukee
Minneapolis
Nashville
Norfolk
Oklahoma City
Pensacola
Pittsburgh
Portland
Raleigh
Richmond
Rochester
San Antonio
Springfield
St. Louis
Syracuse
Tallahassee
Tampa
West Sacramento

Update: Josh Marshall has this:

Another reader writes in the following ...

[I've removed the introduction to this letter where the reader describes a local TV market where he works. Suffice it to say that he works in local TV and says he has friends who work at some of the Sinclair affiliates in question.]

Let me tell you, they're NOT afraid in the least of the license challenges that Steve Soto has proposed. I mean, what's the point? If they air it, then fine, challenge away, I'm all for taking revenge on them. But the goal should be to shut down the broadcast before it happens.
What they're deathly afraid of is the stink of this thing will somehow waft over to their advertisers. That's of course why they're not selling local ad time for this show. Having worked in the ad department of Sinclair's competitor, I know that local Sinclair stations make over 60% of their ad revenue from their nightly 6pm newscast. That's their bread and butter. You make a concerted effort to go after their top advertisers on the 5pm/6pm news hour and you'll have the executives spiking this show so fast it'll be amazing.

Quick Observation

2004-10-11T02:09:00.000-06:00

Have you ever noticed that whenever Bush is talking about something that is bad for America (e.g. "the Enemy", "terrorists", "attacks") he reflexively gestures toward himself? I've noticed this in his speeches before but it's been very noticeable during the debates. Is he trying to send us a message? Or does his odd syntax affect his gestures as well? The third debate on domestic policy won't offer quite as much opportunity for Bush to refer subconsiously to himself as an enemy. But keep an eye on his gestures. They may be more revealing than you think.

Howard Bush or Muskie Moment, Part II

2004-10-09T17:18:00.000-06:00

I'm always impressed with the Marvin's prescience. Back in January he wrote about Dean's post-Iowa "meltdown." What's interesting is how easily his January post can be made applicable to Dubya's St. Louis debate performance (particularly his audience hectoring and near Gibson takedown):

Did you hear/see [George Bush's] Smackdown moment [during] the [St. Louis debate]? I heard it on the radio. NPR was playing snippets of the top three candidates, and I was halfway paying attention. Then came this [persistent] screaming, and I glanced at the radio. "That was [George Bush]?" I wondered.

People are talking about it. A short article in [Reuters] quoted [George Mason] political scientist who labeled it ["angry"]. [cut]

Seriously, I think that this is worth 5-7% in the [election]. It's as if [Bush] tried to confirm every stereotype the public has about him by going tomatohead up there. He really IS mean, people are thinking.

Senator Edmund Muskie's bid for the White House ended when it appeared as though he was crying while taking questions from reporters about his wife's mental illness. Muskie, I think, always insisted that he wasn't crying; the snow was getting in his eyes. [Bush's angry] pump up the volume performance may well have ended his [chances] for the same reason; voters don't like to see emotional instability in their Chief Executive, even in this post-I feel your pain era.

But hey, when God closes one door; he opens another. [Bush] may yet have a vibrant future in the WWF.

Do I think Bush's angry performance has made this election a cakewalk for Kerry? Of course not. But the key point is what Marvin wrote in January: "Voters don't like to see emotional instability in their Chief Executive."

Emotional instability.

Describes George W. Bush precisely.

Georgie's Debate Evolution

2004-10-09T14:06:00.000-06:00

It's clear that the American electorate doesn't know from one day to the next which George W. Bush will show up on our television screens. For those who have been trying to follow the inconsistencies of George "Jekyll & Hyde" Bush I offer the following guide to the many faces of "Debate George" (not to be confused with "War George", "Golf George", "Liar George", "Fearmonger George", "Orwellian George", "Mistake Free Messiah George", or "Coward George").

Debate Logistics:	Debate #1 September 30, 2004 Coral Gables, FL	Debate #2 October 8, 2004 St. Louis, MO	Debate #3 October 13, 2004 Tempe, AZ
George's Demeanor:	Uncontrollable grimaces and facial contortions	Angry and aggressive	We don't know And neither does he
Memorable Moment:	Despite (or because of?) all his "hard work" George almost falls asleep during last half-hour	George nearly attacks moderator Charlie Gibson	Stay Tuned
Memorable Image:
Nickname:	Grimace George	Furious George	"Who the fuck knows what I'm liable to say or do" George

As George Bush so eloquently noted during the second debate:

It's -- you've got to be consistent when you're the president. There's a lot of pressures. And you've got to be firm and consistent.

Indeed. So we wait and wonder. With great faith in Our Leader's consistent ability to bemuse and embarass us we wonder, "Which fictional character will George try to be in Debate #3?"

Who will George try to be when he goes to Tempe?

Might I humbly suggest that he try to be...presidential?

Bush Gored

2004-10-09T12:22:00.000-06:00

Four years ago the Conventional Wisdom after the debates was that there were three Al Gores. The Gore of the first debate was derided as a huffy attack poodle. The Gore of the second debate was passive and somnambulant. By the third debate, so the CW goes, Gore had found the appropriate balance between sniping and statesmanship.

Thus, it is with much hope and little expectation that I look to our SCLM to point out how, in 2004, Bush is executing the Gore debate strategy.

To wit: In the first debate Bush one-upped Gore's huffiness with an amazing display of facial tics, grimaces, and scowls that induced casual observers to think that Bush suffers from voluntary Tourettes. Recall also that two different Bushes showed up for the first debate. The Bush of the first 45 minutes in the Coral Gables debate demonstrated the energetic pushiness we've come to expect from the exerciser-in-chief. But all of his contortions and facial mugging must have tired him out. For by the last half hour Bush had morphed into a barely cognizant automoton listlessly parroting his half-dozen canned talking points.

Prior to the St. Louis debate Bush must have gotten a good night's sleep. Unfortunately, perhaps, he was too well rested. For like the fighter who refuses to heed the referee's admonitions to return to his corner, Bush could barely be contained. He frequently burst off his stool and strode aggressively into the middle of the arena. Often, he didn't even wait for the moderator to extend a question before he unilaterally seized extra time to swing wildly with his new (yet tiredly retro) "liberal" attacks. Whereas the Bush of the second half of the first debate was oddly fagged, the Bush of the second debate was strangely intoxicated with energy and anger. Whether caused by a Grande Caffè Latte or some other stimulant, George's unmodulated speech and audience hectoring was truly jarring. Coupled with his odd statements about his timber company and the "internets" his animated and antagonistic performance must have left his supporters relieved that he wants to keep his job as they simultaneouly questioned his fitness to perform it.

As I noted before, on next Wednesday's debate hinges much. Not least of which is the answer to this question: Which Bush will show up?

Cross posted from Kos

Expectations Management

2004-10-09T10:58:00.000-06:00

Last night, after an abysmal first debate performance from which he had to rebound, Bush climbed back into the ring. But aside from rejoining the main event ~~Sonny Liston~~ Bush didn't substantially alter the larger campaign dynamic during the 90 minute town hall meeting.

Bush did form complete sentences. This is always a plus for someone who hopes to be president. But I'm hard pressed to find other praiseworthy moments from Bush's performance.

During the first 45 minutes Bush practically yelled his answers at the audience. He labored mightily to supress his inveterate smirk and constant grimacing. Sometimes he even seemed to succeed. He was less successful in containing his anger. At one point Bush almost took a swing at moderator Charlie Gibson. As it was, Bush stifled his pugilistic predilection and merely (rudely) interrupted and ignored the moderator on his way to berate (again) the audience.

To be sure, Bush took some swings. Less astute observers might even give Bush credit for some of his "liberal" sucker punches. But it was an uneven performance. Yet despite his not performing to expectations in his forte -- the town hall format -- Bush was clearly stronger in this debate than in the first debate. And while that can reasonably be construed as damning with faint praise, I do mean that sincerely. Bush truly did perform better last night than he did during his first face-off with Kerry. Unfortuntely for team Bush, Kerry performed better as well. Kerry was stronger on his own and stronger when countering Bush improved but still ineffective attacks.

Aside from resorting to cheating (i.e. voter intimidation, October surprise, etc. -- which would be completely in character for the Bushies) everything comes down to Wednesday's debate. To switch sports metaphors, Kerry merely needs to hold serve. Kerry has demonstrated his presidential bona fides. He has demonstrated a coolness, calmness, effectiveness, likability, and resolve that the electorate will find refreshing.

Bush, on the other hand, has confirmed perceptions of him as a selfish, petulant, childlike automoton for whom rules don't apply. He continues to believe in his own infallability despite the contrary evidence of reality.

To mix my sports metaphors one last time, Bush must hit a homerun on Wednesday. But, a homerun is merely a necessary and not a sufficient condition for Bush victory. As he's rounding third Bush must make a brief stop at the visitor's dugout, bat still in hand, and forcefully beat Kerry to a lifeless bloody pulp. And he must do so without confirming the public's suspicion of Bush as an angry bully. Anything less than the manly manhandling of Kerry while scoring run after run will be insufficient.

The Cheney With The Mostest

2004-10-06T23:24:00.000-06:00

Dick Cheney attacked Senator John Edwards last night over Edwards attendance record in the Senate:

And Senator, frankly, you have a record in the Senate that's not very distinguished. You've missed 33 out of 36 meetings in the Judiciary Committee, almost 70 percent of the meetings of the Intelligence Committee.

You've missed a lot of key votes: on tax policy, on energy, on Medicare reform.

Your hometown newspaper has taken to calling you "Senator Gone." You've got one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate.

Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session.

Since Cheney was sworn in there have been 127 Tuesday during which the United States Senate was in session. Care to take a guess as to how many of those Tuesday sessions Cheney presided over?

Two.

Cheney served as the presiding officer for 1.57% of the Tuesdays since he has been in office.

But, I guess it all makes sense. If 1.57% qualifies in Cheney's book as "most" then it's no wonder he has trouble understanding that America has borne 88% of the casualties in Iraq while his administration has presided over the loss of nearly two million jobs.

George W. Bush likes to joke that he didn't put Cheney on the ticket for his hair. Clearly, Cheney's math skills weren't part of the deal either.

Apparently Not So Hard Work...

2004-10-05T23:19:00.000-06:00

It would seem that it's really not that hard to make a video that makes George W. Bush look like an idiot.

In addition to my Hard Work video, check these out.

Song and Dance

Hard Work 2

How Bush Did in the first debate.

Georgie's Hard Work Rap (song)

The Poor Man's Hard Work post

And, as I noted before, this classic video from the GOP Convention.

Masterpiece

2004-10-04T15:53:00.000-06:00

I'm not the only one experimenting with grass roots political advertising.

Brennan Houlihan shows himself to be a master of the art. Check out this video.

(via Oliver Willis)

Bush to Marvin...Come In Marvin

2004-10-04T11:49:00.000-06:00

There's a rumor going around that Bush was wearing an earpiece during the debate and was being fed his lines.

Marvin, are you willing to go on the record and disavow any involvement in this plot? And if you were involved, is that really the best Bush can do even when his lines are fed to him?

We earthlings must know if Our Dear Leader is even dumber than we've been heretofore led to believe.

Uncertainty

2004-10-04T11:19:00.000-06:00

Here's my latest self produced advertisement.

Uncertainty (1.3 MB) Windows Media Player

Bush Owns The Town Hall Format

2004-10-02T21:13:00.000-06:00

Marvin writes of the second presidential debate:

It's a town hall meeting. It's Bush's to lose. Spontaneity. Rhetorical banter. Bush can float like a butterfly and sting like a bee in there. Poor old scripted, stiff John Kerry's going to look like a corpse.

To which I ask: What gives? Marvin leaves out the most important element in Bush's repetoire. The sin qua non which demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt why Bush will destroy John Kerry in the town hall debate.

The simple fact is that Bush has been practicing this particular format non-stop for the last four months. Almost all his campaign events (sometimes two or three, maybe even four times in a day) have been a speech followed by the town hall style give and take with the audience. Bush is primed to take any question from the audience.

I myself have been to a John Kerry event and there was no Q&A from the crowd. But nearly all of Bush's events have included some kind of crowd interaction. The bottom line is that Bush is going to murder, just MURDER Kerry in this format. Kerry will be lucky if he can remember his own name as he concentrates on interacting with the public that simply adores the homespun Mr. Bush.

In fact, the word on the street is that Bush's campaign events were such an important part of his training regime for the town hall debate that his staff prevented Kerry loyalists from entering in order to keep them from learning Bush's preparation techniques.

And, let's not forget, Bush has prior experience in this particular format that Kerry sorely lacks. Nearly 38 million people watched Bush destroy Al Gore in their town hall debate in 2000. Kerry couldn't buy that kind of experience.

I tell you, given the immense preparation Bush has had with the town hall format, and his innate skills connecting with the public (not to mention his abysmal showing in the first debate), Bush will come into the town hall debate loaded for bear.

Bush is going to run up the score.

Unfortunately, Kerry will have to content himself simply to breathe the same rarefied air as George W. Bush, the Master of the Town Hall format.

Hard Work

2004-10-02T01:21:00.000-06:00

I mentioned before that I was thinking of starting my own 527. Well, I haven't gone quite that far yet. Although I have perused the required IRS documents.

But if and when I file my paperwork, I've got my first ad ready.

Check it out and let me know what you think.

Hard Work (3.1 MB) Windows Media Player

Why Does BusinessWeek Hate America?

2004-10-01T16:34:00.000-06:00

Link:

SPUTTERING SCREWUP. The poignancy of a man ill-prepared for and overwhelmed by his job was never more apparent than when Bush said, "I never wanted to commit troops. When we were debating in 2000, I never dreamed I'd have to do that."

The message that Kerry hammered home was that, in fact, Bush did not have to "do that," did not have to send our soldiers -- at least not to Iraq.

But Bush, the onetime black sheep of his family, wanted to wipe away the "wimp factor" stain that his old man had left on the Bush clan. And so he rebelled against the family mantra of prudence in all things. Last night, he looked for all the world like a sputtering screwup -- again.

Indeed.

Via Catch via Atrios

Moral Calculus? How Bout Rational Calculus.

2004-10-01T14:40:00.000-06:00

Apparently NPR recently interviewed one of the so-called "security moms." Marvin has a short post noting the moral hazards of the security mom's preference for Iraqi children to be blown up rather than her own children.

I didn't hear the NPR report, but I agree with Marvin's response regarding the shaky moral underpinnings of the security mom's argument.

But leave the moral argument aside for a moment. Can we please dispense with the ludicrous PRACTICAL underpinnings of this blatantly illogical argument? In what world are these people living that they believe fighting the terrorists "over there" somehow prevents the terrorists from acting "over here?" Do the people who subscribe to this notion believe that al Qaeda is like the Bush administration and therefore unable to walk and chew gum at the same time? Sure it's abundantly clear that George Bush can barely handle one task at a time. But it is equally clear that al Qaeda and its related organizations have no such limit on multi-pronged simultaneous operations. Ask the people of Beslan, Madrid, Pakistan, the Philippines, Afghanistan, Israel, and other far flung global targets of recent al Qaeda operations.

Ironically, even Bush does not believe his own spin. As he noted last night: "We're facing a group of folks who have such hatred in their heart, they'll strike anywhere, with any means." Of course he misunderstands their motives. But he nails their operational capabilities.

To be clear: Americans fighting and dying in Iraq hinder al Qaeda operations in North America not one iota. If and when al Qaeda decides to strike in America we must pray that America's domestic security and intelligence apparatus are equipped to thwart the attack.

Pretending that we've got al Qaeda bottled up in Iraq is not a recipe for security. It's delusional.

What The @&* Was Bush Thinking?

2004-10-01T03:30:00.000-06:00

Speaking of his daughters:

BUSH: I'm trying to put a leash on them.

Shameless Liar

2004-10-01T01:44:00.000-06:00

Mr. Bush has no shame. Whether speaking to groups of 10 or tens of millions, he lies with equal aplomb. From last night's debate:

BUSH: Let me first tell you that the best way for Iraq to be safe and secure is for Iraqi citizens to be trained to do the job.

And that's what we're doing. We've got 100,000 trained now, 125,000 by the end of this year, 200,000 by the end of next year. That is the best way. We'll never succeed in Iraq if the Iraqi citizens do not want to take matters into their own hands to protect themselves. I believe they want to. Prime Minister Allawi believes they want to.

And he lies repeatedly:

BUSH: There are 100,000 troops trained, police, guard, special units, border patrol. There's going to be 125,000 trained by the end of this year. Yes, we're getting the job done. It's hard work. Everybody knows it's hard work, because there's a determined enemy that's trying to defeat us.

The fact of the matter is that according to the Pentagon Bush is off by at least an exponential factor of 10.

The documents show that of the nearly 90,000 currently in the police force, only 8,169 have had the full eight-week
academy training. Another 46,176 are listed as "untrained," and it will be July 2006 before the administration reaches its
new goal of a 135,000-strong, fully trained police force.

Six Army battalions have had "initial training," while 57 National Guard battalions, 896 soldiers in each, are still being
recruited or "awaiting equipment." Just eight Guard battalions have reached "initial (operating) capability," and the
Pentagon acknowledged the Guard's performance has been "uneven."

Training has yet to begin for the 4,800-man civil intervention force, which will help counter a deadly insurgency. And
none of the 18,000 border enforcement guards have received any centralised training to date, despite earlier claims they
had, according to Democrats on the U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Committee.

They estimated that 22,700 Iraqi personnel have received enough basic training to make them "minimally effective at their tasks," in contrast to the 100,000 figure cited by Bush.

During the debate Kerry has said that he's tried not to use the word "liar" out of respect for the President. Well Kerry should use the word that fits the facts at hand. Mr. Bush has earned the title: Liar.

The GOP's Poland Problem

2004-09-30T23:47:00.000-06:00

Kevin Drum makes hay with Bush's peevish Poland statement. Now, I doubt that Bush's whining about Poland's massive contributions to the coalition will become a big story. But I can't believe that Kevin passed up an opportunity to make the obvious historical tie between Bush's Poland gaffe and Ford's much more memorable Poland gaffe:

In 1976, non-elected incumbent Gerald Ford went into a debate with Carter as Carter was sinking like a stone in the polls after coming out of the Democratic convention with a huge lead. One Ford mistake ultimately was credited with saving the election for Carter. Answering a question about the communist enslavement of Poland, Ford said that the people of Poland were free.

What is it with clumsy, inarticulate, Republican president's when it comes to talking about Poland in debates?

Another Test of Conservatives' "Principles"

2004-09-30T12:15:00.000-06:00

If things continue on their present path, Colorado will have a chance to demonstrate to the nation the hypocricy that underlies conservative partisanship. According to most recent polls, Kerry leads in Colorado (albeit, within the margin of error). Furthermore, Amendment 36, which seeks to allocate Electoral Votes proportionally, would pass if the election were held today.

Should Kerry win in Colorado along with the passage of Amendment 36, conservatives may find themselves compelled to backtrack on their opposition to the amendment.

Most conservatives I've read (samples here and here and here) are opposed to Amendment 36. I don't buy all of their arguments against Amendment 36. But I do believe that some of their points have merit. While I'm still in favor of electoral reform, I am firmly opposed to Amendment 36.^* I will remain opposed whether or not Kerry wins in Colorado.

Will conservative opponents of Amendment 36 stick to their principled opposition of Amendment 36? If Bush loses Colorado but 4 of Colorado's proportionally allocated Electoral Votes would narrowly give him the White House I firmly believe that the vast majority of conservatives will suddenly become the biggest supporters of Amendment 36 you've ever seen.

Granted, there's also some potential for hypocricy on the part of certain Kerry supporters in such a scenario. But as far as I know the Kerry campaign has not indicated support for Amendment 36. (If I'm not mistaken, John Kerry is on record as saying it's a state issue.) And just because conservatives oppose Amendment 36 does not mean that progressives reflexively support it. The liberal paper of Boulder, The Daily Camera, opposes the amendment. Furthermore, the coalition supporting the Amendment is not limited to liberal progressives. According to MakeYourVoteCount.org the Amendment has been endorsed by The Libertarian Party of Colorado and former Independent presidential candidate and 10-term Republican Congressman John Anderson.

Whatever happens, I'll be curious to see if partisan conservatives retain the courage of their pre-election convictions.

^*As far as electoral reform is concerned, my thinking currently is that it is the voting procedures more than the electoral allocation that needs to be adjusted. I'm leaning toward support of the Condorcet Voting model or the Approval Voting method.

Crawford Wants Its Idiot Back

2004-09-28T16:51:00.000-06:00

See? Not all Texans are incorrigible.

After endorsing George W. Bush in 2000 and supporting Bush's war, the hometown newspaper of Crawford, Texas has endorsed John Kerry. The Lone Star Iconoclast, demonstrating wisdom in being able to admit a horrible mistake, offers a glowing endorsement. The thrust of the endorsement is simple: George Bush let us down. Repeatedly. The endorsement culminates:

The re-election of George W. Bush would be a mandate to continue on our present course of chaos. We cannot afford to double the debt that we already have. We need to be moving in the opposite direction.

John Kerry has 30 years of experience looking out for the American people and can navigate our country back to prosperity and re-instill in America the dignity she so craves and deserves. He has served us well as a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and has had a successful career as a district attorney, lieutenant governor, and senator.

Kerry has a positive vision for America, plus the proven intelligence, good sense, and guts to make it happen.

That’s why The Iconoclast urges Texans not to rate the candidate by his hometown or even his political party, but instead by where he intends to take the country.

The Iconoclast wholeheartedly endorses John Kerry.

Here's hoping that ~~Texans~~ Americans of all stripes and in all locations are able to follow the sound advice of Bush's hometown paper.

True Story from the Campaign Trail

2004-09-27T00:28:00.000-06:00

I was out today registering voters. My co-canvasser and I knocked on about 75 doors. As it was a predominantly Hispanic apartment complex, my teammate, Jesus, did most of the talking. I hung back and focused on tracking our progress and handing Jesus the right paperwork (Spanish language voter registration, English vote by mail request, bi-lingual candidate information...) at the right time.

Late in the day, after having listened to Jesus talk to mostly Spanish speakers, I was somewhat surprised to hear a woman greet us at her door in perfect English. After Jesus did his bit I was even more surprised to hear this woman say: "Oh, I already have my voter registration. I just haven't mailed it back yet." No one else we had spoken to had been similarly prepared. "We'd be happy to turn it in for you," we volunteered.

When she handed us the form we looked it over and pointed out that she needed to fill in a couple of things. Among them was her intended affiliation. "The affiliation field can't be blank," we told her. "Though you can specify 'Unaffiliated' if you prefer."

"Oh, I'm definitely a Republican," she interjected.

"I just didn't know how to spell it."

Unheeded

2004-09-25T22:58:00.000-06:00

Scratchy of fightandfight gives us this enlightening walk down memory lane from October 3, 2000:

LEHRER: New question.
How would you go about, as president, deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force? Generally.

BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interests. And that means whether or not our territory -- our territory is threatened, our people could be harmed, whether or not our alliances -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force.

Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear, whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be.

Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win, whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped.

And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy.

I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops.

The vice president [Gore] and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation-building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders.

BUSH: I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place.

And so I take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power.

Morale in today's military is too low. We're having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years, we have not met recruiting goals. Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we're overextended in too many places.

And, therefore, I want to rebuild the military power. It starts with a billion dollar pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform, a billion dollars more than the president recently signed into law, to make sure our troops are well-housed and well-equipped; bonus plans to keep some of our high-skilled folks in the services; and a commander in chief who clearly sets the mission, and the mission is to fight and win war, and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place.

Yes, like you, I must just stand in wonder, mouth agape. It boggles the mind, doesn't it?

Credit Where Credit Is Due

2004-09-25T21:32:00.000-06:00

Kevin, Mark, and Matt each have commented on Bush's strange new tendency to use a polysyllabic word like "embolden." They, of course, take note of the odd coincidence that all up and down the right side of the aisle "emobolden" has become the word du jour.

Missing from the whole discussion is a reminder of Bush's own valiant efforts to "embolden" our enemies.

Personally, I find it a little far-fetched to think of our enemies sitting around listening to Kerry's long-winded, ponderous speeches and then suddenly getting bold, wild hairs up their asses to all of a sudden go blow stuff up. And even if they listened to one entire Kerry speech (at least to hear Bushies tell it) they wouldn't know what the hell he's talking about or asking them to do, what with all that flip-flopping.

It's somewhat easier for me to imagine our enemies responding to the simple, plainspoken George W. Bush who heroically and directly requested our enemies to "Bring it on."

George W. Bush really sells himself short when he humbly ignores his own prominent role in emboldening our enemies. I think I recall humility as one of the characteristics Republicans love about their Dear Leader.

Oh, and one other thing I don't understand. Are the insurgents emboldened? Is that the story we're sticking with? Cause I heard George and Ayed give speeches the other day talking about how rosy things were looking. How things were getting better; huge vast swaths of the country are safe for picnicking and whatnot. Something about only a "handful" of suiciders against hundreds of thousands of security forces.

Is this dissonance just another attempt by the Bush administration to speak clearly? Or am I missing something?

Fear More Years

2004-09-25T20:38:00.000-06:00

Instructions for use:

Copy Image
Paste Image into Word document
Print document
Post on office bulletin board

Poster also suitable for church bulletin boards, telephone poles, and car windows (Bush supporters, please remember image must face outward to be effective). When posted on the front door of a residential dwelling, poster is an effective Halloween scare tactic for small children. CAUTION: Care should be taken when using poster in areas frequented by senior citizens. Contemplating another four years of Bush may provoke cardiac arrest.

Image courtesy of Atrios

Caption courtesy of Apeiron

Execute Her

2004-09-24T16:22:00.000-06:00

"Faux" wedding? "Alleged" wedding ceremony? "Putative" wedding? Are Brittany and Kevin gay or something? With the damage Brittany has done to the sacred institution of marriage I think she must be gay. What other explanation can there be?

If we are to defend marriage from these Godless faggots we must have a Constitutional Amendment. And that namby-pamby proposal by strong American and Coloradoan Marilyn Musgrave doesn't go nearly far enough. We need an amendment with teeth and real punative measures.

I've previously made my recommendations known: Brittany Spears should be executed during the next Super Bowl half-time show.

I don't know about you, but since learning about Brittany and Kevin's real/fake wedding (not to mention the valid/invalid weddings of all those vile gays) my own marriage has started to crumble. We must defend marriage.

Execution I say. Who's with me?

WTF?

2004-09-24T13:05:00.000-06:00

I'm usually fairly respectful of the reporting of the Washington Post's Dana Milbank. However in a piece today he demonstrates that you can never let your guard down with today's shitty media (emphasis added):

Whatever the merits, the charges that terrorists prefer Democrats have been echoed by independent commentators and journalists. CNN analyst Bill Schneider, asked about Hastert's remarks, agreed that al Qaeda "would very much like to defeat President Bush."

Bill Schneider? Bill "AEI" Schneider?? Bill Fucking Conservative Hack Schneider???

Schneider is neither independent nor he is a journalist. And, for what it's worth, his analytical skills are too crappy for words.

Now, replace the "independent commentators and journalists" with "the media" and maybe I don't have so much of a problem with the graf. While I certainly disagree with the media's parroting of an idiotic (not to say ineffective) Republican talking point it is certainly true that the press are echoing the sentiment. But to ascribe a level of independence or journalism to the practice just makes Milbank look bad.

ARG!

2004-09-23T01:32:00.000-06:00

I'm not a big fan of polling. Which is to say that I don't really follow the daily back and forth that polls purport to show. Certainly, national polls are precisely useless given the electoral college system by which we elect presidents.

I do pay some heed to some state polls. But really that is also somewhat pointless other than to remind us that this election is going to be very close. Many states (i.e. Texas, California, etc.) are outside the margin of error in all reputable polls and thus their outcome is really not in question (unless you're counting on Diebold). The remaining states are within the margin of error meaning the predictive value of the poll is marginal (not to say non-existant as Kevin Drum thoughtfully reminded us last month).

Although I don't closely follow or write about polls I think the release of the massive American Research Group (ARG) poll deserves some attention. In a poll of over 30,000 people in all 50 states ARG posts the following results:

George W. Bush is at 47% and John Kerry is at 46% in the weighted national popular vote.
Bush leads outside the margin of error in 17 states with 133 electoral votes.
Kerry leads outside the margin of error in 10 states with 132 electoral votes.
Bush has any lead in 29 states with 253 electoral votes.
Kerry has any lead in 20 states with 270 electoral votes.
Bush and Kerry are tied in Wisconsin and West Virginia.
Bush needs to defend small leads in 5 states - Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Ohio.
Kerry needs to defend small leads in 5 states - Maine, Florida, Minnesota, Oregon, and Pennsylvania.
Among men nationwide, 51% say they would vote for Bush and 42% say they would vote for Kerry.
Among women nationwide, 42% say they would vote for Bush and 50% say they would vote for Kerry.

The results mean a couple of things:

This election IS close

Forty-seven to forty-six percent means that Bush is ahead (given the large sample size there's not really a margin of error in the national number). But he's only ahead by 1 percent. Got that?

O-N-E PERCENT.

So, to you Republicans who have taped the most recent Gallup poll to your bathroom mirrors and giddily droll all over yourselves with glee while brushing your teeth...I hope you continue to delude yourselves. Please, please, read Gallup every day from now until November 2.

To those of you who have mentioned to me your concern about Kerry's standing in the polls, I say "Smile." Things are good. Contrary to what the major media would have you believe, Kerry is doing quite well against the incumbent.
YOU can make a difference

Despite Kerry's strength in the polls, the outcome of this election is wholly predicated on YOUR efforts to get his supporters to the polls. How many voters have you touched today? How many calls have you made? How many minds have you swayed? Barring an October surprise (not to be discounted) it is the strengh of the GOTV effort that will decide this race. From where things stand right now, I like our odds. But we can not be complacent.
Colorado Looks Good

Colorado is looking pretty good for Kerry right about now. It's a statistical tie. But look at the detail. Kerry is pulling more Democrats than Bush is pulling Republicans (although Republicans outnumber Dems in the state). Also, there are a fair number of undecideds which have a decent chance of breaking for Kerry (especially if they are women and/or Independents). Finally, given the high Latino population (including citizens who do not speak English) and the huge volumes of new Latino voters being added to the rolls (probably not included in the polling), my hunch is that Kerry (with Salazar's help) will get the W in Colorado.
North Carolina Looks Ehh

Surprisingly, North Carolina also is showing as a statistical dead heat. Bush is doing way better with Republicans than Kerry is doing with Democrats. In a nominally Democratic state (by voter registration at least) that's not a good sign. ~~So, while I'd love to pick up the 15 EV's of the Old North State, my hunch is that it will stay red this year.~~ Screw that. To Mars, my bitches! Mars!
Republicans Must Make A Choice

If the ARG results hold up through November 2 then Republicans need to decide whether they're still in favor of the electoral college or if they've decided they prefer the popular vote.

And I'd appreciate it if you would make the decision before November 2. Unlike last time.

By the way, if, somehow, Kerry does win the electoral college but loses the popular vote, he'll be the first Democrat to win the White House without having won the popular vote...joining three Republicans with that dubious distinction.

Anyway, that's ~~all~~ plenty for now.

The bottom line is that this is a fight. And right now this fight is close. Next up is the debates which will be tough for Kerry. But I'm content to let Kerry worry about the debates while we worry about the streets.

Mars, my little bitches! Mars!

The Sins of Dan Rather George Bush

2004-09-21T00:51:00.000-06:00

I find it more than a little ironic that Dan Rather is being attacked for sins that George Bush himself not only committed but refined to perfection. Basically, Rather is being called on the carpet (as he should be) for acting on suspect information.

In addition to Iraq, how many different instances of George Bush doing this would you like me to point out?

At least the conclusion that Rather lept to has the redeeming quality of probably being correct, in spite of the manufactured evidence he was fed. It'd be nice if the same thing could be said of George Bush and the erroneous conclusions at which he's prone to arrive.

Willie Bush

2004-09-21T00:50:00.000-06:00

I've noted on multiple occasions -- most recently a few days ago -- that, on issues of character, Bushy Boy inhabits roughly the same moral universe as his vilified predecessor. E.J. Dionne notes another similarity: Verbal slipperiness.

But a guy who is supposed to be so frank and direct turns remarkably Clintonian where the National Guard issue is concerned. "I met my requirements and was honorably discharged" is Bush's stock answer, which does old Bill proud. And am I the only person exasperated by a double standard that treated everything Bill Clinton ever did in his life ("I didn't inhale") as fair game but now insists that we shouldn't sully ourselves with any inconvenient questions about Bush's past?

Despite his weariness at dealing with issues from the Nixon years, Dionne seeks to frame Bush's National Guard service as the character issue it rightly is. And given Rove's desire to make character the central issue of the campaign, it's reasonable to ask why George "You Know Where I Stand" Bush can't answer several simple questions about his Guard service.

The Economy: Gregor Mendel Edition

2004-09-21T00:07:00.000-06:00

My aunt -- a one time Republican -- pointed me to this graphic. It's such stunning depiction of Dubya's effectiveness when it comes to jobs that I thought I'd pass it on.

But what I found truly funny is this: If you average the Bush family effectiveness on job creation, they still lag all other post WWII presidents -- most by significant margins. It just goes to show that even by trading on Poppy's good name as president, Dim Son still finds himself lying face down in a pool of his own vomit at the bottom of the charts.

I should note that I bear no personal animus to Bush, The Elder. I didn't think he was a good president but I always felt he was a decent man. Unfortunately, decency (unlike job creation ability) does not appear to be a genetically passed trait in the Bush family.

"That Kind of Fun"

2004-09-19T22:59:00.000-06:00

Tragically, for the second time this month, a student at a Colorado university has died at a fraternity event. By all accounts both youngsters were extracurricularly involved, top students with good heads on their shoulders. The kind of students that universities covet and the kind of kids that make parents proud. I shudder to think at the loss their families and friends are feeling.

Unfortunately, the circumstances of their deaths reminded of some of the great insight offered by one of the luminaries of the Right. Speaking of Abu Ghraib, Rush Limbaugh, a bastion of moral rectitude, endorsed the torture of prisoners in the custody of the United States and described it as:

sort of like hazing, a fraternity prank. Sort of like that kind of fun.

I'm sure that if given the opportunity to console, Rush would nobly point out that these Colorado students died having the kind of fun that American soldiers are having in Iraq. Really, Rush might say, these students (and their fraternity brethren) were just doing their patriotic duty.

Good 'ol Rush. I'm glad he's on our side. I just wish he could have more of that kind of fun.

Impossible to Make This Up

2004-09-09T22:54:00.000-06:00

Cheney has revealed Bush's secret plan for the economy: eBay.

Well, this changes everything. Why didn't they say this before? I've been carping for months about Bush and how out of touch he is. If only I had known about the magic eBay bullet.

eBay does, what? About $30 billion in total sales annually? Whoa! Let's see, in a $10 trillion economy that works out to hmmm...Oh yeah, almost one third of one percent! Ca ching!

I'm sure the second prong in the "Bush-Cheney For Jobs" eBay arsenal is that ANYBODY can sell crap on eBay. This means that with just a few more eBay user ID's the Bush-Cheney economic tsunami will boast 0.0% unemployment. Ka pow!

Plus, those numbers don't even include John Edwards' excellent suggestion to add lemonade stand and cupcakes sales to the national ledger.

Man, the Bush-Cheney Cupcake Economy ROCKS!

Marvin's Dream Ticket

2004-09-09T00:51:00.000-06:00

Atrios must be scraping the bottom of the barrel to be accepting blog ads from this crew...

Register to Vote -- Win $100 Grand

2004-09-09T00:27:00.000-06:00

In what must be the most blatant vote registration come on I've ever heard of, the people at Vote Or Not are having a $100,000 drawing. The only catch is that you must be registered to vote when the drawing is held.

Hey, I could use a $100K. Maybe you can too. Here's the link.

Bush in Brief

2004-09-09T00:01:00.000-06:00

Writing a short post about Conservative George's exploding deficit, Mark Kleiman has a line I wish I'd thought of:

That's the wonderful thing about our President, who can't remember from one day to the next whether or not he thinks America can win the war on terror: he sets himself low standards, and then fails to meet them.

That's My Bushy

2004-09-08T23:04:00.000-06:00

Well, you gotta hand it to good 'ol Dubya. He's not content to simply be no better than Slick Willie. No, Georgie Boy is always seeking to outdo his predecessor.

Here's the latest.

Clinton, of course, was a mere draft dodger. Bushy, however, was not content to be merely a draft dodger. He upped the ante by disobeying a direct order from a superior officer.

Hmm. Let's see now. In war movies I seem to recall something about disobeying orders being a crime... I wonder what it's like in real life?

The Uniform Code of Military Justice stipulates:

809. ART. 90. ASSAULTING OR WILLFULLY DISOBEYING SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER.
Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) strikes his superior commissioned officer or draws or lifts up any weapon or offers any violence against him while he is in the execution of his officer; or
(2) willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer;
shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, and if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.

Now I'm generally opposed to capital punishment. But I'm willing to make an exception. To paraphrase one of my Bushy's favorite phrases, people who repeatedly ignore the rules must be held to account. This sounds like the perfect time for Bushy to start following his own advice.

What's George Drinking?

2004-09-07T23:23:00.000-06:00

Is this yet another George Bush flip flop?

The story on George Bush (at least the story told when he is wooing the temperate Christians he calls his "base") is that George Bush hasn't touched alcohol since he found Jesus at Colorado's Broadmoor hotel in July, 1986. I'm curious, then, what exactly it is in Bush's glass as he animatedly regales his fellow G8 leaders. Digby has more.

When it comes to Bush's drinking I think we should listen to the people who know Bush best. In 2000, Bush's best friend (now Commerce Secretary), Don Evans noted that Bush lacked "discipline."

Doesn't America deserve better than an undisciplined alcoholic?

Apology

2004-09-07T22:41:00.000-06:00

Sorry for lack of original and less than scintillating posts lately. Writing original posts is not at the top of my agenda. I've just started jobs for a few new clients. And I'm trying to increase my involvement in GOTV efforts.

I hope you too are out in the arena trying to elect a president who will treat national security with the seriousness it deserves.

Vote John Kerry.

Decency Speaks

2004-09-07T15:01:00.000-06:00

Via Josh Marshall:

The text of a letter former President Carter sent to Zell Miller over the weekend ...
You seem to have forgotten that loyal Democrats elected you as mayor and as state senator. Loyal Democrats, including members of my family and me, elected you as lieutenant governor and as governor. It was a loyal Democrat, Lester Maddox, who assigned you to high positions in the state government when you were out of office. It was a loyal Democrat, Roy Barnes, who appointed you as U.S. Senator when you were out of office. By your historically unprecedented disloyalty, you have betrayed our trust.
Great Georgia Democrats who served in the past, including Walter George, Richard Russell, Herman Talmadge, and Sam Nunn disagreed strongly with the policies of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and me, but they remained loyal to the party in which they gained their public office. Other Democrats, because of philosophical differences or the race issue, like Bo Callaway and Strom Thurmond, at least had the decency to become Republicans.

Everyone knows that you were chosen to speak at the Republican Convention because of your being a “Democrat,” and it’s quite possible that your rabid and mean-spirited speech damaged our party and paid the Republicans some transient dividends.

Perhaps more troublesome of all is seeing you adopt an established and very effective Republican campaign technique of destroying the character of opponents by wild and false allegations. The Bush campaign’s personal attacks on the character of John McCain in South Carolina in 2000 was a vivid example. The claim that war hero Max Cleland was a disloyal American and an ally of Osama bin Laden should have given you pause, but you have joined in this ploy by your bizarre claims that another war hero, John Kerry, would not defend the security of our nation except with spitballs. (This is the same man whom you described previously as “one of this nation's authentic heroes, one of this party's best-known and greatest leaders -- and a good friend.")

I, myself, never claimed to have been a war hero, but I served in the navy from 1942 to 1953, and, as president, greatly strengthened our military forces and protected our nation and its interests in every way. I don’t believe this warrants your referring to me as a pacificist.

Zell, I have known you for forty-two years and have, in the past, respected you as a trustworthy political leader and a personal friend. But now, there are many of us loyal Democrats who feel uncomfortable in seeing that you have chosen the rich over the poor, unilateral preemptive war over a strong nation united with others for peace, lies and obfuscation over the truth, and the political technique of personal character assassination as a way to win elections or to garner a few moments of applause. These are not the characteristics of great Democrats whose legacy you and I have inherited.
I contacted President Carter's office for comment and his press spokesperson Deanna Congileo told me that the letter was a private communication and that President Carter would not be issuing further comment.

What's In A Name?

2004-09-06T23:32:00.000-06:00

If all goes well, we'll be hearing much more about George W. Bush's young and irresponsible years in the next few weeks. In doing a little research on the Addict-in-Chief I came across this interesting little bit of etymology:

all-american drug, angels dust, angie, apple jacks, aspirin, aunt, aunt nora, balling, banano, barbs, basa, base, base crazies, base head, based out, basing, basuco, batman, bazooka, bazulco, beam, bebe, behind the scale, beiging, belushi, bernice, bernie, bernie's flakes, bernie's gold dust, big bloke, big c, big flake, big rush, billie hoke, bings, bipping, birdie powder, black rock, blanca , blanco , blanco blanca, blast, blizzard, blotter, blow, blow blue, blow coke, blow smoke, blunt, body-packer, bolivian, bolivian marching powder, bolivian marching powder, booster, bopper, bouncing powder, boy, break night, brick, bubble gum, bump, bumper, bumping up, bunk, burese, burnese, bush, c, c & m, c joint, cabello, cabello , cadillac, cain, caine, california, california cornflakes, came, candy, candy c, candy flipping on a string, candy sugar, caps, carnie, carrie, carrie nation, caviar, cc-dust, cds, c-dust, cecil, c-game, chalked up, chalking, champagne, charlie, chase, chicken scratch, china white, chippy, chips, choe, cholly, chunks, coca, cocaine, cocaine blues, cocktail, cocoa puff, coconut, coke, coke bar, cola, columbian marching powder, combol, comeback, cooking up, coolie, corine, cork the air, cornflakes, corrinne, cotton brothers, crack, crack cocaine, crackers, crisscrossing, crystal, dama blanca, devil's dandruff, do a line, double breasted dealing, double bubble, draf, dream, dream duct, duct, dust, dynamite, dynamite el diablo, el diablito, el diablo, electric kool-aid, esnortiar, everclear, fast white lady, five-way, flake, flake, flame cooking, flamethrowers, flash, flave, flex, florida snow, florida snow, foo foo, foo foo stuff, foo-foo dust, foo-foo dust stuff, foolish powder, freebase, freeze, french fry, frisco special, frisco speedball, friskie powder, frontloading, gaffel, geek-joints, geeze, geeze, ghost busting, gift-of-the-sun, gift-of-the-sun-god, gin, gin girl, girl, girlfriend, glad stuff, go on a sleigh ride, gold dust, goofball, gremmies, g-rock, h & c, half piece, happy dust, happy powder, happy trails, have a dust, haven dust, heaven, heaven dust, henry viii, her, hitch up the reindeers, hooter, horn, horning, hunter, ice, icing, inca message, jam, jejo, jelly, jim jones, joy, joy powder, junk, junk king, kibbles and bits, king, king's habit, lace, lace lady, lady caine, lady snow, lady white, late night, leaf, leaf line, line, lines, liquid lady, love affair, ma'a, macaroni and cheese, mama coca, marching dust, marching powder, mayo, merck, mercury, merk, mix, mojo, monkey, monos, monster, mosquitos, movie star drug, mujer, murder one, neurocain, nieve, nose, nose candy, nose powder, nose stuff, number 3, one and one, one bomb, one on one house, one plus one sales, onion, oyster stew, paradise, paradise white, pariba, p-dogs, pearl, percia, percio, perico, peruvian, peruvian flake, peruvian lady, peruvian marching powder, picking, piece, pieces, pimp, polvo blanco, pop, pop powder, powder, powder diamonds, powdered sugar, press, primo, primos, purple caps, purple haze, quill, racehorse charlie, rails, rane, rane, ready rock, real tops, recompress, rider, rock, rock star, rock(s), roxanne, royalty, rush, sandwich, schmeck, schmeck schoolboy, schoolboy, scorpion, scottie, scotty, scramble, seconds, serial speedballing, serpico 21, sevenup, shake, shaker/baker/water, she, shebanging, sherman stick, shneigh, shot, shrile, sleigh ride, smoke, smoke houses, smoking gun, sneeze, sniff, snort, snow, snow bird, snow seals, snow white, snowball, snowcones, soap, society high, soda, soft, soup, speedball, speedballing, speedballs-nose-style, splitting, sporting, sporting squirrel, squirrel, stacks, star, stardust, star-spangled powder, stone, studio fuel, sugar, sugar boogers, sweet stuff, t, talco, tardust, teenager, teenager thing, teeth, the king of drugs, the lady, the rock, thing, tio, toke, toot, trails, turkey, tutti-frutti, twinkie, uptown, wash, white, white ball, white boy, white dragon, white girl, white horse, white lady, white mosquito, white pony, white powder, white sugar, whiz bang, wild cat, window pane, wings, witch, woolas, wooties, working bags, yam, yao, yeyo, zip

I wonder how many of these Dubya has used?

Bush's Convention Speech

2004-09-02T21:43:00.000-06:00

9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, some domestic stuff, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, mock John Kerry, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, tears, 9-11, God Bless America.

Carl's Words of Wisdom

2004-09-01T21:02:00.000-06:00

A friend of mine provided this bit of advice. I encourage citizens of all political persuasions to follow it:

As an American, you should show support for the American electoral process and your own presidential candidate. So, every day until Election Day, show this support while you drive: If you support John Kerry, please drive with your headlights on during the day. If you support George W. Bush, please drive with your headlights off at night.

For those of you who do support Bush, it should be easy to follow Carl's advice: Just think of yourself as emulating Bush's foreign policy.

Truth at the GOP Convention

2004-08-30T19:58:00.000-06:00

Bernie Kerick, former New York police commissioner and Vice President of Giuliani Partners, has this to say:

This fight against terrorism takes decisiveness, not contradiction

I couldn't agree more.

Do you think he cleared his statement with George W. Bush?

Either way, I look forward to Kerick's endorsement of the decisive John F. Kerry.

Bush Flip Floppery

2004-08-30T15:44:00.000-06:00

The half-life of Bush flip-flops is getting shorter and shorter:

We have a clear vision on how to win the war on terror and bring peace to the world."
-- George W. Bush
July 30th 2004.

"I don’t think you can win [the war on terror]. But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are — less acceptable in parts of the world.”

-- George W. Bush
Aug. 29th, 2004.

When the half-life is down to a single news cycle is when I expect the press to recognize that Bush has no idea what he's talking about.

Newt Mangles His Facts Again

2004-08-30T15:14:00.000-06:00

Via National Journal Convention E-Mail Alert (no link):

"You ought to ask the Kerry campaign why the only pro-life Democrat to speak at a national convention was Zell Miller -- and he wasn't in Boston." -- Newt Gingrich at today's Republican Main Street Partnership forum.

First, Newtie is wrong on the facts.

And second, my question back to Newtie: Why is the only pro-life featured speaker at the Republican convention (besides the candidate) a Democrat? There are a number of pro-life Democrats who have spoken at the Democratic conventions (present and past). It's the Republicans who seem to be muzzling the anti-abortion voice. As I've asked before, when will we see Alan Keyes and Tom Coburn speak at the RNC?

Who Is George Bush?

2004-08-30T13:28:00.000-06:00

Four years ago the Bushies made much of Al Gore's shifting personnas. To hear them tell it, Gore's overwhelming desire to be President engendered a win at all costs, say anything approach that, ironically, disqualified him from being worthy of the office. Gore, they claimed, went to great lengths to conceal who he was in order to make himself more palatable to the electorate.

Ironic. Now (and probably in 2000 as well) it is George Bush whose personality and traits must be concealed and re-worked for public consumption. The New York Times provides a glimpse.

Bush is consistently portrayed as an above-the-fray, compassionate conservative, eager to change the tone of political discourse. He "makes it a practice as president to speak disdainfully of politics and politicians as he travels the country, presenting himself as an outsider in the city where he lives." Yet that doesn't quite reconcile with the reality that "Mr. Bush has, along with Mr. Rove, been a driving force behind the attacks that have become a hallmark of his campaign." Is Bush the genial, common, everyman we've been spoon fed to believe he is? Maybe not:

One aide said a common scene in the White House these days was Mr. Bush, after reading the morning news accounts of the campaign, shouting, as he did a few weeks ago, "Hit him - we need to hit back."

Further evidence of Bush's shifting mien -- not to say flip flopping -- comes when considering his meda habits. Bush, we've been told for the past five years (see Brit Hume interview for but one example), doesn't bother with current events and newspapers. Yet:

On weekdays, aides say, the campaign essentially begins in the White House residence, where Mr. Bush rises at 5 a.m. to read the newspapers and check on the political news.

By 7 a.m., when he is in the Oval Office, aides say, Mr. Bush will frequently tell them about an article they have not seen and tell them to call the reporter and complain.

And then there's this:

Mr. Bush's advisers said he approached the campaign much the same way he approached the presidency. He was not, one said, a "micromanager," and was most interested in the broader strategic decisions made by the campaign.

Followed, two grafs later, with this decidedly micromanaging vignette:

He is involved in deciding the daily theme or attack of the day. While the vast majority of what he says is written by speechwriters, aides say he does write some of his own lines - usually attacks on his Democratic opponent.

Which is it? Does Bush read the papers or not? Is he the political genius this article portrays or the Texas hayseed that Bush himself likes to portray with his halting, convoluted syntax? Is Bush a master strategist who eschews micro management or the meddling tactician described by his aides? Is he the reluctant politician or the conniving back room operator eager for the fight? Is Bush a compassionate conservative or a frothing attack dog who revels in peppering his speeches with self-authored belligerence?

Who is George W. Bush? And can we trust the presidency to someone who lacks a strong sense of self and feels the need to reinvent himself during campaign season?

I'm Thinking of Starting My Own 527

2004-08-30T10:36:00.000-06:00

Over the weekend I somehow managed not to avoid seeing Bush's saccharine and shamelessly exploitive Olympics advertisement. You may have seen it too:

In 1972...there were 40 democracies in the world.
Today...120.
Freedom is spreading throughout the world like a sunrise.
And this Olympics... there will be two more free nations…
And two fewer terrorist regimes.

Superimpose flags of Afghanistan and Iraq. Turn off television. Vomit.

Apart from the impertinent politicization of the Olympics there's the fact that, contrary to the implication of the ad, neither Iraq or Afghanistan are democracies. Not yet, at least. And they are a far cry from being free of terror.

The whole unfortunate experience did, however, give me an idea for a companion ad. Let me know what you think.

In 2000...there were 8 countries in the world with nuclear weapons.
Today...after three years of George W. Bush...there are two more.
(Superimpose flags of Iran and North Korea)
Terror is spreading throughout the world like a wildfire.
And George W. Bush is making the job of terrorist recruiters easier.
And now, the two most dangerous terrorist regimes on the planet have nuclear weapons.

So how bout it? MoveOn? Olympic Veterans for Truth? Who's going to get this ad made? It really only needs to run one time.

Calling Texans, New Yorkers, and Californians

2004-08-27T14:52:00.000-06:00

Do you live in one of the thirty or so non-swing states? Are you feeling left out of the rush of activity in other states? Do you want to help register and recruit new voters? Well, maybe you too can help.

If you have a cell phone with free weekend (or evening) minutes? Then check out Democracy in the Park. The organization was started when a bunch of blue state New Yorkers decided to meet in Central Park and pool their free cell phone minutes to call swing state voters. They've since put a structure in place by which others with phone minutes to spare can join in the effort.

This got me to thinking. What if you don't have a cell phone? Or, at least, a cell phone with free minutes?

Well, if you've got a broadband Internet connection, for $15 to $25 you can easily get a swing state phone number and start dialing away. Companies like Vonage offer extremely low rates for local service anywhere in the country. Thus, you can sit in Los Angeles but have a Detroit area code and phone number. And $25 is about what you might donate to your favorite campaign. So maybe after you've made your August and September contributions to the Kerry campaign, you can sign up for Vonage service. Then, get a list from Democracy in the Park of voters in a swing state you'd like to target and help turn out the vote.

This election is going to be EXTREMELY close. Every. Single. Vote. Counts.

Can you do something to make a difference? Make the call.

August Cancelled

2004-08-27T13:41:00.000-06:00

Summer is over. The Colorado Department of Transportation announced today that the highest continuous paved road in the United States, Trail Ridge Road through Rocky Mountain National Park, was closed today due to 2 foot snow drifts.

Wha?

2004-08-27T13:33:00.000-06:00

In a New York Times interview Bush reveals the tremendous extent to which he is incapable of understanding -- much less formulating a response to -- the threats facing our country:

Mr. Bush also took issue with Mr. Kerry's argument, in an interview at the end of May with The New York Times, that the Bush administration's focus on Iraq had given North Korea the opportunity to significantly expand its nuclear capability. Showing none of the alarm about the North's growing arsenal that he once voiced regularly about Iraq, he opened his palms and shrugged when an interviewer noted that new intelligence reports indicate that the North may now have the fuel to produce six or eight nuclear weapons.

He said that in North Korea's case, and in Iran's, he would not be rushed to set deadlines for the countries to disarm, despite his past declaration that he would not "tolerate'' nuclear capability in either nation. He declined to define what he meant by "tolerate.''

"I don't think you give timelines to dictators,'' Mr. Bush said, speaking of North Korea's president, Kim Jong Il, and Iran's mullahs. He said he would continue diplomatic pressure - using China to pressure the North and Europe to pressure Iran - and gave no hint that his patience was limited or that at some point he might consider pre-emptive military action.

"I'm confident that over time this will work - I certainly hope it does,'' he said of the diplomatic approach.

Bush's response to actual -- as opposed to imagined or at least non-existent -- nuclear ambition: A shrug.

Also I'm not sure whether to register my disgust with Bush or The New York Times regarding the aforementioned "diplomatic approach." This administration has no "diplomatic approach" when it comes to North Korea. Bush's approach to North Korea:

Shut your yap until you accept disarmament and regime change. We will not talk to you until you commit suicide. Oh, except that we will flip-flop and agree to accept a deal with you that was on the table since before I came to office but then decided to scrap. Oh, you don't want to deal now that I've called you 'Evil' and you actually have nuclear capability? OK, shut up then. Proceed to stick fingers back in ears and yell La, la, la, la...

What fantasy world is Bush (and/or the interviewer) living in to think that there is a diplomatic approach to North Korea?

A Little Bushology

2004-08-26T18:13:00.000-06:00

Dick Meyer of CBS provides decent background for a better understanding of this poster.

Writes Meyer:

Any student of Bush family campaigns could have seen the swift boat shiv shining a mile away. This old family has traditions – horseshoes, fishing, bad syntax and having the help do the dirty work in campaigns as well as the kitchen. And they are very good at getting jobs done without leaving fingerprints, without compromising their patrician image and their alleged character.

Even the audaciousness of this year’s episode is not surprising. Who would have believed that George Bush, with all the trouble over his National Guard service, could get John Kerry in hot water for his combat duty and medals in Vietnam? Well, anyone who saw what George Bush did to former POW John McCain in the 2000 primaries, which was even more outrageous.

The ancestral origin of Bush family gut fighting came in George H. W. Bush’s 1988 campaign against Michael Dukakis in the form of the infamous Willie Horton ad.

...The mantle passed to Bush the Younger in 1994 when he ran for governor of Texas against Ann Richards. She was a salty, strong, unmarried woman. And guess what? A whispering campaign got rolling in East Texas that she was gay and so were some of her staffers. Then one of the Bush campaign's local chairmen told a reporter that Richards' appointment of "avowed homosexuals" might become a campaign issue. In the twisted way the press legitimizes talking about questionable issues, that remark made the whole deal fair game.

In 2000, McCain had George W. on the ropes and South Carolina was the do-or-die state. Flyers appeared from thin air alleging that McCain had a black child (he and his wife had adopted a Bangladeshi daughter from an orphanage there). Other fliers said McCain was the "fag candidate." Rumors swirled that McCain’s time in a North Vietnamese prison camp had left him unstable and downright crazy - again, hitting at the opponent's greatest strength. Other rumors were that his wife was a drug addict. Nice stuff, and none of it had Bush’s inky fingerprints on it.

At an event with Bush, a vet from some fringe group accused McCain of abandoning veterans. That really set McCain off and he demanded an apology from Bush. Bush simply said that he believed McCain "served our country nobly." That’s what he says about Kerry now. Above the fray, clean hands, patrician.

Soon after that, a mysterious group dumped $2 million into ads in more liberal New York attacking McCain’s environmental record and boosting Bush's. Eventually, it turned out the ads were bankrolled by a big Bush donor named Sam Wyly. No Bush fingerprints there either.

You get the picture. The big question is why John Kerry didn't.

I agree with everything Meyer writes until that last sentence.

I think it's obvious that John Kerry got the picture. His thorough understanding of the low down and dirty nature of George W. Bush is precisely why he led so forcefully with his Vietnam experience. The attacks on Kerry's Vietnam era activities (both during and after the war) have been in the Bush playbook since before John Kerry secured the nomination. Anyone who didn't or doesn't recognize that fact is an imbecile.

John Kerry recognized that Bush would find some way to make an issue of Vietnam. He realized that the best way to innoculate himself was to preemptively put the issue on the table with such fervor that any subsequent attacks would be blunted. As it turns out, Kerry's forceful display of his record served to give the Swifties a convenient excuse for their antics. Oh, boo hoo. We had no choice but to bring this up cause he talked so much about his record. Waaah. But make no mistake. The attack would have come whether Kerry had fortified his image or not.

Thankfully, Kerry understood the big picture early enough to attenuate the impact of the attack when it came. As it is, Kerry has likely suffered a survivable hit of only a few points. As Kerry said during his Daily Show interview: He's "been through worse."

The General Gets Illinois Love

2004-08-25T16:51:00.000-06:00

The General has decided to throw his "little soldier" into the ring and run as Illinois' Republican Senate candidate. It is also quite possible that Illinois state Senator Dave Syverson will consider backing his entry into the race, which would surely be a blow to Alan Keyes. Show The General some love and visit his site and pledge your support for his manly endeavor.

Oh, and out of respect for The General, heterosexuals only, please.

Newsflash: Electoral College to Pick President

2004-08-25T16:25:00.000-06:00

In a column under the mundane, if not inane headline "Electoral College holds key to election, again" there is actually something interesting.

Purporting to be a straight news story -- Knight Ridder, no less -- the story offers this gem:

You might recall from the last election the Electoral College determines the president.

Whoa, Nelly! The press corps is on a roll today.

Proceeding in the manner of a sixth grade civics class, the "news" story observes that state by state projections currently show a different race from projections based on national surveys. Adding a bit of useful information, the story mentions two state by state vote counting sites: The Kerry leaning www.electoral-vote.com (also accessible via the link to the right) and the pro-Bush www.electionprojection.com (which is also quite good and currently shows Kerry in the lead by a wider margin than the pro-Kerry site).

Now, for most of our illustrious press, this bit of non-news would have exceeded their quota of heavy lifting for the day. But this reporter goes further and offers us an insider's account. Thus, we're treated to these wan expressions from the campaign flacks:

Pennsylvania Kerry director Tony Podesta says, "It's graphically interesting, clever, well-done ... it's August and too early to order inauguration tickets."

Kevin Madden of the Bush campaign says, "It's an interesting snapshot analysis but it fluctuates, too, and the most important poll is on Election Day ... we're more concerned with getting our grass-roots voting-day efforts in place."

Is this feigned disinterest in the state by state breakdown necessary? Obviously, more than any one else in the country, the campaigns know the election is won or lost on the proper electoral strategy. And that strategy must be predicated on the application of scarce resources to those states where the most impact will be had, yes, but also to those states that, as a group, will add up to 270 electoral votes. You can't convince me that these people aren't paying attention to the state by state breakdown. Sure, they're probably checking their own surveys rather than the aforementioned websites, but they are definitely following the state by state give and take.

And if they're not then what, really, is the point of this pointless story?

(Via Political Wire)

Astroturf

2004-08-24T22:54:00.000-06:00

I mentioned earlier that I had sent a letter to the Boulder Daily Camera about the Tax Facts spam which was published as a letter to the editor. Well, Douglas Steen of dugblog did me one better and actually wrote an entire guest commentary on the topic of astroturf. The Camera published it on Sunday. It's well written and worth a gander. Plus, Apeiron gets another mention.

Sadly, Steen's guest commentary is published only in Boulder. Perhaps the The Modesto Bee will see fit to reprint it since they too were taken in by the bogus letter.

Debunking Bushisms

2004-08-24T22:39:00.000-06:00

As part of my ongoing effort to debunk political spam I offer the following e-mail (below) regarding George W. Bush's struggles with the English language.

As with all political spam, your first thought after reading is: "It sounds reasonable." However, if you're willing to do just a little digging you'll find that the claims are bogus. I'm not particularly interested in providing a detailed refutation of this piece of hackery. But, with the minimal effort I did put into researching these quotes, I'm fairly comfortable asserting that most of these statements attributed to George W. Bush are actually statements made by former Vice President Dan Quayle. Irregular Times did a takedown on this e-mail during the 2000 presidential election when, presumably, these statements were first attributed to Bush.

This bit of mass-mailed lying is interesting in that with a quick cut and paste the smear can be directed at almost anyone. In the few minutes I spent on this I was able to find sites that attributed one or more of these to Al Gore and John Kerry. Of course, the lie becomes much less believable when the name of the victim is changed, demonstrating that for political spam to be truly effective it must have the ring of truth.

Finally, I've got to question the work ethic and intelligence of the author of this piece of spam. Seriously. Why on earth claim that George W. Bush makes weird utterances and then refer to statemetns he never made? There are whole books of inane linguistic acrobatics by George W. Bush. For a sampling, check out Bushisms, More Bushisms, and Still More Bushisms.

In the spirit of letting George W. Bush have the final word on the matter I'll recommend his sage words of advice regarding any mass mailing you might find in your inbox:

"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."

Now, on with the e-mail that started this whole mess:

-----Original Message-----
From: XXX
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 5:21 PM
To: Buck, Mike
Subject: Language

The first three years . . .

Can the English language survive?

"The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country."
- George W. Bush

"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
- George W. Bush

"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any Governor, and that one word is 'to be prepared'."
- George W. Bush

"I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments
in the future."
- George W. Bush

"The future will be better tomorrow."
- George W. Bush

"We're going to have the best educated American people in the world."
- George W. Bush

"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made."
- George W. Bush

"We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a part of NATO. We have a firm commitment to Europe. We are a part of Europe."
- George W. Bush

"Public speaking is very easy."
- George W. Bush

"A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls."
- George W. Bush

"We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur."
- George W. Bush

"For NASA, space is still a high priority."
- George W. Bush

"Quite frankly, teachers are the only profession that teach our children."
- George W. Bush

"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it."
- George W. Bush

"It's time for the human race to enter the solar system."
- George W. Bush

The Story of Norman Siegel

2004-08-23T11:03:00.000-06:00

Norman Siegel is 84 years old. He is known as a "snowbird" because he maintains a residence in both New York and the sunny environs of Pinellas Park, Florida. The New York Daily News called him recently.

Reached at his Florida home, Siegel interrupted a News reporter who was telling him that thousands of people are registered to vote in both states.

"That's illegal," Siegel interjected. "You have to pick one place as your residence and vote there."

Told that the records show he maintains registrations in both places, Siegel said he had not voted in Florida, then said he had not voted in New York.

When he was told that records show he has voted in both places, Siegel cut off the conversation. "I have to go," he said.

Turns out that Siegel is not the only octogenarian who is basking in the electoral benefits of both states. According to the News, about 46,000 New Yorkers have dual state registration in the Empire state and the Sunshine state.

As Siegel noted during his aborted coversation with the News reporter: It's illegal. Actually casting ballots in both places is punishable by up to 5 years in the hookie and 10,000 simoleons.

While I'm sure we'll be hearing more about this phenomenon in the lead up to the election, I'm not sure we'll actually see anything done about it. Afterall, which candidate wants to raise publicly the specter of hauling grandma off to prison? Might not boost the get out the vote effort among the senior set.

After the election, however, all bets are off. If Florida is once again the hinge on which the presidency turns, I wouldn't be surprised to see the paddy wagon backing up to the Sunny Acres Senior Home.

Via Political Wire

Fight Like Republicans

2004-08-22T13:29:00.000-06:00

Atrios points out the utter impossibility of imagining Democrats in 1996 adopting the Bush tactics of 2004:

The Boston Globe editorial is pretty good (aside from the "Clinton/draft dodger" comment - Clinton was no more a draft dodger than Dick Cheney. Where are the "Cheney/draft dodger" snide remarks?).

IMAGINE IF supporters of Bill Clinton had tried in 1996 to besmirch the military record of his opponent, Bob Dole. After all, Dole was given a Purple Heart for a leg scratch probably caused, according to one biographer, when a hand grenade thrown by one of his own men bounced off a tree. And while the serious injuries Dole sustained later surely came from German fire, did the episode demonstrate heroism on Dole's part or a reckless move that ended up killing his radioman and endangering the sergeant who dragged Dole off the field?

The truth, according to many accounts, is that Dole fought with exceptional bravery and deserves the nation's gratitude. No one in 1996 questioned that record. Any such attack on behalf of Clinton, an admitted Vietnam draft dodger, would have been preposterous.
It wouldn't have just been preposterous, it would've backfired politically and lost Clinton the election. Why? Not because the Amurkan people would have been "outraged," but because fifty thousand attack poodles would have run on the air screaming bloody murder. It would have gone on for weeks and weeks and weeks. Every editorial page in the country would have freaked out the moment it started.

Atrios goes on to conclude that

The media are not passive participants in these things, and they need to accept and come to terms with that.

This is, of course, exactly right. But it's not the whole story. The simple fact is that the Republicans have built a better attack poodle...and they have more of them...and they're able to keep them all eating from the same packaged and reprocessed bag of bloody horsemeat. Consistency of message is one of the best weapons in the attack poodles' arsenal.

Also, the media, unfortunately, responds to bullying. Democrats have not yet learned to compete with Republicans' bullying attack poodles. Give the Democrats credit; they do try. But they just haven't mastered the shrill, ubiquitous, unrelenting whining which the Republicans use to effectively flood the airwaves with their message du jour.

In essence, the Republicans have learned to use the media's sense of fairness as a weapon against objectivity.

The media, as Atrios asserts, is no doubt complicit in this hijacking of objectivity.

But the rest of us need not sit idly by until such time as the media recognizes that they've been duped. As much as I hate to say it, Democrats and Independents need to learn to fight like Republicans.

GOP Scratches Bereuter

2004-08-22T02:02:00.000-06:00

Regarding Rep. Doug Bereuter's parting shots Marvin wonders:

Is Rep. Doug Bereuter a flip-flopper? Is he soft on terror? Does he hate America? Yes or No?

Marvin didn't receive a direct answer to his questions in comments. But really they are the wrong questions. When a Republican breaks with George W. Bush the real questions are "How long before his motive or personality is attacked" and "How quickly does he become a persona non grata?" The answers are immediately and immediately:

Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Illinois, a member of the intelligence panel, described Bereuter as "very bitter" for having been passed over in recent years to head the intelligence and international relations committees. He suggested Bereuter's comments were a parting shot to House GOP leaders and President Bush.

..."He is not an opinion maker or someone who has taken a leadership role. I don't think you can take this as a sign his comments are a barometer of other Republican thinking," one Bush political aide said.

Mmmmm, delicious! Republicans waste no time eating their own (or anyone else's, for that matter).

By the way, the correct answers to Marvin's questions are No, No, and No. See, that was easy.

Published

2004-08-22T01:10:00.000-06:00

Well, Boulder's Daily Camera came through. They published my letter on the tax facts spam.

Brass Knuckles

2004-08-21T21:59:00.000-06:00

The Kerry campaign has a new ad. It's just a short snippet of video from the 2000 debate between John McCain and George Bush when McCain rightly attempted to shame Bush's latest smear attack.

This new ad is a step in the right direction. It's the kind of tough, right back at you message that is needed to counter the Republican dirty tricks brigade. But more ads like this are needed. And they need to hit back just as hard. If the Bushies want to take the gloves off then Kerry needs to put the brass knuckles on.

Look, I'd much rather conduct this campgain solely on the issues. God knows there are plenty of worthwhile issues to debate. But if George W. Bush wants to get down in the mud then I say drown him in it.

Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, this new ad is currently only running as an Internet ad. My guess is that the Kerry campaign is husbanding their resources and counting on free media -- news organizations and what not -- to push this ad even though it may never air as a paid advert on television. Probably a good idea to save their dough because there are going to be plenty more Bush initiated slime fests.

The sad thing is that shame did not work in 2000. And, it will not likely work now. Shame does not work because George W. Bush lacks the capacity for shame.

By the way, if you haven't seen the swift boat liars ad -- and you may not have since, despite the wall to wall attention, it's only airing in two states -- you owe it to yourself to watch the ad. This is the kind of vicious, emotionally shrill attack that your president, the shameless George W. Bush, supports.

Then, if you're not already sickened enough by the shallow, callow, bitter attacks, you further owe it to yourself to actually read John Kerry's entire statement delivered before Congress in April, 1971. If you do both of those things you can't help but note that

John Kerry did not impugn the vets who are mounting this vicious and dirty attack;
John Kerry's testimony, which these veterans feel somehow "hurt" "tortured" "betrayed" "dishonored" and "sold them out" is demonstrably, factually, and objectively supported by the record;
John Kerry was saying over 30 years ago statements which can apply equally to our civilian military leadership today.

Swift Boat Lessons in Leadership

2004-08-21T14:09:00.000-06:00

John Kerry was awarded a Silver Star for his actions in combat on February 28, 1969. A number of bitter veterans with 30-year vendettas against Kerry have attacked his actions on that day. They have claimed that somehow Kerry's Vietnam experience makes less qualified than George W. Bush to be Commander-in-Chief.

As it turns out, there are only three officers with direct knowledge of what happened that day: John Kerry, Lieutenant Donald Droz (now dead), and a third swift boat commander, William Rood. Rood has rebutted with eyewitness testimony many of the claims made by those whose simmering hatred of Kerry has caused them to denigrate all veterans who have faithfully served.

What Rood has to say offers insight into what we might expect from a Commander-in-Chief John F. Kerry:

Ambushes were a virtual certainty, and that day was no exception.

The difference was that Kerry, who had tactical command of that particular operation, had talked to Droz and me beforehand about not responding the way the boats usually did to an ambush.

We agreed that if we were not crippled by the initial volley and had a clear fix on the location of the ambush, we would turn directly into it, focusing the boats' twin .50-caliber machine guns on the attackers and beaching the boats. We told our crews about the plan.

The Viet Cong in the area had come to expect that the heavily loaded boats would lumber on past an ambush, firing at the entrenched attackers, beaching upstream and putting troops ashore to sweep back down on the ambush site. Often, they were long gone by the time the troops got there.

The first time we took fire—the usual rockets and automatic weapons—Kerry ordered a "turn 90" and the three boats roared in on the ambush. It worked. We routed the ambush, killing three of the attackers.

...It happened again, another ambush. And again, Kerry ordered the turn maneuver, and again it worked. As we headed for the riverbank, I remember seeing a loaded B-40 launcher pointed at the boats. It wasn't fired as two men jumped up from their spider holes.

What I take from this is that an engaged, analytical, intelligent, and courageous leader assessed a situation and came up with a plan. An effective plan. He shared the plan and led it's successful implementation. Then he did it again. The plan was not some loose, "shoot from the hip" idea. The plan relied on "thinking outside the box." The plan was focused on the enemy at hand. The plan was adapted to deal with the facts on the ground. The plan deviated from the normal course of action because the normal course of action was ineffectual. The plan succeeded because it was predicated on knowledge and executed with leadership.

If President John Kerry can bring to America's foreign policy just a sliver of what he demonstrated on February 28, 1969, America will be much better off than it is right now.

Via Kevin Drum.

Worth Remembering

2004-08-21T10:47:00.000-06:00

It is abundantly obvious that there are dozens, if not hundreds of people who remember serving "with" John Kerry. I'm still waiting for anyone to stand up and say they served with Bush during late 1972.

Idiocy

2004-08-20T23:39:00.000-06:00

What the hell does this even mean?

"I wasn't there at the time that happened," said Tony Gisclair, a veteran from Poplarville, Miss., who signed the letter, referring to Kerry's combat in Vietnam. "But look at what the man said about us when he came back."

Tony Snesko, a veteran in Washington, D.C., said he was "devastated" by Kerry's antiwar efforts, prompting him to sign on to the group's anti-Kerry message.

Snesko said to see Kerry elected would give credence to the senator's claims that those who fought in Vietnam were reckless baby-killers: "At the point that he might possibly take over this country as president -- it would validate everything that he said about us and would make it appear true."

Does it mean something like:

At the point that Dubya might possibly take over this country as president -- it would validate his drinking, drug use, and that girl he knocked up and then got her an abortion -- and would make it appear true.

I'm trying to wrap my head around the idiocy of these people but I don't even know what to make of it. How does voting for someone change facts (or even perceptions) of something that happened 35 years ago? And why do we care? Can someone explain this please?

Bush Redoubles Ineffectiveness Against Shadowy Groups

2004-08-20T23:09:00.000-06:00

Atrios wonders. Here, here, and here too.

All 527 Ads Off the Air

Elizbaeth Dole just told us once again that this is Bush's position. Can some reporter please get to the bottom of this? Does Bush want them to be illegal? Has he embraced a new campaign finance law position?

What Atrios is referring to, of course, is the shadowy network of organizations that we've heard so much about from the White House in recent days. Witness:

MR. McCLELLAN: We've already said we weren't involved in any way in these ads. We've made that clear...I mean, where has the Kerry been -- Kerry campaign been for the last year while more than $62 million in funding through these shadowy groups has been used to negatively attack the President. The Kerry campaign has been noticeably silent, and in many instances, they have actually fueled these kinds of attacks by these shadowy groups that are funded by unregulated soft money. (August 20, 2004)

MR. McCLELLAN: The President has condemned all of the ads by the shadowy groups. We have called on Senator Kerry to join us in calling for an end to all the unregulated soft money activity that is going on in this campaign...And the President has condemned all of the ads and condemned all of the soft money -- unregulated soft money that is going on. Senator Kerry should join us in calling for an end to all of this soft money -- unregulated soft money activity. Senator Kerry has declined to do so. The President has been on the receiving end of more than $62 million in negative, false attacks from these shadowy groups that exist. The President thought that we got rid of all of this kind of soft money activity when he signed the campaign finance reforms into law. (August 19, 2004)

MR. McCLELLAN: We have been on the receiving end of more than $62 million in negative political attacks from these shadowy groups that are funded by unregulated soft money. And the President has condemned all of the ads and activity going on by these shadowy groups. (August 18, 2004)

MR. McCLELLAN: You heard last week, I mean, we made it very -- let's not be selective here, because the issue here is looking at this unregulated soft money advertising and activity that is going on. And we made it very clear last week that the President deplores all the unregulated soft money ads and activity that are going on. And that's why we called on the Kerry campaign to join us in calling for an end to all of this unregulated soft money advertising and activity that is going on...He should join us in calling for an end to all of this unregulated soft money activity by these shadowy groups. That's what the President thought we got rid of when he signed the campaign finance reforms into law. (August 10, 2004)

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, we continue to urge Senator Kerry to join us and call for an end to all the ads and activity by these shadowy groups that are funded by unregulated soft money. These ads are examples of the kinds of problems with this unregulated soft money. The President signed the campaign finance reforms into law in part to get rid of this kind of activity. (August 6, 2004)

MR. McCLELLAN: The President thought he put an end -- or the President thought he got rid of this kind of unregulated soft money when he signed the bipartisan campaign finance reforms into law...And, you know, the President has been on the receiving end of more than $62 million in negative attacks from shadowy groups. The President is calling for an immediate cessation to all the unregulated soft money activity...Again, the President has been on the receiving end of more than $62 million in negative attacks from shadowy groups. And the President thought he got rid of this kind of activity when he signed the bipartisan campaign finance reforms into law...These were loopholes that we thought were closed when the President signed the campaign finance reforms into law...The President knows what it's like to be on the receiving end of more than $62 million in negative attacks from these kinds of shadowy groups. (August 5, 2004)

What Atrios is wondering, I think, is whether Bush has flip flopped once again. Afterall, Atrios seems to be implying, isn't this the same George W. Bush who was opposed to campaign reform during his last unsuccessful bid for the presidency in 2000? Isn't this the same George W. Bush who only reluctantly signed McCain-Feingold into law? Isn't this the same George W. Bush who wouldn't even have a Rose Garden ceremony -- signed in the shadows, you might say -- for this, his new signature issue?

Fair questions, all. But, Mr. Atrios, I think you're being too hard on Mr. Bush. Afterall, I think the record is clear that the Bush administration has a long if undistinguished record of ineffectual battles against shadowy organizations:

June 22, 2004: "We face an enemy that lies in the shadows..." -- White House Counsel Judge Alberto Gonzales

March 8, 2004: "...and shadowy private networks and individuals who also traffic in these materials, motivated by greed or fanaticism or both..." -- National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice

February 18, 2004: "This is a shadowy network that exists. The investigation continues, there is still more that we are learning. But we are acting to break up this network once and for all." -- Scott McClellan

November 4, 2002: "...could use his shadowy group of people to attack his enemy and leave no fingerprint behind. He's a threat." -- George W. Bush

October 14, 2002: "We face a shadowy enemy. They're real, they're tough, they are determined." -- George W. Bush

September 17, 2002: "Now, shadowy networks of individuals can bring great chaos and suffering to our shores..." -- George W. Bush

September 16, 2002: "They kind of move around in the shadows of big cities in some countries, and hide, and then strike hard...If they're in some shadowy neighborhood, we'll finally put the spotlight on the shadowy neighborhood. It doesn't matter where they hide, we're after them, one person at a time." -- George W. Bush

June 19, 2002: "And we're making progress, we're making progress. We've got the FBI and the CIA talking like they've never talked before. And that's important, and that's important. (Applause.) It's important because we fight a shadowy enemy." -- George W. Bush

June 3, 2002: "...against this shadowy enemy, it's very important that we gather as much intelligence as we can. We need to know what they're thinking, and what they're planning on doing before they do something. That's the best way." -- George W. Bush

May 21, 2002: "Now, as the President said from the very beginning, it's a shadowy war, it's a different kind of war. It's not the type of war that our parents were used to..." -- Ari Fleischer

May 14, 2002: "One of the things that we're finding is that our enemy is shadowy. They lurk behind civil institutions and then they strike. They -- they're not like an enemy we've known before." -- George W. Bush

May 13, 2002: "We're facing a shadowy enemy..." -- George W. Bush

January 23, 2002: "We still face a shadowy enemy who dwells in the dark corners of the earth." -- George W. Bush

December 12, 2001: "We are fighting shadowy, entrenched enemies..." -- George W. Bush

It seems to me that when Bush says he "thought he got rid of this kind of activity" it's sort of like when he thought he got rid of Osama bin Laden before he went into Iraq. Perhaps he ought not think so much. Or, put another way, Bush has once again demonstrated that shadowy groups concern him only after they attack.