The very idea that having Osama bin Laden pop up on a video four days before the election could be a good thing for President Bush is just Bizarre! But here you have Bush campaign officials calling it "a gift."
It would seem to me that having verification that Osama is still alive and doing well 3 1/2 years after 9-11 would be a reminder of Bush's utter failure to bring him to justice.
Some people are speculating that Osama is trying to influence the election with his sudden reappearance. They say that the video will scare people into voting for Bush and will also take attention away from Bush's major screwup with the missing explosives at Al-Qaqaa. I doubt that it will have a significant impact, but I don't doubt that Osama is hoping it will give Bush a boost. Why wouldn't he want the guy who can't catch him to be elected?
Imagine an evil version of the Roadrunner urging people to vote for Wile E. Coyote to continue being his chief nemesis.
There goes Wile E. Bush with his Acme WMD detector that leads him in the wrong direction and blows up in his face. Meanwhile Osama Roadrunner races off in the opposite direction. Beep! Beep!
No, we have to be smart if we are going to catch Osama. You don't do it by launching a poorly planned war against a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 and no al-Qaeda connections (at least before we turned the whole country into a giant al-Qaeda recruiting center).
Bush has led us down the wrong path and that is the main reason of many why he should not be elected president. If nothing else, Bush should have made capturing Osama his No. 1 priority after 9-11. He could have screwed everything else up - wrecked the economy, run up huge deficits, lost 2 million jobs, turned our allies against us, etc. - but as long as people thought he was hot on Osama's trail they would have stayed behind him and he would be winning this election hands down. But he dropped the ball in Afghanistan and then decided to play a different game altogether.
I had gotten to the point like many other people where I imagined and hoped that Osama had crawled into a cave somewhere and died. But unfortunately the new tape shows that not only is he still with us but he seems to be in pretty good shame. He doesn't look like someone who has been living in a cave all this time trying to avoid detection.
Perhaps that is because all of our military and intelligence resources have been redirected and stretched to the breaking point during this long snipe hunt in Iraq.
I suppose the rightwing reaction to this news is predictable, but I can't get over how bizarre it is. Imagine for a moment if Al Gore was president right now and the Osama tape pops up right before the election. The rightwingers would have been pulling their hair out by the fistful and shrieking at the top of their lungs about how Gore had failed to keep the country safe and needs to be removed from office immediately. Is there any doubt that would have been the reaction?
Saturday, October 30, 2004
Friday, October 29, 2004
A poor excuse
Now we have conclusive proof that the missing explosives were still around when U.S. troops arrived at Al-Qaqaa.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Videotape shot by a Minnesota television crew traveling with U.S. troops in Iraq when they first opened the bunkers at the Al-Qaqaa munitions base nine days after the fall of Saddam Hussein shows what appeared to be high explosives still in barrels and bearing the markings of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
But what I am still having trouble understanding is why it matters when the stuff disappeared. Maybe someone can help explain it to me. Let us say for arguments sake that Saddam had his troops move the explosives before the war started even though that theory has now been shot down. Why would that make the actions of this administration any better?
We know that the International Atomic Energy Agency says it repeatedly warned US to secure the Iraqi explosives. And we know that the administration now claims not to have known the explosives were missing before the new Iraqi government issued a statement just a month ago. If the Bush administration had been doing its job they would have made sure that a sufficient number of troops were ordered to go in and secure the Al-Qaqaa facility right away - but that didn’t happen.
Let me try an analogy here. Let’s say you are at a restaurant with a friend eating lunch. As you are walking out of the restaurant your friend turns to you and says he left his sunglasses (a nice pair of Ray-Bans) back in the booth. But he is in a big hurry to get back to work so you tell him to go on and you will get his sunglasses and give them to him later. But as you are walking back into the restaurant you meet some other friends and start chatting with them. Afterwards you absentmindedly leave the restaurant without ever checking the booth for the glasses. About a week goes by before you see your friend again and he asks about the glasses. You say “Oops, I never checked on them.” So you go back to the restaurant and sure enough the glasses are gone. Your friend starts to get upset, but you say “Hold on there, buddy! There is a good chance that someone might have taken the glasses before I would have had the chance to go back inside and get them. So it’s not my fault.”
Should your friend be happy with that explanation? Why should we be happy with the Bush administration’s explanation in this case?
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Videotape shot by a Minnesota television crew traveling with U.S. troops in Iraq when they first opened the bunkers at the Al-Qaqaa munitions base nine days after the fall of Saddam Hussein shows what appeared to be high explosives still in barrels and bearing the markings of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
But what I am still having trouble understanding is why it matters when the stuff disappeared. Maybe someone can help explain it to me. Let us say for arguments sake that Saddam had his troops move the explosives before the war started even though that theory has now been shot down. Why would that make the actions of this administration any better?
We know that the International Atomic Energy Agency says it repeatedly warned US to secure the Iraqi explosives. And we know that the administration now claims not to have known the explosives were missing before the new Iraqi government issued a statement just a month ago. If the Bush administration had been doing its job they would have made sure that a sufficient number of troops were ordered to go in and secure the Al-Qaqaa facility right away - but that didn’t happen.
Let me try an analogy here. Let’s say you are at a restaurant with a friend eating lunch. As you are walking out of the restaurant your friend turns to you and says he left his sunglasses (a nice pair of Ray-Bans) back in the booth. But he is in a big hurry to get back to work so you tell him to go on and you will get his sunglasses and give them to him later. But as you are walking back into the restaurant you meet some other friends and start chatting with them. Afterwards you absentmindedly leave the restaurant without ever checking the booth for the glasses. About a week goes by before you see your friend again and he asks about the glasses. You say “Oops, I never checked on them.” So you go back to the restaurant and sure enough the glasses are gone. Your friend starts to get upset, but you say “Hold on there, buddy! There is a good chance that someone might have taken the glasses before I would have had the chance to go back inside and get them. So it’s not my fault.”
Should your friend be happy with that explanation? Why should we be happy with the Bush administration’s explanation in this case?
Thursday, October 28, 2004
Unusual Kerry endorsements
Here are some folks whose endorsement of John Kerry comes as a bit of a surprise:
Christopher Hitchens - the contrarian columnist for Slate and Vanity Fair who used to be a big-time lefty writing a column for The Nation for years and years before suddenly doing an about face and morphing into a hawkish neo-con during the Clinton years.
Mickey Kaus - another Slate columnist who has spent 90 percent of his time bashing first Al Gore and then John Kerry.
Jesse Ventura - the former governor of Minnesota and a political independent.
Angus King - the former governor of Maine and a political independent who endorsed Bush in 2000.
Daniel W. Drezner - a moderate conservative blogger and political science profesor at the University of Chicago who was a foreign policy advisor for the Bush - Cheney campaign in 2000.
Andrew Sullivan - The conservative blogger and one-time editor of The New Republic who consistently attacks Democrats.
John Eisenhower - the son of President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Christopher Hitchens - the contrarian columnist for Slate and Vanity Fair who used to be a big-time lefty writing a column for The Nation for years and years before suddenly doing an about face and morphing into a hawkish neo-con during the Clinton years.
Mickey Kaus - another Slate columnist who has spent 90 percent of his time bashing first Al Gore and then John Kerry.
Jesse Ventura - the former governor of Minnesota and a political independent.
Angus King - the former governor of Maine and a political independent who endorsed Bush in 2000.
Daniel W. Drezner - a moderate conservative blogger and political science profesor at the University of Chicago who was a foreign policy advisor for the Bush - Cheney campaign in 2000.
Andrew Sullivan - The conservative blogger and one-time editor of The New Republic who consistently attacks Democrats.
John Eisenhower - the son of President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Media Bias, or the lack thereof
I’ve been in journalism now for about 15 years. During that time I’ve worked for papers in mostly liberal Connecticut (Shoreline Times) and mostly conservative Texas (Kerrville Daily Times, Lubbock Avalanche-Journal). Based on my experience, which I acknowledge is not overly vast, I believe that most charges of media bias whether from the right or left are overblown.
I was politically active in college - working on local campaigns and writing letters to the editor - but when I took my first newspaper job I realized that aspect of my life would have to be put on hold. I wasn’t going to be as extreme as one reporter I met in Connecticut who said that he never voted in order to maintain his neutrality, but I also did not want anyone to be able to accuse me of introducing bias into my reporting.
Most of the reporters I have had the pleasure to know and work with have been fairly liberal in their politics with a few exceptions. But they generally weren’t as interested in politics as I was and didn’t keep up with it like I did. I could always rattle off the members of the House of Representatives (state or federal) the way most people could name the players on their favorite football team. So it didn’t take long for me to land the political beat at each newspaper I worked at. As the political reporter I was always very much aware that anything I wrote would be scrutinized by people looking to bolster their preconceived notions of media bias. So I always bent over backward to be as fair and accurate in every story I wrote.
I would occasionally run across people who were difficult to work with because of their perceptions of the media - liberals who didn’t trust somebody who worked at a “conservative” paper, or conservatives - religious right in particular - who didn’t trust any media period. But most of the people who I would call politically savvy were easy to work with and understood how the process works.
How it works:
Newspapers are businesses and they are in the game to make money. They make money by building up a large circulation base and then selling it to advertisers. The money they collect in subscription fees is just a small supplement to the overall budget which is supported by advertising. If they could sell newspapers that were filled with nothing but advertising they would do so in a heartbeat and fire all the reporters and editors who are considered non-revenue generating. But they can’t which is why reporters still have jobs.
Most newspapers have about 60 percent of their space filled with advertising (including classifieds) leaving about 30 to 40 percent for the news hole. A lot of this space is filled with regular features and columns they get from wire services leaving just a portion for local news copy. As a reporter you quickly realize that your role in life is to fill space and to do so on a daily or weekly basis. In the newspaper business it doesn’t matter what you did yesterday, the editor always wants to know “what have you done for me lately.”
Newspapers try to be perceived as being right square in the middle of where they see their community being in order to cast the widest net for building up circulation figures. They don’t want to go too far to the left or right for fear of losing subscribers and thus losing ad revenue.
Now some people will always see bias in the media because their views are more intense or extreme than what they see reflected in the paper. But the lack of a right-wing or left-wing slant on the news is not the same thing as liberal or conservative bias.
There will always be things in the newspaper that will irritate partisans on either side of an issue. I find things to gripe about all the time. But I also know that my views are not always in synch with the “mainstream” and because I know how the system works I am not surprised to see things I disagree with. That doesn’t mean that newspapers never make mistakes or go too far in trying to be “objective.” But broad condemnations of the media as being biased are generally overblown and ill informed.
But I also think that media criticisms such as that being done by my blogging buddy Alamo Commando are a good thing. I think it is healthy for the news media to be aware that they are being constantly scrutinized even if all the criticisms are not always fair. At least these folks are reading the newspaper every day and what more can you ask? The scariest thing for us newspaper folk are the people who never bother to read a paper. You know, like President Bush.
I was politically active in college - working on local campaigns and writing letters to the editor - but when I took my first newspaper job I realized that aspect of my life would have to be put on hold. I wasn’t going to be as extreme as one reporter I met in Connecticut who said that he never voted in order to maintain his neutrality, but I also did not want anyone to be able to accuse me of introducing bias into my reporting.
Most of the reporters I have had the pleasure to know and work with have been fairly liberal in their politics with a few exceptions. But they generally weren’t as interested in politics as I was and didn’t keep up with it like I did. I could always rattle off the members of the House of Representatives (state or federal) the way most people could name the players on their favorite football team. So it didn’t take long for me to land the political beat at each newspaper I worked at. As the political reporter I was always very much aware that anything I wrote would be scrutinized by people looking to bolster their preconceived notions of media bias. So I always bent over backward to be as fair and accurate in every story I wrote.
I would occasionally run across people who were difficult to work with because of their perceptions of the media - liberals who didn’t trust somebody who worked at a “conservative” paper, or conservatives - religious right in particular - who didn’t trust any media period. But most of the people who I would call politically savvy were easy to work with and understood how the process works.
How it works:
Newspapers are businesses and they are in the game to make money. They make money by building up a large circulation base and then selling it to advertisers. The money they collect in subscription fees is just a small supplement to the overall budget which is supported by advertising. If they could sell newspapers that were filled with nothing but advertising they would do so in a heartbeat and fire all the reporters and editors who are considered non-revenue generating. But they can’t which is why reporters still have jobs.
Most newspapers have about 60 percent of their space filled with advertising (including classifieds) leaving about 30 to 40 percent for the news hole. A lot of this space is filled with regular features and columns they get from wire services leaving just a portion for local news copy. As a reporter you quickly realize that your role in life is to fill space and to do so on a daily or weekly basis. In the newspaper business it doesn’t matter what you did yesterday, the editor always wants to know “what have you done for me lately.”
Newspapers try to be perceived as being right square in the middle of where they see their community being in order to cast the widest net for building up circulation figures. They don’t want to go too far to the left or right for fear of losing subscribers and thus losing ad revenue.
Now some people will always see bias in the media because their views are more intense or extreme than what they see reflected in the paper. But the lack of a right-wing or left-wing slant on the news is not the same thing as liberal or conservative bias.
There will always be things in the newspaper that will irritate partisans on either side of an issue. I find things to gripe about all the time. But I also know that my views are not always in synch with the “mainstream” and because I know how the system works I am not surprised to see things I disagree with. That doesn’t mean that newspapers never make mistakes or go too far in trying to be “objective.” But broad condemnations of the media as being biased are generally overblown and ill informed.
But I also think that media criticisms such as that being done by my blogging buddy Alamo Commando are a good thing. I think it is healthy for the news media to be aware that they are being constantly scrutinized even if all the criticisms are not always fair. At least these folks are reading the newspaper every day and what more can you ask? The scariest thing for us newspaper folk are the people who never bother to read a paper. You know, like President Bush.
Monday, October 25, 2004
Patriotic dissent
There was a somewhat disturbing and distressing political story in the Express-News on Saturday. It was about a small uproar in the West Texas town of Mason that occurred after a grieving mother stood up at a memorial service for her son who was killed in Iraq and told the crowd that they should not vote for John Kerry or else her son’s death would be in vain.
I think it is incredibly sad that this mother would think that her son’s death might be in vain under any circumstances. As the story notes, the young soldier had told his mother shortly before his death that he was concerned that a victory for John Kerry would mean that U.S. troops would immediately be withdrawn from Iraq and he felt that they were doing good work and that the people there needed them. That is a truly noble and admirable sentiment and something that we can all take pride in to know that we have soldiers who are so committed to helping other people around the globe.
First, I think it is pretty clear that we are not going to be pulling out of Iraq anytime soon regardless of who wins the election. But secondly, the problem is that we did not go to Iraq on a humanitarian mission to help the Iraqi’s. There are dozens of countries where oppressed people would probably welcome our military coming in to overthrow a corrupt or oppressive regime and help them rebuild afterward. That is not the point of our military. We went to war because we were attacked and we were led to believe that Iraq was not only working with the people that attacked us but that they had stockpiles of WMDs that posed an immediate threat to our existence.
The fact that none of that has borne out is not a poor reflection on our soldiers. It does not demean their service or denigrate their loss. But it does bring into question the judgement of this administration which we now know had mixed intelligence but chose to emphasize only that which matched their predisposed ideological assumptions while ignoring the rest.
You do not have to continue to believe that Saddam was linked to 9-11 in order to support our troops and appreciate their service and sacrifices. However, some people obviously do believe this and they see anyone who questions those tenets of the invasion as being somehow unpatriotic and perhaps even treasonous. This is very much unfair.
I do not recall back in 1980 that supporters of Ronald Reagan were ever labeled unpatriotic because they were turning against President Carter during the midst of the Iranian hostage crisis. This argument that we can’t change horses in midstream is a poor excuse for electing a leader and sets a dangerous precedent for future presidents who would be tempted to launch a war to assure themselves a second term.
I believe a change of administration will help our situation in Iraq and will also restore accountability to a White House that has for too long been making poor decisions while shifting the blame and responsibility on to others.
I think it is incredibly sad that this mother would think that her son’s death might be in vain under any circumstances. As the story notes, the young soldier had told his mother shortly before his death that he was concerned that a victory for John Kerry would mean that U.S. troops would immediately be withdrawn from Iraq and he felt that they were doing good work and that the people there needed them. That is a truly noble and admirable sentiment and something that we can all take pride in to know that we have soldiers who are so committed to helping other people around the globe.
First, I think it is pretty clear that we are not going to be pulling out of Iraq anytime soon regardless of who wins the election. But secondly, the problem is that we did not go to Iraq on a humanitarian mission to help the Iraqi’s. There are dozens of countries where oppressed people would probably welcome our military coming in to overthrow a corrupt or oppressive regime and help them rebuild afterward. That is not the point of our military. We went to war because we were attacked and we were led to believe that Iraq was not only working with the people that attacked us but that they had stockpiles of WMDs that posed an immediate threat to our existence.
The fact that none of that has borne out is not a poor reflection on our soldiers. It does not demean their service or denigrate their loss. But it does bring into question the judgement of this administration which we now know had mixed intelligence but chose to emphasize only that which matched their predisposed ideological assumptions while ignoring the rest.
You do not have to continue to believe that Saddam was linked to 9-11 in order to support our troops and appreciate their service and sacrifices. However, some people obviously do believe this and they see anyone who questions those tenets of the invasion as being somehow unpatriotic and perhaps even treasonous. This is very much unfair.
I do not recall back in 1980 that supporters of Ronald Reagan were ever labeled unpatriotic because they were turning against President Carter during the midst of the Iranian hostage crisis. This argument that we can’t change horses in midstream is a poor excuse for electing a leader and sets a dangerous precedent for future presidents who would be tempted to launch a war to assure themselves a second term.
I believe a change of administration will help our situation in Iraq and will also restore accountability to a White House that has for too long been making poor decisions while shifting the blame and responsibility on to others.
The worst news yet?
This is truly awful. The gross incompetence of this administration seems to have no bounds.
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 24 - The Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives - used to demolish buildings, make missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons - are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations.
The huge facility, called Al Qaqaa, was supposed to be under American military control but is now a no man's land, still picked over by looters as recently as Sunday. United Nations weapons inspectors had monitored the explosives for many years, but White House and Pentagon officials acknowledge that the explosives vanished sometime after the American-led invasion last year.
So along with the priceless art work and museum treasures that were looted shortly after the invasion, we now find out that 380 tons of explosives also disappeared while the Bush team was preoccupied making sure the headquarters for Iraq's oil ministry was secured.
People have been wondering where the insurgents were getting all their armaments from. Now we know. Bush allows 380 tons of the stuff to be looted under his watch and then says "Bring 'em On!"
The Bush administration has managed to keep this bit of news underwraps for 18 months. Incredible! And they claim that Condi Rice didn't find out about it until just a month ago. Why does she still have a job? Why can't we have competent people in Washington instead of this? I don't even care what political party. John McCain would not have been this incompetent, I can assure you.
Update
The Bush administration has no response to this shocking news. Absolutely none!
Here is all that they have had to say so far:
The Bush campaign dismissed Kerry's criticism but did not specifically address the issue of the missing explosives, the Associated Press reported.
"John Kerry has no vision for fighting and winning the war on terror, so he is basing his attacks on the headlines he wakes up to each day," said Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for the Bush campaign.
Pathetic. Really, truly pathetic.
There is no way they can defend this kind of massive incompetence, so their only answer is to try and ignore it and change the subject to attacking John Kerry just like they have done throughout the entire campaign.
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 24 - The Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives - used to demolish buildings, make missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons - are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations.
The huge facility, called Al Qaqaa, was supposed to be under American military control but is now a no man's land, still picked over by looters as recently as Sunday. United Nations weapons inspectors had monitored the explosives for many years, but White House and Pentagon officials acknowledge that the explosives vanished sometime after the American-led invasion last year.
So along with the priceless art work and museum treasures that were looted shortly after the invasion, we now find out that 380 tons of explosives also disappeared while the Bush team was preoccupied making sure the headquarters for Iraq's oil ministry was secured.
People have been wondering where the insurgents were getting all their armaments from. Now we know. Bush allows 380 tons of the stuff to be looted under his watch and then says "Bring 'em On!"
The Bush administration has managed to keep this bit of news underwraps for 18 months. Incredible! And they claim that Condi Rice didn't find out about it until just a month ago. Why does she still have a job? Why can't we have competent people in Washington instead of this? I don't even care what political party. John McCain would not have been this incompetent, I can assure you.
Update
The Bush administration has no response to this shocking news. Absolutely none!
Here is all that they have had to say so far:
The Bush campaign dismissed Kerry's criticism but did not specifically address the issue of the missing explosives, the Associated Press reported.
"John Kerry has no vision for fighting and winning the war on terror, so he is basing his attacks on the headlines he wakes up to each day," said Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for the Bush campaign.
Pathetic. Really, truly pathetic.
There is no way they can defend this kind of massive incompetence, so their only answer is to try and ignore it and change the subject to attacking John Kerry just like they have done throughout the entire campaign.
Sunday, October 24, 2004
Home Games
During the National League Championship Series the St. Louis Cardinals won every home game (4 in St. Louis) and lost every away game (3 in Houston). So far that pattern is repeating in the World Series with the Cardinals losing their first two away games in Boston.
Unfortunately for the Cardinals, this time they will only have three home games as opposed to the four they had against Houston.
While I am pulling for the BoSox to finally break their curse, I can't help but think that it would be richly ironic if the Cards were to go down 0-3 and then come back with four straight victories and do to the Red Sox what they did to the Yankees. But then again that would probably be too cruel a fate even for a Red Sox fan to suffer.
Unfortunately for the Cardinals, this time they will only have three home games as opposed to the four they had against Houston.
While I am pulling for the BoSox to finally break their curse, I can't help but think that it would be richly ironic if the Cards were to go down 0-3 and then come back with four straight victories and do to the Red Sox what they did to the Yankees. But then again that would probably be too cruel a fate even for a Red Sox fan to suffer.
Saturday, October 23, 2004
Thursday, October 21, 2004
The draft and the deficit
Paul Krugman draws an interesting parallel between Bush’s assurances that we won’t need a draft in the future to replenish our severely strained Armed Forces and his promises four years ago that his tax cuts would not lead to a return of big budget deficits.
Bush’s refusal to consider a military draft is not unlike his refusal to consider a tax increase (or at least a rollback of some of his tax cuts) to address the budget deficit.
Ignoring the deficit puts a strain on our economy and is one of the chief reasons why this current “economic recovery” has been so weak. But Bush can get away with weakening our government by allowing deficits to pile up unheeded longer than he can ignore military manpower shortages in the middle of a war. Our military can’t operate on IOUs like our government can. They need people on the ground in sufficient numbers to accomplish their missions.
Unless we are willing to commit the number of troops necessary to finish the job, we need to consider alternatives such as scaling back our current goals and/or working harder to bring in support troops from our allies.
A military draft is like paying higher taxes. It is a method by which the government acquires the resources it needs to function effectively. It may be unpopular, but when you have a president who insists on running up record deficits and starting unnecessary wars there eventually comes a time when everyone is forced to pay the piper.
By the way, if Bush is so certain that we won’t ever need a military draft, why are we continuing to fund a Selective Service System to the tune of $26 million a year?
Bush’s refusal to consider a military draft is not unlike his refusal to consider a tax increase (or at least a rollback of some of his tax cuts) to address the budget deficit.
Ignoring the deficit puts a strain on our economy and is one of the chief reasons why this current “economic recovery” has been so weak. But Bush can get away with weakening our government by allowing deficits to pile up unheeded longer than he can ignore military manpower shortages in the middle of a war. Our military can’t operate on IOUs like our government can. They need people on the ground in sufficient numbers to accomplish their missions.
Unless we are willing to commit the number of troops necessary to finish the job, we need to consider alternatives such as scaling back our current goals and/or working harder to bring in support troops from our allies.
A military draft is like paying higher taxes. It is a method by which the government acquires the resources it needs to function effectively. It may be unpopular, but when you have a president who insists on running up record deficits and starting unnecessary wars there eventually comes a time when everyone is forced to pay the piper.
By the way, if Bush is so certain that we won’t ever need a military draft, why are we continuing to fund a Selective Service System to the tune of $26 million a year?
46 percent
According to an analysis by Knight-Ridder, President Bush has only fulfilled 46 percent of the promises he made during his 2000 campaign for the presidency. This despite having a Republican majority in both the House and Senate for most of his term.
President Clinton, by contrast, fulfilled 66 percent of his campaign promises is spite of having a Republican Congress to contend with for most of his tenure.
So does this mean that Bush is just incompetent, unlucky or was his agenda so out-of-step with the American mainstream that there was no way he could get most of it passed?
46 percent is also about where Bush’s poll numbers have been sitting recently which means he’s a guaranteed one-termer.
President Clinton, by contrast, fulfilled 66 percent of his campaign promises is spite of having a Republican Congress to contend with for most of his tenure.
So does this mean that Bush is just incompetent, unlucky or was his agenda so out-of-step with the American mainstream that there was no way he could get most of it passed?
46 percent is also about where Bush’s poll numbers have been sitting recently which means he’s a guaranteed one-termer.
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Baseball playoffs
I had mixed feelings watching the Yankees lose tonight. I still like the Yankees though I'm not as big a fan as I was a few years ago. I'm happy for the Red Sox and all but I will remind folks that this victory does not end the Curse of the Bambino. They have to win the World Series for that to happen.
As for the Yankees, it looks like the Knoblauch curse is still alive and well.
I'm really hoping the Astros can pull off one more victory tomorrow behind Roger Clemens. If they do I will be rooting for them to keep the Babe's curse alive. However, if the Cardinals win I will be pulling for the Red Sox to go all the way.
In many ways the Astros have had a longer drought than the Red Sox, at least in recent memory. The Red Sox have at least been to the World Series twice since in the past 30 years while the Astros have never been in their franchise history.
As for the Yankees, it looks like the Knoblauch curse is still alive and well.
I'm really hoping the Astros can pull off one more victory tomorrow behind Roger Clemens. If they do I will be rooting for them to keep the Babe's curse alive. However, if the Cardinals win I will be pulling for the Red Sox to go all the way.
In many ways the Astros have had a longer drought than the Red Sox, at least in recent memory. The Red Sox have at least been to the World Series twice since in the past 30 years while the Astros have never been in their franchise history.
Tour of Duty
My brother-in-law is now in Iraq. He had been preparing to go since early this summer as a member of the Louisiana Army National Guard. He will be stationed in Baghdad for the next year.
Lee is a fellow Aggie (Class of ‘86) and Corps member who first met my sister when they were both active with the A&M Wesley Foundation. He is currently a Major in the Army Guard and will be working out of one of Saddam’s former palaces.
Some of my readers will be pleased to know that Lee is politically conservative and is very much in support of President Bush and his war efforts. In addition to being active in the Guard, Lee is a volunteer deputy sheriff with the Arcadia Parish. He is a big time gun owner and NRA member. The first and only time I’ve ever had the opportunity to fire an assault rifle was while visiting their crawfish farm some years ago.
He and my sister have four children all under the age of 10. I will be counting the days until he can come home again and hopefully not have to turn around and go back anytime soon.
Needless to say I am proud of Lee’s service to our country and I wish him all the best during his tour of duty.
Lee is a fellow Aggie (Class of ‘86) and Corps member who first met my sister when they were both active with the A&M Wesley Foundation. He is currently a Major in the Army Guard and will be working out of one of Saddam’s former palaces.
Some of my readers will be pleased to know that Lee is politically conservative and is very much in support of President Bush and his war efforts. In addition to being active in the Guard, Lee is a volunteer deputy sheriff with the Arcadia Parish. He is a big time gun owner and NRA member. The first and only time I’ve ever had the opportunity to fire an assault rifle was while visiting their crawfish farm some years ago.
He and my sister have four children all under the age of 10. I will be counting the days until he can come home again and hopefully not have to turn around and go back anytime soon.
Needless to say I am proud of Lee’s service to our country and I wish him all the best during his tour of duty.
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Abolish the electoral college
If the tables had been turned in 2000 and Al Gore had won the electoral vote and lost the popular vote rather than George W. Bush, I believe Republicans would have launched a huge campaign to do away with the electoral college. A constitutional amendment to do just that would have breezed through the Republican-controlled House and Senate and a state-by-state campaign to get it passed would have been backed by every right-wing radio host along with the rest of the VRWC.
And I would have joined in as well.
Driving to work this morning I overheard the end of an interview on NPR with Texas A&M political science professor George Edwards about his new book “Why The Electoral College Is Bad For America.”
Edwards evicerates the lame arguments put forward by people like George Will who fret that straight popular voting would not provide enough legitimacy for a strong government.
Drawing on systematic data, Edwards finds that the electoral college does not protect the interests of small states or racial minorities, does not provide presidents with effective coalitions for governing, and does little to protect the American polity from the alleged harms of direct election of the president. In fact, the electoral college distorts the presidential campaign so that candidates ignore most small states and some large ones and pay little attention to minorities, and it encourages third parties to run presidential candidates and discourages party competition in many states.
Edwards demonstrates effectively that direct election of the president without a runoff maximizes political equality and eliminates the distortions in the political system caused by the electoral college.
I would love to get this book sometime soon and read it. In the meantime, here are some articles that extrapolate on the ideas in Edward’s book.
Second-Guessing the Founders, Dissing the Electoral College
Mr. Edwards’ greatest objection to the Electoral College is that it violates the principle of political equality. His case is compelling: Since the electoral votes of each state equal the number of Congressmen and Senators from that state, small states have a much larger percentage of the electoral vote than larger states. Nor does every ballot carry the same weight. In 2003, one electoral vote in Wyoming corresponded to 167,081 persons, and to 645,172 folks in California. What happened to the Supreme Court doctrine of "one man, one vote"?
The winner-take-all system in place in every state but Maine and Nebraska (where a few electors are chosen in districts), Mr. Edwards adds, disenfranchises millions of voters and depresses turnout. What incentive was there, really, for a Bush voter in New York or a Gore voter in Texas to come to the polls? In effect, their votes went to the winner.
This is exactly right. There is not much incentive for me to vote in the presidential election other than the satisfaction that it will help drive up Kerry’s popular vote total.
The Indefensible Electoral College
Most of the original arguments in favor of an electoral college system are no longer valid. The electoral college was partially a concession to slaveholders in the South, who wanted electoral clout without letting their slaves actually vote. (Under the electoral college, slaves counted towards a state's electoral vote total.) The framers also thought that ordinary people wouldn't have enough information to elect a president, which is not necessarily a concern today.
And I would have joined in as well.
Driving to work this morning I overheard the end of an interview on NPR with Texas A&M political science professor George Edwards about his new book “Why The Electoral College Is Bad For America.”
Edwards evicerates the lame arguments put forward by people like George Will who fret that straight popular voting would not provide enough legitimacy for a strong government.
Drawing on systematic data, Edwards finds that the electoral college does not protect the interests of small states or racial minorities, does not provide presidents with effective coalitions for governing, and does little to protect the American polity from the alleged harms of direct election of the president. In fact, the electoral college distorts the presidential campaign so that candidates ignore most small states and some large ones and pay little attention to minorities, and it encourages third parties to run presidential candidates and discourages party competition in many states.
Edwards demonstrates effectively that direct election of the president without a runoff maximizes political equality and eliminates the distortions in the political system caused by the electoral college.
I would love to get this book sometime soon and read it. In the meantime, here are some articles that extrapolate on the ideas in Edward’s book.
Second-Guessing the Founders, Dissing the Electoral College
Mr. Edwards’ greatest objection to the Electoral College is that it violates the principle of political equality. His case is compelling: Since the electoral votes of each state equal the number of Congressmen and Senators from that state, small states have a much larger percentage of the electoral vote than larger states. Nor does every ballot carry the same weight. In 2003, one electoral vote in Wyoming corresponded to 167,081 persons, and to 645,172 folks in California. What happened to the Supreme Court doctrine of "one man, one vote"?
The winner-take-all system in place in every state but Maine and Nebraska (where a few electors are chosen in districts), Mr. Edwards adds, disenfranchises millions of voters and depresses turnout. What incentive was there, really, for a Bush voter in New York or a Gore voter in Texas to come to the polls? In effect, their votes went to the winner.
This is exactly right. There is not much incentive for me to vote in the presidential election other than the satisfaction that it will help drive up Kerry’s popular vote total.
The Indefensible Electoral College
Most of the original arguments in favor of an electoral college system are no longer valid. The electoral college was partially a concession to slaveholders in the South, who wanted electoral clout without letting their slaves actually vote. (Under the electoral college, slaves counted towards a state's electoral vote total.) The framers also thought that ordinary people wouldn't have enough information to elect a president, which is not necessarily a concern today.
Friday, October 15, 2004
The 100
Here is my list of 100 people who have most influenced me or made a difference to me in some way during the course of my life (excluding friends and family).
In alphabetical order
Hank Aaron
Richard Adams
Mortimer Adler
Woody Allen
Louis Armstrong
Isaac Asimov
Stephen F. Austin
J.S. Bach
The Beatles
Ludwig van Beethoven
Bix Beiderbecke
Johnny Bench
Duncan Black (Atrios)
Sidney Blumenthal
James Bowie
Berkeley Breathed
George Burns
Ken Burns
Lewis Carroll
Jimmy Carter
Johnny Cash
Noam Chomsky
Jesus Christ
Roger Clemens
Bill Clinton
Davy Crockett
Bing Crosby
Charles Dickens
Walt Disney
Bob Dylan
Clint Eastwood
Albert Einstein
Duke Ellington
Harlan Ellison
Julius Erving
Harrison Ford
Al Franken
Benjamin Franklin
John Kenneth Galbraith
Mohatma Gandhi
Henry B. Gonzalez
Benny Goodman
Al Gore
Billy Graham
Cary Grant
Gary Gygax
Jim Henson
Katharine Hepburn
Alfred Hitchcock
Buddy Holly
Bob Hope
Sam Houston
Molly Ivins
Jesse Jackson
Thomas Jefferson
Bob Keeshan
John F. Kennedy
Robert F. Kennedy
Edward M. Kennedy
John Kerry
Martin Luther King Jr.
Michael Kinsley
Paul Krugman
Hans Kung
Dalai Lama
C. S. Lewis
Abraham Lincoln
George Lucas
Nelson Mandela
Thurgood Marshall
Steve Martin
Groucho Marx
Amadeus Mozart
Paul Newman
George Orwell
Thomas Paine
Edgar Allan Poe
Elvis Presley
Ann Richards
Gene Roddenberry
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Pete Rose
Nolan Ryan
Carl Sagan
Charles M. Schulz
William Shakespeare
Steven Spielberg
Bruce Springsteen
Roger Staubach
Jimmy Stewart
Sting
Oliver Stone
J.R.R. Tolkien
Garry Trudeau
Harry S. Truman
Mark Twain
George Washington
John Wayne
Robin Williams
Dalhart Windberg
In alphabetical order
Hank Aaron
Richard Adams
Mortimer Adler
Woody Allen
Louis Armstrong
Isaac Asimov
Stephen F. Austin
J.S. Bach
The Beatles
Ludwig van Beethoven
Bix Beiderbecke
Johnny Bench
Duncan Black (Atrios)
Sidney Blumenthal
James Bowie
Berkeley Breathed
George Burns
Ken Burns
Lewis Carroll
Jimmy Carter
Johnny Cash
Noam Chomsky
Jesus Christ
Roger Clemens
Bill Clinton
Davy Crockett
Bing Crosby
Charles Dickens
Walt Disney
Bob Dylan
Clint Eastwood
Albert Einstein
Duke Ellington
Harlan Ellison
Julius Erving
Harrison Ford
Al Franken
Benjamin Franklin
John Kenneth Galbraith
Mohatma Gandhi
Henry B. Gonzalez
Benny Goodman
Al Gore
Billy Graham
Cary Grant
Gary Gygax
Jim Henson
Katharine Hepburn
Alfred Hitchcock
Buddy Holly
Bob Hope
Sam Houston
Molly Ivins
Jesse Jackson
Thomas Jefferson
Bob Keeshan
John F. Kennedy
Robert F. Kennedy
Edward M. Kennedy
John Kerry
Martin Luther King Jr.
Michael Kinsley
Paul Krugman
Hans Kung
Dalai Lama
C. S. Lewis
Abraham Lincoln
George Lucas
Nelson Mandela
Thurgood Marshall
Steve Martin
Groucho Marx
Amadeus Mozart
Paul Newman
George Orwell
Thomas Paine
Edgar Allan Poe
Elvis Presley
Ann Richards
Gene Roddenberry
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Pete Rose
Nolan Ryan
Carl Sagan
Charles M. Schulz
William Shakespeare
Steven Spielberg
Bruce Springsteen
Roger Staubach
Jimmy Stewart
Sting
Oliver Stone
J.R.R. Tolkien
Garry Trudeau
Harry S. Truman
Mark Twain
George Washington
John Wayne
Robin Williams
Dalhart Windberg
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Bush campaign chair concedes Kerry won debates
I guess when you have the chairman of the President’s election campaign conceding that John Kerry gained ground in the three debates the spin game as to who won is pretty much over.
Sen. John Kerry gained ground in the race for the White House in the trio of campaign debates, a top official in President Bush's campaign conceded Thursday...
All of the snap polls had Kerry in front on the third debate...
CNN/USA Today/Gallup: Kerry wins 53%-39%.
CBS News poll of uncommitted voters: Kerry wins 39%-25%
ABC News: Kerry wins 42%-41%, even though their audience leaned heavily Republican.
Democracy Corps: Kerry wins 41%-36%.
So the clear consensus is that John Kerry swept all three debates. Meanwhile the tidal wave of bad news for President Bush just keeps coming...
Blasts Kill Five in Baghdad's Green Zone
Trade Deficit Soars, Jobless Claims Up
AP: Report Finds Lavish Spending at TSA
Just imagine if that last one had happened during a Democratic administration! Imagine the outcry from conservatives.
Sen. John Kerry gained ground in the race for the White House in the trio of campaign debates, a top official in President Bush's campaign conceded Thursday...
All of the snap polls had Kerry in front on the third debate...
CNN/USA Today/Gallup: Kerry wins 53%-39%.
CBS News poll of uncommitted voters: Kerry wins 39%-25%
ABC News: Kerry wins 42%-41%, even though their audience leaned heavily Republican.
Democracy Corps: Kerry wins 41%-36%.
So the clear consensus is that John Kerry swept all three debates. Meanwhile the tidal wave of bad news for President Bush just keeps coming...
Blasts Kill Five in Baghdad's Green Zone
Trade Deficit Soars, Jobless Claims Up
AP: Report Finds Lavish Spending at TSA
Just imagine if that last one had happened during a Democratic administration! Imagine the outcry from conservatives.
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Heroes of my youth
While cleaning out some old files recently I came across a list of people (I’ve always loved making lists) I had put together around the time when I was a freshman in college. I recall at the time I was listing people who I admired or who had influenced my thinking in some way. I wasn’t considering family or friends for my list, just famous people and historical figures. The list was an odd mix of childhood heros and current-day influences from history, entertainment, music, sports and literature. Here is the list in the order it was written:
Mohandas Gandhi
Martin Luther King Jr.
C.S. Lewis
Hans Kung (Catholic theologian)
Paul the Apostle
The Beatles
Bob Dylan
Johnny Bench
Pete Rose
Roger Staubach
Ludwig Von Beethoven
Amadeus Mozart
J.S. Bach
John Wayne
Elvis Presley
J.R.R. Tolkien
Abraham Lincoln
Thomas Jefferson
Davy Crockett
James Bowie
Sam Houston
George Patton
Bruce Springsteen
Don Williams (country singer)
Ronald Reagan
John F. Kennedy
Steve Martin
Humphry Bogart
Dustin Hoffman
Charlton Heston
Gary Gygax (creator of Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game)
Henry Thoreau
Willie Mays
Hank Williams
Harrison Ford
Franklin D. Roosevelt
George Washington
Charles Schultz
Berke Breathed
Alfred Hitchcock
Woody Allen
Edgar Allen Poe
Donald Sutherland
Bobby Jones (Philadelphia 76ers)
Julius “Dr. J” Erving
Moses Malone
Lawrence Sullivan Ross
Cary Grant
Buddy Holly
Kingston Trio
Sting
Walt Disney
Robin Williams
Yul Brynner
Orson Welles
Gene Kelly
Bob Hope
Richard Pryor
Benjamin Franklin
William Shakespeare
Eddie Murphy
Bill Cosby
Mr. T
At some later point (in a different ink color) I made the following additions:
Jesus Christ
Charles Dickens
Mark Twain
William Barrett Travis
Clint Eastwood
Kirk Douglas
Jimmy Stewart
Richard Adams (author of “Watership Down”)
Jackie Sherrill (Texas A&M football coach)
William F. Buckley
Stephen Spielberg
Billy Graham
George Lucas
Edgar Rice Burroughs
Charles Bronson
Paul Newman
William Shatner
Leonard Nimoy
Tom Petty
Sylvester Stallone
Robert E. Howard (author of Conan the Barbarian)
Stevie Nicks
Lucille Ball
Katherine Hepburn
Fritz Lieber (sci-fi/fantasy author)
John Belushi
Dan Akroyd
Prince
Mort Walker (Beetle Bailey)
Chip Young (Blondie)
Cathy Guisewitz (Cathy)
John Adams
Socrates
Plato
Aristotle
St. Augustine
Francis Bacon
Winston Churchill
John Denver
Hershel Walker (Cowboys runningback)
Kevin Murray (Aggie quarterback early ‘80s)
Abigail Van Buren
Ann Landers
Mike Scott (Houston Astros pitcher)
Benny Hill
Paul Simon
Billy Joel
Lewis Carroll
Douglas Adams (author of “Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy”)
Hank Aaron
Mel Brooks
Monty Python
Robert DeNiro
Al Pacino
In a future post I will put together a list of the 100 people I would include on a similar list today.
Mohandas Gandhi
Martin Luther King Jr.
C.S. Lewis
Hans Kung (Catholic theologian)
Paul the Apostle
The Beatles
Bob Dylan
Johnny Bench
Pete Rose
Roger Staubach
Ludwig Von Beethoven
Amadeus Mozart
J.S. Bach
John Wayne
Elvis Presley
J.R.R. Tolkien
Abraham Lincoln
Thomas Jefferson
Davy Crockett
James Bowie
Sam Houston
George Patton
Bruce Springsteen
Don Williams (country singer)
Ronald Reagan
John F. Kennedy
Steve Martin
Humphry Bogart
Dustin Hoffman
Charlton Heston
Gary Gygax (creator of Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game)
Henry Thoreau
Willie Mays
Hank Williams
Harrison Ford
Franklin D. Roosevelt
George Washington
Charles Schultz
Berke Breathed
Alfred Hitchcock
Woody Allen
Edgar Allen Poe
Donald Sutherland
Bobby Jones (Philadelphia 76ers)
Julius “Dr. J” Erving
Moses Malone
Lawrence Sullivan Ross
Cary Grant
Buddy Holly
Kingston Trio
Sting
Walt Disney
Robin Williams
Yul Brynner
Orson Welles
Gene Kelly
Bob Hope
Richard Pryor
Benjamin Franklin
William Shakespeare
Eddie Murphy
Bill Cosby
Mr. T
At some later point (in a different ink color) I made the following additions:
Jesus Christ
Charles Dickens
Mark Twain
William Barrett Travis
Clint Eastwood
Kirk Douglas
Jimmy Stewart
Richard Adams (author of “Watership Down”)
Jackie Sherrill (Texas A&M football coach)
William F. Buckley
Stephen Spielberg
Billy Graham
George Lucas
Edgar Rice Burroughs
Charles Bronson
Paul Newman
William Shatner
Leonard Nimoy
Tom Petty
Sylvester Stallone
Robert E. Howard (author of Conan the Barbarian)
Stevie Nicks
Lucille Ball
Katherine Hepburn
Fritz Lieber (sci-fi/fantasy author)
John Belushi
Dan Akroyd
Prince
Mort Walker (Beetle Bailey)
Chip Young (Blondie)
Cathy Guisewitz (Cathy)
John Adams
Socrates
Plato
Aristotle
St. Augustine
Francis Bacon
Winston Churchill
John Denver
Hershel Walker (Cowboys runningback)
Kevin Murray (Aggie quarterback early ‘80s)
Abigail Van Buren
Ann Landers
Mike Scott (Houston Astros pitcher)
Benny Hill
Paul Simon
Billy Joel
Lewis Carroll
Douglas Adams (author of “Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy”)
Hank Aaron
Mel Brooks
Monty Python
Robert DeNiro
Al Pacino
In a future post I will put together a list of the 100 people I would include on a similar list today.
Bush’s Howard Dean moment
The tide has definitely shifted against President Bush and I don’t see it going back his way before election day. The news reports continue to be all bad here on the day of the third debate: Stocks plummet as oil prices continue to climb; five more U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq.
Bush will try to turn the focus on John Kerry by calling him a liberal who will raise taxes, but with an 0-2 record in the debates so far it is not likely that Bush is going to make up any ground in a forum that looks mainly at domestic issues which are not his strong point.
Paul Krugman has already fact-checked in advance most of the points that Bush is likely to raise during the debate.
The turnaround in fortunes for Kerry as evidenced by the polls that show him making up as much as 14 points since the first debate are reminiscent of his rapid ascent during the primary campaign after Howard Dean flamed out in Iowa. For Dean it was his post-Iowa “Yeaaaaarrrrrggggghhhhh!” speech that proved his undoing. For Bush, I believe it was his overall performance in the first debate, that will be remembered years from now as the point when his bubble burst. Since then the independent voters in all of the polls have been favoring Kerry.
I’m not ready to declare the race over at this point, but I’m not sure what it will take to turn things around for Bush. His was a failed presidency that did not accomplish the things it set out to do. There is no way they can put a positive spin on something like that with the daily rat-a-tat-tat of headlines such as the ones above.
Bush will try to turn the focus on John Kerry by calling him a liberal who will raise taxes, but with an 0-2 record in the debates so far it is not likely that Bush is going to make up any ground in a forum that looks mainly at domestic issues which are not his strong point.
Paul Krugman has already fact-checked in advance most of the points that Bush is likely to raise during the debate.
The turnaround in fortunes for Kerry as evidenced by the polls that show him making up as much as 14 points since the first debate are reminiscent of his rapid ascent during the primary campaign after Howard Dean flamed out in Iowa. For Dean it was his post-Iowa “Yeaaaaarrrrrggggghhhhh!” speech that proved his undoing. For Bush, I believe it was his overall performance in the first debate, that will be remembered years from now as the point when his bubble burst. Since then the independent voters in all of the polls have been favoring Kerry.
I’m not ready to declare the race over at this point, but I’m not sure what it will take to turn things around for Bush. His was a failed presidency that did not accomplish the things it set out to do. There is no way they can put a positive spin on something like that with the daily rat-a-tat-tat of headlines such as the ones above.
Christopher Reeve and stem cell research
Christopher Reeve’s sudden death was very upsetting for many people including myself who admired his courage in dealing with his paralysis. Some people might have just faded from view and become symbols of pity. But Reeve’s star began to shine brighter after his accident and through sheer force of will he used his celebrity and his circumstances to become a cultural icon and a powerful voice for people with disabilities.
The timing of Reeve’s death has brought the issue of stem cell research back to the forefront of the political debate. Many on the right are critical of Reeves for his advocacy of embryonic stem cell research in the belief that this somehow promotes and encourages the killing of unborn children. But this view is based on an extreme religious axiom that I and many other religious people reject. I don’t presume to know what God’s intentions are for each egg and sperm that meet but I do know that we are provided with hundreds of thousands of eggs and countless millions of sperm with which to constantly replenish the human population.
Fertility clinics create thousands of human embryos every year as a matter of course that go unused and are ultimately thrown out. It seems a tragic waste to not take advantage of these stem cells to advance medical science in a way that could benefit thousands of people suffering from everything from spinal paralysis to Parkinson’s disease.
Michael Kinsley makes the point that people who oppose embryonic stem cell research should by the same logic also be opposed to fertility clinics...
If stem-cell research is morally questionable, the procedures used in fertility clinics are worse. You cannot logically outlaw the one and praise the other.
Yet, as Kinsley points out, Bush praised fertility clinics in the same speech in which he banned stem cell research.
President Bush’s decision to ban federal funding for stem cell research is a serious impediment to the hopes of finding cures for these and many other ailments. The argument that privately-funded research can still go forward ignores the fact that most labs today rely on some degree of federal funding through NIH grants and other means. If a lab decides to pursue stem-cell research today it risks losing or being blocked from recieving any other federal funding even for unrelated work because of the complications and possibility of mixing funds.
The timing of Reeve’s death has brought the issue of stem cell research back to the forefront of the political debate. Many on the right are critical of Reeves for his advocacy of embryonic stem cell research in the belief that this somehow promotes and encourages the killing of unborn children. But this view is based on an extreme religious axiom that I and many other religious people reject. I don’t presume to know what God’s intentions are for each egg and sperm that meet but I do know that we are provided with hundreds of thousands of eggs and countless millions of sperm with which to constantly replenish the human population.
Fertility clinics create thousands of human embryos every year as a matter of course that go unused and are ultimately thrown out. It seems a tragic waste to not take advantage of these stem cells to advance medical science in a way that could benefit thousands of people suffering from everything from spinal paralysis to Parkinson’s disease.
Michael Kinsley makes the point that people who oppose embryonic stem cell research should by the same logic also be opposed to fertility clinics...
If stem-cell research is morally questionable, the procedures used in fertility clinics are worse. You cannot logically outlaw the one and praise the other.
Yet, as Kinsley points out, Bush praised fertility clinics in the same speech in which he banned stem cell research.
President Bush’s decision to ban federal funding for stem cell research is a serious impediment to the hopes of finding cures for these and many other ailments. The argument that privately-funded research can still go forward ignores the fact that most labs today rely on some degree of federal funding through NIH grants and other means. If a lab decides to pursue stem-cell research today it risks losing or being blocked from recieving any other federal funding even for unrelated work because of the complications and possibility of mixing funds.
Sunday, October 10, 2004
Dan Cook's America
Recent polls have shown that something like 66 percent of Republicans believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9-11. That would explain why Bush still has a base of support in spite of all that has gone wrong during his administration.
Obviously Dan Cook, the former sports columnist for the Express-News, falls into that category. This Sunday, Cook wrote an op-ed for the paper in which he lamented the fact that the country is not unified in its support for President Bush's foreign policy in Iraq. He recalls how when he was a child the country fell in behind FDR after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and supported his decision to take the country into WWII.
What Mr. Cook forgets or fails to see is that the country did fall in behind President Bush after 9-11 and supported his decision to go after al Qaeda and their state sponsors in Afghanistan. It was only after Bush decided to divert our military resources to go on an extended snipe hunt in Iraq that significant numbers of people started to turn against the president.
Imagine if FDR had pulled something like that during WWII. Rather than going after the Japanese and their Axis allies in Europe, what if he had suddenly decided to divert U.S. troops and launch a massive invasion of Mexico. Don't you think people might have questioned the wisdom of such a move, especially in the midst of a war? And what if then FDR's excuses for invading Mexico turned out to be all wrong? Would the American people have remained unified behind him?
What do you think, Dan? Is the U.S. really that different today?
Obviously Dan Cook, the former sports columnist for the Express-News, falls into that category. This Sunday, Cook wrote an op-ed for the paper in which he lamented the fact that the country is not unified in its support for President Bush's foreign policy in Iraq. He recalls how when he was a child the country fell in behind FDR after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and supported his decision to take the country into WWII.
What Mr. Cook forgets or fails to see is that the country did fall in behind President Bush after 9-11 and supported his decision to go after al Qaeda and their state sponsors in Afghanistan. It was only after Bush decided to divert our military resources to go on an extended snipe hunt in Iraq that significant numbers of people started to turn against the president.
Imagine if FDR had pulled something like that during WWII. Rather than going after the Japanese and their Axis allies in Europe, what if he had suddenly decided to divert U.S. troops and launch a massive invasion of Mexico. Don't you think people might have questioned the wisdom of such a move, especially in the midst of a war? And what if then FDR's excuses for invading Mexico turned out to be all wrong? Would the American people have remained unified behind him?
What do you think, Dan? Is the U.S. really that different today?
Friday, October 08, 2004
Anemic job growth
The new job numbers are out just in time for the second presidential debate tonight and boy are they lousy.
Economists were predicting 150,000 net jobs, which is a poor figure to begin with, but the actual number came in 50,000 short of that. Wall Street reacted to the news by taking a dive.
"I wouldn't want to be in President Bush's shoes," Ken Mayland of ClearView Economics told the Associated Press. "He had better prepare himself for an onslaught . . . The reality is that a 96,000 increase in a work force of a 131 million base is an anemic rise, and is in no way a satisfactory increase."
The Bush administration was naturally full of excuses - hurricanes, high oil prices, etc. - and of course lots of Orwellian doublespeak which has been a regular feature of this administration. Here is Labor Secretary Elaine Chao spinning the new figures: “(They) show the strength and resilience of our economy and that the labor market continues to improve,” she said.
Four years into his administration and we are nearly a million jobs short of where we started which is unprecedented since the time of Herbert Hoover. But look for Bush tonight to tout all these low-paying service jobs that have been ladled out over the past year in place of high-paying manufacturing jobs as evidence that his tax cuts are working.
Economists were predicting 150,000 net jobs, which is a poor figure to begin with, but the actual number came in 50,000 short of that. Wall Street reacted to the news by taking a dive.
"I wouldn't want to be in President Bush's shoes," Ken Mayland of ClearView Economics told the Associated Press. "He had better prepare himself for an onslaught . . . The reality is that a 96,000 increase in a work force of a 131 million base is an anemic rise, and is in no way a satisfactory increase."
The Bush administration was naturally full of excuses - hurricanes, high oil prices, etc. - and of course lots of Orwellian doublespeak which has been a regular feature of this administration. Here is Labor Secretary Elaine Chao spinning the new figures: “(They) show the strength and resilience of our economy and that the labor market continues to improve,” she said.
Four years into his administration and we are nearly a million jobs short of where we started which is unprecedented since the time of Herbert Hoover. But look for Bush tonight to tout all these low-paying service jobs that have been ladled out over the past year in place of high-paying manufacturing jobs as evidence that his tax cuts are working.
Thursday, October 07, 2004
Newspaper endorsements
From Editor & Publisher here is a running total of presidential newspaper endorsements including circulation figures:
JOHN KERRY
Detroit Free Press (G): 354,581
The Seattle Times (B): 237,303
The Philadelphia Daily News: 139,983
Arizona Daily Star (Tucson) (G): 109,592
The Day (London, Conn.) (B): 39,553
Total Daily Circ: 881,012
GEORGE W. BUSH
Las Vegas Review-Journal (B): 170,061
Mobile (Ala.) Register (B): 100,244
The Pueblo (Colo.) Chieftain: 52,208
Amarillo (Texas) Globe-News (B): 51,105
The Sun (Lowell, Mass.) (B): 50,369
The Courier (Findlay, Ohio) (B): 22,319
Total Daily Circ: 446,306
Update: Bush picked up two more papers today giving him 6 endorsements to Kerry's 5, but he still lags in circulation totals. E& P is also noting how the papers endorsed in 2000 with a (B) for Bush and (G) for Gore, so the big news here is the switch by the Seattle Times.
JOHN KERRY
Detroit Free Press (G): 354,581
The Seattle Times (B): 237,303
The Philadelphia Daily News: 139,983
Arizona Daily Star (Tucson) (G): 109,592
The Day (London, Conn.) (B): 39,553
Total Daily Circ: 881,012
GEORGE W. BUSH
Las Vegas Review-Journal (B): 170,061
Mobile (Ala.) Register (B): 100,244
The Pueblo (Colo.) Chieftain: 52,208
Amarillo (Texas) Globe-News (B): 51,105
The Sun (Lowell, Mass.) (B): 50,369
The Courier (Findlay, Ohio) (B): 22,319
Total Daily Circ: 446,306
Update: Bush picked up two more papers today giving him 6 endorsements to Kerry's 5, but he still lags in circulation totals. E& P is also noting how the papers endorsed in 2000 with a (B) for Bush and (G) for Gore, so the big news here is the switch by the Seattle Times.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Bush just can't catch a break
Everyday the news gets worse and worse for President Bush.
Take today, for example. First we have news that the U.S. chief weapon’s inspector in Iraq (the one who took over for David Kay, who took over for Hans Blix and the U.N. group) is issuing his final report that not only says there were no stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq when we invaded, but “Saddam Hussein did not vigorously pursue a program to develop weapons of mass destruction after international inspectors left Baghdad in 1998.” No WMDs and no WMD programs. As the
The Associated Press points out, this seriously undercuts the Bush administration’s latest rationale for invading Iraq.
Then we have news that Iran has produced "a few tons" of the gas needed to enrich uranium, confirming that the country has defied international demands and taken a necessary step toward producing nuclear fuel - or nuclear weapons.
Talk about Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time!
Then there was this lovely economic news just a few days ago as a precursor to the job figures that will be released on Friday.
The number of job cuts planned by U.S. employers jumped in September to the highest level in eight months while hiring announcements fell sharply, a job search firm said Tuesday.
Combine this news with this Open Letter to President that was just released by a group of 163 college business and economics professors taking Bush to task for his failed economic policies.
As professors of economics and business, we are concerned that U.S. economic policy has taken a dangerous turn under your stewardship. Nearly every major economic indicator has deteriorated since you took office in January 2001. Real GDP growth during your term is the lowest of any presidential term in recent memory. Total non-farm employment has contracted and the unemployment rate has increased. Bankruptcies are up sharply, as is our dependence on foreign capital to finance an exploding current account deficit. All three major stock indexes are lower now than at the time of your inauguration. The percentage of Americans in poverty has increased, real median income has declined, and income inequality has grown.
The rest of the letter doesn’t get much more encouraging but go and read the whole thing. It is very informative.
So the only surprising thing at this point in the election is that Bush is not 20 points down in the polls. I chalk this up to the massive amount of corporate money they have amassed and spent during the campaign, the tidal wave of right-wing distortions flowing through our so-called-liberal-media, and the vicious and unfounded attacks on John Kerry by groups such as the Swift Boat Liars for Bush.
But lies and distortions can only do so much to obscure reality and unfortunately for President Bush he just can’t seem to catch a break when it comes to the truth of what is really going on.
Take today, for example. First we have news that the U.S. chief weapon’s inspector in Iraq (the one who took over for David Kay, who took over for Hans Blix and the U.N. group) is issuing his final report that not only says there were no stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq when we invaded, but “Saddam Hussein did not vigorously pursue a program to develop weapons of mass destruction after international inspectors left Baghdad in 1998.” No WMDs and no WMD programs. As the
The Associated Press points out, this seriously undercuts the Bush administration’s latest rationale for invading Iraq.
Then we have news that Iran has produced "a few tons" of the gas needed to enrich uranium, confirming that the country has defied international demands and taken a necessary step toward producing nuclear fuel - or nuclear weapons.
Talk about Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time!
Then there was this lovely economic news just a few days ago as a precursor to the job figures that will be released on Friday.
The number of job cuts planned by U.S. employers jumped in September to the highest level in eight months while hiring announcements fell sharply, a job search firm said Tuesday.
Combine this news with this Open Letter to President that was just released by a group of 163 college business and economics professors taking Bush to task for his failed economic policies.
As professors of economics and business, we are concerned that U.S. economic policy has taken a dangerous turn under your stewardship. Nearly every major economic indicator has deteriorated since you took office in January 2001. Real GDP growth during your term is the lowest of any presidential term in recent memory. Total non-farm employment has contracted and the unemployment rate has increased. Bankruptcies are up sharply, as is our dependence on foreign capital to finance an exploding current account deficit. All three major stock indexes are lower now than at the time of your inauguration. The percentage of Americans in poverty has increased, real median income has declined, and income inequality has grown.
The rest of the letter doesn’t get much more encouraging but go and read the whole thing. It is very informative.
So the only surprising thing at this point in the election is that Bush is not 20 points down in the polls. I chalk this up to the massive amount of corporate money they have amassed and spent during the campaign, the tidal wave of right-wing distortions flowing through our so-called-liberal-media, and the vicious and unfounded attacks on John Kerry by groups such as the Swift Boat Liars for Bush.
But lies and distortions can only do so much to obscure reality and unfortunately for President Bush he just can’t seem to catch a break when it comes to the truth of what is really going on.
Checking up on Cheney
From last night's VP debate:
CHENEY: Well, the reason they keep mentioning Halliburton is because they're trying to throw up a smokescreen. They know the charges are false. They know that if you go, for example, to factcheck.com, an independent Web site sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania, you can get the specific details with respect to Halliburton.
I hope that everyone will do as Vice President Cheney requested and check out www.factcheck.com. Go ahead.
Oops. I think he meant, factcheck.org. Oh, well.
CHENEY: Well, the reason they keep mentioning Halliburton is because they're trying to throw up a smokescreen. They know the charges are false. They know that if you go, for example, to factcheck.com, an independent Web site sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania, you can get the specific details with respect to Halliburton.
I hope that everyone will do as Vice President Cheney requested and check out www.factcheck.com. Go ahead.
Oops. I think he meant, factcheck.org. Oh, well.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Cheney: Hussein not worth additional U.S. casualties
Here's Dick Cheney’s whopping double backward flip-flop with a triple twist on the Iraq War.
This is what Dick Cheney had to say about the prospects of invading Iraq and overthrowing Hussein in a speech in August 1992. (via Tapped)
"I would guess if we had gone into Iraq I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.
And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties. And while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.
And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq..."
Now the thing to remember here is that immediately before the Gulf War is when Hussein was at his peak of power. His military might was drastically cut by the war and the sanctions that followed. Also, most of the atrocities that are associated with Hussein took place during this period as well. The use of “weapons of mass destruction” against his own people. The mass graves. All of this took place before and immediately after the Gulf War.
So the case for overthrowing Hussein was never stronger than it was then, but Cheney was opposed because it wasn’t worth the additional U.S. casualties.
So what changed? Republicans will tell you it was 9/11. But Hussein had nothing to do with it and Al Qaeda was not active in Iraq before the war. So what could have possibly led Cheney to do such an incredible flip-flop if not political expediency?
I hope John Edwards uses this in the debate!
This is what Dick Cheney had to say about the prospects of invading Iraq and overthrowing Hussein in a speech in August 1992. (via Tapped)
"I would guess if we had gone into Iraq I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.
And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties. And while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.
And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq..."
Now the thing to remember here is that immediately before the Gulf War is when Hussein was at his peak of power. His military might was drastically cut by the war and the sanctions that followed. Also, most of the atrocities that are associated with Hussein took place during this period as well. The use of “weapons of mass destruction” against his own people. The mass graves. All of this took place before and immediately after the Gulf War.
So the case for overthrowing Hussein was never stronger than it was then, but Cheney was opposed because it wasn’t worth the additional U.S. casualties.
So what changed? Republicans will tell you it was 9/11. But Hussein had nothing to do with it and Al Qaeda was not active in Iraq before the war. So what could have possibly led Cheney to do such an incredible flip-flop if not political expediency?
I hope John Edwards uses this in the debate!
Monday, October 04, 2004
Mushroom clouds and aluminum tubes
"I knew that there was a dispute," she said. "I actually didn't really know the nature of the dispute."
That is how Condoleezza Rice sums up the process by which she determined that Iraq was using aluminum tubes it was acquiring to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program. So Rice, Bush’s National Security Advisor, knew there was a dispute among intelligence officials on the matter, but didn’t bother to find out what it was all about.
Instead, Rice went on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002 and warned that we had to invade Iraq or risk a nuclear holocaust:
"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
But now, as this exhaustive New York Times story details, it was clear long before the start of the Iraq war that those aluminum tubes were intended for use for small artillery rockets, not nuclear centrifuges.
The dispute that Rice refers to involved one junior-level CIA analyst on one side, and all the government’s foremost nuclear experts on the other side.
And yet, the Bush administration championed the shaky and ultimately incorrect analysis of the one junior CIA analyst over all the other expert opinions because it fit neatly with their predetermined conclusions. The case against the tubes for nukes theory was devastating long before the Bush administration latched onto it to lead our country to war. Just read the NYTimes story. The only question that remains is whether the Bush officials were grossly ignorant or grossly deceptive.
As I have noted here before, the Bush administration’s blind adherence to ideology over science is one of the chief reasons why it is imperative that they not be granted four more years to mislead this nation down the wrong path.
That is how Condoleezza Rice sums up the process by which she determined that Iraq was using aluminum tubes it was acquiring to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program. So Rice, Bush’s National Security Advisor, knew there was a dispute among intelligence officials on the matter, but didn’t bother to find out what it was all about.
Instead, Rice went on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002 and warned that we had to invade Iraq or risk a nuclear holocaust:
"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
But now, as this exhaustive New York Times story details, it was clear long before the start of the Iraq war that those aluminum tubes were intended for use for small artillery rockets, not nuclear centrifuges.
The dispute that Rice refers to involved one junior-level CIA analyst on one side, and all the government’s foremost nuclear experts on the other side.
And yet, the Bush administration championed the shaky and ultimately incorrect analysis of the one junior CIA analyst over all the other expert opinions because it fit neatly with their predetermined conclusions. The case against the tubes for nukes theory was devastating long before the Bush administration latched onto it to lead our country to war. Just read the NYTimes story. The only question that remains is whether the Bush officials were grossly ignorant or grossly deceptive.
As I have noted here before, the Bush administration’s blind adherence to ideology over science is one of the chief reasons why it is imperative that they not be granted four more years to mislead this nation down the wrong path.
Two can play at that game
I was both flummoxed and appalled when I saw this ridiculous story circulating on the Internet via the Drudge Report.
It just shows how desperate the right-wing is to excuse Bush’s pathetic debate performance that they would show pictures of Kerry taking a pen out of his pocket and claim he is getting a “cheat sheet.” I’m sorry, but Kerry is not the one who needs a cheat sheet in these debates.
Now today, I see the liberal bloggers are striking back raising questions
about whether or not Bush was using an earpiece to have his answers fed to him during the debate. Their suspicion centers on a point in the debate where Bush suddenly barked out “Let me finish” when no one was interrupting him.
Digby notes that such a statement is an intimidation tactic that Bush commonly uses to restrain the press. I had noticed it in the interview I did with Bush in 1994 so it is obviously nothing new. But it was strange to hear him say it in the middle of the debate when he still had plenty of time left and no one was trying to cut him off.
Now I think the earpiece thing is kind of a stretch, although I wouldn’t put anything past Karl Rove. But you have to think that if he actually did have help during the debate, it wasn’t very good. Did the person feeding Bush his lines stammer and stutter and repeat themselves as much as Bush did?
It just shows how desperate the right-wing is to excuse Bush’s pathetic debate performance that they would show pictures of Kerry taking a pen out of his pocket and claim he is getting a “cheat sheet.” I’m sorry, but Kerry is not the one who needs a cheat sheet in these debates.
Now today, I see the liberal bloggers are striking back raising questions
about whether or not Bush was using an earpiece to have his answers fed to him during the debate. Their suspicion centers on a point in the debate where Bush suddenly barked out “Let me finish” when no one was interrupting him.
Digby notes that such a statement is an intimidation tactic that Bush commonly uses to restrain the press. I had noticed it in the interview I did with Bush in 1994 so it is obviously nothing new. But it was strange to hear him say it in the middle of the debate when he still had plenty of time left and no one was trying to cut him off.
Now I think the earpiece thing is kind of a stretch, although I wouldn’t put anything past Karl Rove. But you have to think that if he actually did have help during the debate, it wasn’t very good. Did the person feeding Bush his lines stammer and stutter and repeat themselves as much as Bush did?
Sunday, October 03, 2004
Unchallenged assertions
Bush has been back on the campaign trail after getting his clock cleaned in the first round of debates. A new Newsweek poll – the first post-debate poll released – now has Kerry up 49 to 46 after having Bush ahead by 13 points after the Republican convention.
Republican talk radio yakkers have their new marching orders now and are claiming that Bush actually won on substance if not on style, which is simply ridiculous. One local Rush Limbaugh clone was on the other day saying that Bush sounded so much better the day after on the campaign stump than he did during the debates. Well, of course he does. That’s because he doesn’t have someone standing next to him who will counter and knock down each of his flimsy, unsupported arguments. That’s why Rush Limbaugh can sound so authoritative. Because he never has to answer to anyone for his lies and distortions and he never has to defend his statements. If you had Rush Limbaugh on at the same time with Al Franken you would see a much more reserved and deflated blowhard because he couldn’t get away with spouting off so many unchallenged assertions.
A good example is this canard about Kerry voting against funding for the troops. The Bush campaign repeats this charge over and over simply because Kerry voted against the fiscally-irresponsible Republican-version of the funding bill. What they neglect to say is that there was a Democratic version that would have paid for the war by temporarily removing Bush’s tax cuts for those making more than $400,000 per year. This measure failed after Bush threatened to veto it. So you could make the exact same charge against Bush that they are making against Kerry. He threatened to veto funding for our troops after sending them into harms way!
Seriously, what would have happened if Kerry’s no vote on the Republican-backed funding bill had prevailed? Would it have meant that our troops would have gotten no funding? Of course not! The issue was never about whether to fund the troops or even about how much to send. It was about how to pay for it. The Republican plan simply charges the whole thing on the government credit card so that our children and grandchildren will end up paying for it rather than us.
Another example was in a speech today in Columbus, Ohio, where Bush was talking about his plans to privatize Social Security. Bush said "(Kerry)'s decided to put his faith in the wisdom of the government. I will always put my faith in the wisdom of the American people."
Well, that certainly sounds good. Too bad it is complete nonsense. Last I checked, we were still a government of the people, by the people and for the people. What Bush is really saying is that he puts his faith into private corporations which don’t want to be accountable to the government or the American people.
Taking Social Security out of the control of government and handing it over to private entities is essentially taking the control away from the American people. It is a monumentally stupid idea, especially in light of all of the recent corporate scandals and bankruptcies.
Bush should not be allowed to pretend that he is some kind of down home populist while pushing an agenda that is so diametrically opposed to those same ideals.
Republican talk radio yakkers have their new marching orders now and are claiming that Bush actually won on substance if not on style, which is simply ridiculous. One local Rush Limbaugh clone was on the other day saying that Bush sounded so much better the day after on the campaign stump than he did during the debates. Well, of course he does. That’s because he doesn’t have someone standing next to him who will counter and knock down each of his flimsy, unsupported arguments. That’s why Rush Limbaugh can sound so authoritative. Because he never has to answer to anyone for his lies and distortions and he never has to defend his statements. If you had Rush Limbaugh on at the same time with Al Franken you would see a much more reserved and deflated blowhard because he couldn’t get away with spouting off so many unchallenged assertions.
A good example is this canard about Kerry voting against funding for the troops. The Bush campaign repeats this charge over and over simply because Kerry voted against the fiscally-irresponsible Republican-version of the funding bill. What they neglect to say is that there was a Democratic version that would have paid for the war by temporarily removing Bush’s tax cuts for those making more than $400,000 per year. This measure failed after Bush threatened to veto it. So you could make the exact same charge against Bush that they are making against Kerry. He threatened to veto funding for our troops after sending them into harms way!
Seriously, what would have happened if Kerry’s no vote on the Republican-backed funding bill had prevailed? Would it have meant that our troops would have gotten no funding? Of course not! The issue was never about whether to fund the troops or even about how much to send. It was about how to pay for it. The Republican plan simply charges the whole thing on the government credit card so that our children and grandchildren will end up paying for it rather than us.
Another example was in a speech today in Columbus, Ohio, where Bush was talking about his plans to privatize Social Security. Bush said "(Kerry)'s decided to put his faith in the wisdom of the government. I will always put my faith in the wisdom of the American people."
Well, that certainly sounds good. Too bad it is complete nonsense. Last I checked, we were still a government of the people, by the people and for the people. What Bush is really saying is that he puts his faith into private corporations which don’t want to be accountable to the government or the American people.
Taking Social Security out of the control of government and handing it over to private entities is essentially taking the control away from the American people. It is a monumentally stupid idea, especially in light of all of the recent corporate scandals and bankruptcies.
Bush should not be allowed to pretend that he is some kind of down home populist while pushing an agenda that is so diametrically opposed to those same ideals.
Friday, October 01, 2004
Round 1: Advantage Kerry
You know the debate went badly for Bush when even his most ardent supporters are unwilling to make the claim that he won.
I guess the fallback position when you know your candidate lost is to claim that it was a tie. That is the argument that Beldar and Owen at Boots & Sabers gamely try to make.
Daily Kos also has a long list of conservative bloggers who admit that their guy pretty much blew it.
The insta-polls all support what should have been obvious to anybody watching the debate last night. Kerry won the debate hands down and not because he turned in a spectacular performance. He did as well as I would have expected for someone with his background and experience. It was the awful performance by Bush that clearly made the difference.
Bush looked like a malfunctioning automaton at Disneyworld, repeating the same stock phrases over and over again.
I mean, what can you make of a statement like this...
“In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard.
It's-and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work.
We're making progress. It is hard work.
You know my hardest, the hardest part of the job is to know that I committed the troops in harm's way...”
As one snarky blogger noted in response: "Thinking and speaking is hard work Jim, very hard work, hard, hard, hard work."
Bush kept harping on Kerry’s statement that Iraq is the “wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.” I thought Kerry answered the charge well the first of the 15 times Bush said it, but what I really wanted to hear Kerry say - and he was obviously too polite to do so - was ask what message it sends to our troops to have their commander-in-chief stand up and taunt the enemy by telling them to “Bring it on!” That was perhaps the most irresponsible and regrettable statement ever made by a U.S. president.
I thought one of Kerry’s best lines was when he said that his message for the troops is that “Help is on the way.” Bush’s arrogance and his diplomatic incompetence has placed 90 percent of the burden of reforming post-war Iraq on the U.S. Kerry is our best hope for changing that imbalance.
The media pundits are all claiming that there was no major gaffe during the debate and thus no knockout punch, which I assume is defined today as Lloyd Bentsen decimating Dan Quayle in the 1988 vice-presidential debates. But my impression is that Bush’s weak performance was the equivalent of one big long gaffe. To have a sitting president who can’t seem to think on his feet and must constantly refer back to campaign slogans and catch phrases is at best embarrasing and at worst is scary.
The best review I have seen of the debate so far is from Tom Shales of the Washington Post.
John Kerry came off as more presidential than the president last night as the two candidates met for their first face-to-face debate, televised live on all the networks from the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Fla. President Bush did not appear to have a firm grasp on the major issues being discussed, opting instead for the repetition of sloganlike remarks and repeated attacks on his Democratic challenger.
I guess the fallback position when you know your candidate lost is to claim that it was a tie. That is the argument that Beldar and Owen at Boots & Sabers gamely try to make.
Daily Kos also has a long list of conservative bloggers who admit that their guy pretty much blew it.
The insta-polls all support what should have been obvious to anybody watching the debate last night. Kerry won the debate hands down and not because he turned in a spectacular performance. He did as well as I would have expected for someone with his background and experience. It was the awful performance by Bush that clearly made the difference.
Bush looked like a malfunctioning automaton at Disneyworld, repeating the same stock phrases over and over again.
I mean, what can you make of a statement like this...
“In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard.
It's-and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work.
We're making progress. It is hard work.
You know my hardest, the hardest part of the job is to know that I committed the troops in harm's way...”
As one snarky blogger noted in response: "Thinking and speaking is hard work Jim, very hard work, hard, hard, hard work."
Bush kept harping on Kerry’s statement that Iraq is the “wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.” I thought Kerry answered the charge well the first of the 15 times Bush said it, but what I really wanted to hear Kerry say - and he was obviously too polite to do so - was ask what message it sends to our troops to have their commander-in-chief stand up and taunt the enemy by telling them to “Bring it on!” That was perhaps the most irresponsible and regrettable statement ever made by a U.S. president.
I thought one of Kerry’s best lines was when he said that his message for the troops is that “Help is on the way.” Bush’s arrogance and his diplomatic incompetence has placed 90 percent of the burden of reforming post-war Iraq on the U.S. Kerry is our best hope for changing that imbalance.
The media pundits are all claiming that there was no major gaffe during the debate and thus no knockout punch, which I assume is defined today as Lloyd Bentsen decimating Dan Quayle in the 1988 vice-presidential debates. But my impression is that Bush’s weak performance was the equivalent of one big long gaffe. To have a sitting president who can’t seem to think on his feet and must constantly refer back to campaign slogans and catch phrases is at best embarrasing and at worst is scary.
The best review I have seen of the debate so far is from Tom Shales of the Washington Post.
John Kerry came off as more presidential than the president last night as the two candidates met for their first face-to-face debate, televised live on all the networks from the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Fla. President Bush did not appear to have a firm grasp on the major issues being discussed, opting instead for the repetition of sloganlike remarks and repeated attacks on his Democratic challenger.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)