Your Weekly Rush - Haliburton

Of course we referenced the Haliburton story earlier this week. Well it turns out I might have jumped the gun on that story a little bit. Rush Limbaugh explains a number of things.

1. There are a lot of Clinton Leftovers at the Pentagon and one of them probably leaked the story.

2. The Haliburton story is unfairly being linked to Dick Cheney

3. They are charging $2.65 a gallon which compared to gas in California isn't that high.

OK, lets see if I can respond to this.

First, Rush Limbaugh plays this game a lot, the old "Clinton Leftover" card. Presumably it works with his fan base, as anybody who had any connection with Clinton must be a scoundral. And the assumption is that this person leaked the info because of his desire to serve the Clintons. Fascinating how two people so depraved are able to command the loyalty of people for such a long time.

Secondly, Dick Cheney's conflict of interest with regards to Haliburton is so well known that to not mention it would be dishonest reporting. Incidently, you make great hay out of the story describing Haliburton as Dick Cheney's former company, without using it's name. But as you must know, every copy of the story had Haliburton in the title.

Thirdly, and most ludicrusly, your bland assurances that "betcha by the time this is all taken care of and it all shakes out there's not going to be any price gouging going on" and your comparisons to California don't make any sense. What the facts are is that there is another company delivering oil into Iraq from Turkey for $1.18 a gallon. So that's a pretty big jump, isn't it? $1.18 to $2.27 a gallon? Pretty big jump. I certainly know what I would do if one gas station in town were selling me gas for $1.18 and the other $2.27. And we aren't even talking about how President Bush's incompetance has kept us from using Iraqs oil, which presumably would be cheaper than Kuwait or Turkey.

Which brand of incompetence do you prefer?

David Limbaugh writes on Howard Dean's appeal today, which is, of course, an unreasoning anger. "Howard Dean appeals to this rage, and Al Gore logically fits into the equation because much of the rage is still over the 2000 presidential election."

Yep. Democrats are consumed with Rage over the 2000 election because we can't admit the wonderful job President Bush has been doing since taking office.

We can't admit the contraction in the job market that still seems to be going on, even as the DOW passes 10,000 again.

We can't admit that George Bush successfully forced Saddam Hussein to allow inspectors back in, and then invaded anyway. We can't admit that the occupational force has yet to find Saddam Hussein or even credible evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program (let alone those weapons of mass destruction that could be at our throats in a matter of minutes). We can't admit that President Bush's failure to plan for the after effects of his invasion cost the world artificacts thousands of years old (and not just 30 as some Conservatives no doubt still believe).

We can't admit that George Bush's crony capitalism has let Haliburton gouge the army to transport gas into Iraq.

We can't admit that George Bush has systematically alienated most of the world (with the exception of several countries who's governments rely directly on the United States for support. Just this week we had the spectacle of Donald Rumsfeld giving France, Germany, Russia and Canada the finger by denying them rebuilding contracts in Iraq (for security reasons!), and President Bush, the very next day, asking those countries (except Canada I think) to forgive debts Iraq owes them.

I could go on and on, but I think Mr. Limbaugh needs to consider that our anger against President Bush isn't quite so unreasoning as he might like you to believe.

The Next Election - Analysis by Ann Coulter

Apparently it's a wonder Republicans win any elections.

Yep, that's what Ann Coulter says in her latest column. Here, I'll quote the relevant bit.

"In case Al Gore hasn't called you personally at home in the last 10 minutes to remind you: In the last election, this country gave a slight plurality of the popular vote to Al Gore. A plurality voted for Bill Clinton – twice. In the middle of a titanic struggle with a Soviet totalitarianism, this country elected Jimmy Carter president. If that's not enough to keep you up at night, here's one more: Hillary Clinton's "disapproval" rating has yet to reach 100 percent.

Forget landslides: It's a wonder that Republicans ever win any elections at all."

Apparently the fact that 20 Million Americans are employed by the government means that they will all vote Democratic. Because people naturally put their own interests ahead of those of the country. (It is barely worth noting that Ann Coulter is scolding people making $30,000 a year for not sacrificing their jobs to elect a Republican, while she would, premusably, strenuously resist the suggestion that corporations abandon their offshore tax dodges and pay their fair share of the tax burden).

She also notes that there are millions on welfare and on social security (which she notes with breathtaking meanness "And of course there are the 39 million greedy geezers collecting Social Security. The greatest generation rewarded itself with a pretty big meal."

She also lumps the Earned Income Credit (which Ronald Reagan was a big fan of, apparently) in with corporate welfare. Let me clarify; she comments on government hand outs and corporate welfare and then gives as her examples, "earned-income tax credit, disability payments and workman's comp."

It's also interesting that in an article which starts out complaining that the Democrats are trying to lower expectations so that they can claim dismal failure as success she spends the second half of the article trying to lower Republican Expectations.

Two Fairly Predictable Stories

In one, President Bush has had to go hat in hand to countries the pentagon snubbed yesterday. "President Bush found himself in the awkward position on Wednesday of calling the leaders of France, Germany and Russia to ask them to forgive Iraq's debts, just a day after the Pentagon said it was excluding those countries and others from $18 billion in American-financed Iraqi reconstruction projects." Story from the New York Times.

In the other, the Pentagon is accusing Dick Cheney's old company of gouging them on fuel prices. "A Pentagon investigation has found overcharging and other violations in a $15.6 billion Iraq reconstruction contract awarded to Vice President Dick Cheney’s former company, a defense official said Thursday." Story from MSNBC.COM.

It is hard to believe that anybody would consider dropping President Bush when he is clearly doing so wonderful.

Ross MacKenzie writes a Deceitful Article

Early on, Mr. Mackenzie repeats two deceptions about Al Gore; lets see if you can catch them. "This is the guy who told us that he and Tipper were the prototypes for "Love Story" despite denials by author Erich Segal, and that he invented the Internet - remember?

For those of you who don't know, Al Gore, late one night, was talking with a group of friends including a reporter about movies. He made the comment that a Tennessee Newspaper had reported that he and Tipper were the models for Love Story. This is true. A Tennessee Newspaper had falsely attributed a quote to Erich Segal that he and Tipper were the models for Love Story. The quote was later retracted. The media reported Mr. Gores comments and left out any notion of context. Hence, Mr. Gore is a liar about Love Story.

Secondly, Al Gore was instrumental, as a member of the United States Congress, in supporting the transition from the Arpenet to the Internet. He fought for funding to accomplish this transition (although, to be fair, he probably didn't know what the internet would become). He has taken credit for supporting the creation of the internet, saying that he had helped create it (Exact quote to Wolf Blitzer - "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."). Conserivatives liars like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter changed create to invent, and claimed that he had cliamed to have written the code or that he had done it all by himself or something. Which was, of course, an encomrous distortion of what he actually said. And the media, instead of doing a little research and pointing out this deception on the part of Republican liars, chose to question Gores integrity. For more on this particularly succesful shell game, check this out.

The rest of MacKenzie's article is the standard pack of lies about the race for the Democratic Nominee. Does he act shocked that presidential candidates are running to the left in order to get the nomination? Yep. Does he compliment Lieberman as being the best candidate? Yep. Does he suggest Dean is both angry and possibly unstable? Yep.

He ends with an upbeat assessment (from my perspective) of Howard Dean's chances from William Kristol. "Could Dean really win? Unfortunately, yes. The Democratic presidential candidate has, alas, won the popular presidential vote three times in a row - twice, admittedly, under the guidance of the skilled Bill Clinton, but most recently with the hapless Al Gore at the helm. And demographic trends (particularly the growth in Hispanic voters) tend to favor the Democrats going into 2004."

Always look on the positive side.

Presidents Lincoln and Bush

You may remember my review of Thomas Friedman's article earlier in the week. The one about how President Bush's acceptance of nationa building as a necessity during this war parallels President Lincolns acceptance of emancipation after Gettysburg.

Well Suzanne Fields read the same article, and apparently agreed with it so much she decided her article this week should basically rip it off. But she doesn't just rip off Friedmans thesis. Nope she carries it even further.

"Lincoln thus had greatness thrust upon him. By expanding his vision to preserve the Union to include freeing the slaves, he was poised to fulfill the promise articulated in the Declaration of Independence, that all men are created equal.

George W. Bush campaigned in 2000 against nation-building, just as Lincoln had distanced himself from the abolitionists in 1860, but circumstances changed."

Hmmmmmm. But there are a few differences between the men as well. Lincoln did actually believe in abolitionism before becoming President. He distanced himself from the Abolitionists because he didn't feel that, as President, he had the power to free slaves.

President Bush's attacks on nation building are both more heartfelt and more cynical. It is clear that before September 11th, President Bush's Foreign Policy was marked by a desire to reject everything "Clinton-esque." Part of that was nation building, but make no mistake, when he attacked the idea of nation building, he meant it.

I find myself wishing, if President Bush were to find himself changing during this war, why not bring back the idea endorsed by both Clinton and George H. W. Bush of multilateralism. Why not return honestly to the United Nations? Why allow the Pentagon to give all those who might become our allies the finger (by refusing to allow them contracts in Iraq)? But I suppose that's not for me to wonder.

Liberal Media?

Hey, remember the Rush Limbaugh article we pointed out earlier? The one that talked about Gore's psychological affinity with Dean, because Dean was the candidate he wanted to be?

Well check out this Editorial from the New York Times. "The other message was the degree to which the Democrats have bought into the theory that victory in November will belong to the party that best energizes its passionate base. It is a concept embraced by President Bush's political guru, Karl Rove, and, now, by Mr. Gore, in his implicit turning away from the triangulation politics of the Clintonites who courted swing voters so well.

Yesterday, there was a hint of wistfulness, even envy, in Mr. Gore's appreciation of Dr. Dean's go-for-broke style. Candidates who feel blindsided by Mr. Gore's surprising initiative still have the opportunity to go for broke themselves and push their own agendas."

That Liberal Media, always copying Rush Limbaugh.

Once around the Horn

Well, as you know Al Gore endorsed Howard Dean yesterday for President. So lets see what people are saying about that.

First of all let's check in with the new Rush, who's stay at a drug rehab facility has apparently turned him into a font of psychological understanding. "In addition to the personal characteristics of this, Gore wanting to get even with the Clintons, I actually think Gore is endorsing Dean because Dean is running the kind of campaign that Gore wanted to run but was never able to achieve. I think Gore wanted to be a radical, freewheeling populist and wanted to be perceived as authentic, and is saying to himself, 'That's what I wanted to do, and nobody would let me, Shrum wouldn't let me do it, Clintons wouldn't let me do it, that's who I wanted to be, this is my candidacy, I want to glom onto this, that's who I am.'

And it's sad that, you know, Algore sees in Dean, an angry, petulant, arrogant, aggressive, reckless little guy - everything that he never was but always wanted to be. I mean that's what I think is going on here. I've learned about this, my friends, trust me on this. I now know how to recognize these kinds of thing. "

The problem with Rush is that he has a set of unproven postulates that he holds onto with grim determination. One of those postulates is that Al Gore doesn't know who he is. That's nonsense, of course. Gore's performance in the election of 2000 was pretty sad, but his performance since then has been that of a man rejuvenated. Still I guess we've got to trust Rush's deep psychological understanding of the situation. After all, he's been through Drug Rehab and I haven't.

Jonah Goldberg spends a bit of time writing about how unfathomable Al Gore and referring to him as having a lead cased android skull (which I wish I had). He then concludes that "I understand Gore sees in Dean one qualification Lieberman doesn't have: the potential to win. But when you think about all that has happened since 9/11, for Gore to say that the post-9/11 world makes Howard Dean more, not less, qualified to be president than Joe Lieberman really shows how unserious Al Gore and his party have become."

Yep, once again, the candidate the Republicans love the most is Joe Lieberman. Mainly because in a choice between Conservatism and Diet Conservatism (Same Great "Taste," only 1 calorie), most people will still choose Conservatism. Frankly if the Democrats are going to pick our candidate based on his potential to woo Jonah Goldberg away from President Bush, they are truely doomed.

The other theorys are that Dean has no hope, but that Gore can take his followers and organization and challenge Hillary for the Nomination in 2008. This is kind of a crazy theory in my mind, but it is popular among conservatives, particularly those who subsitute cynicism and mean spiritedness for evidence.

Joe Conason has a reaction to all these theories. "Many politicians remain static throughout their careers, regardless of the changing world around them and even of their own experiences. Gore isn't one of them. He has always been more thoughtful, more observant, more intellectually open and simply more curious than the average pol. (In that respect he resembles Bill Clinton, now his supposed nemesis.) He is aware of the need for change in his own party, for instance, as his remarks this morning in Harlem showed. That's why he spoke of the Vermonter's "promise" to rebuild the Democratic Party from the grass roots. (An apt epigram I've seen on pro-Dean blogs: "Dean is the messenger. We are the message.")

Whatever the reasoning behind Gore's endorsement, I doubt that petty animosity toward the Clintons or personal ambitions were important factors. It's interesting, though, that so many political reporters gravitate automatically toward such explanations, in the absence of any evidence. Might that reflect on their own unresolved feelings about the former president and the junior senator from New York?"

That's a fair question. Americans have always been suspicious of Politicians (and with good reason), but the "Perfidy of all peole connected to Bill Clinton" Explanation is starting to wear a bit thin. Why not look at what Mr. Gore said and consider that instead of trying to imagine a reason?

"I have watched this campaign and I have listened to all of the candidates. I think it's a great field. There are a lot of great Democratic candidates out there. But what I'm about to say doesn't come as a secret or as a surprise to anybody within the sound of my voice, and that is that Howard Dean really is the only candidate who has been able to inspire, at the grassroots level all over this country, the kind of passion and enthusiasm for democracy and change and transformation of America that we need in this country.

We need to remake the Democratic Party. We need to remake America. We need to take it back on behalf of the people of this country."

New Flash

For those of you wondering if maybe the Bush Administration had learned its lesson as was willing to reach out to the United Nations and those nations who had opposed our invasion of Iraq, the Pentagon announced today that all nations who did not support the invasion of Iraq will be barred from rebuilding contracts.

According to MSNBC, "The ruling bars companies from U.S. allies such as France, Germany and Canada from bidding on the contracts because their governments opposed the American-led war that ousted Saddam Hussein’s regime.

The Wolfowitz memo, dated Friday and posted on a Pentagon web site Tuesday, says restricting contract bids “is necessary for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States.”

Not sure I buy that, but then again, I've been a little suspicious of the Bush administration since we stopped looking for Weapons of Mass Distruction and started looking for Weapons of Mass Distruction Programs.

Your Weekly Rush - A Little Prediction of My Own

Rush Limbaugh will describe every Democratic Rally between here and March (at least!) as a "Hate-Bush" rally (as he did yesterday).

Every single rally in which Democrats dare to criticize the President will be described as a "Hate-Bush" rally, so as to minimize the legitimate complaints Democrats have against this President. This President who lied his way into Iraq. This President who has emptied the budget to make room for huge tax cuts for the rich and corporate giveaways. This President who promotes radical conservative Judges and then has the audacity to complain that Congressional Democrats won't approve any of his nominees.

Yep, the only reason anybody would criticize President Bush is if they were motivated by personal hatred. Makes sense to me.

Respect for the Dead

Dennis Prager is upset. Recently Sylvia Bernstein, a civil rights activist and member of the Communist Party, died. No, I'm pretty sure Prager is not upset that a communist died. Instead he's upset that Ms. Bernstein was not denounced as a Communist.

According to Mr. Prager, the fact that she was a communist negates everything else positive she did in her life. Her membership in the Communist Party should cause her to share in the guilt of the thousands killed by Stalin.

It's striking how simplistic this analysis is. A Communist is evil, and therefore, no matter what that Communists personal accomplishments or goals or connection to the party, he or she should be condemned. Personally I favor a more nuanced judgment than that, but that's because I'm a wishy-washy intellectual.

Plus you have to factor in that this is an obituary. Rightly or wrongly, you always try to find nice things about a person after they have died. Perhaps Mr. Prager doesn't think a Communist should receive that respect we generally give to our dead. I personally disagree.

Howard Dean in South Carolina

"In the year 2003, in the United States, over 12 million children live in poverty. Nearly 8 million of them are white. And no matter what race they are, too many of them will live in poverty all their lives.

And yesterday, there were 3,000 more children without healthcare -- children of all races. By the end of today, there will 3,000 more. And by the end of tomorrow, there will be 3,000 more on top of that.

America can do better than this.

It's time we had a new politics in America -- a politics that refuses to pander to our lowest prejudices.

Because when white people and black people and brown people vote together, that's when we make true progress in this country.

Jobs, healthcare, education, democracy, and opportunity. These are the issues that can unite America.

The politics of the 21st century is going to begin with our common interests.

Here's the link. It's at Salon, so annoying ad watching may be necessary.

Life During Wartime

One of the charges that has been leveled against President Bush is that of inconsistency (If I'm not mistaken, I've leveled the charge myself). He campaigned on the idea that we needed to be a humble nation and not impose our values on the rest of the world. He specifically attacked the Clinton idea of Nation Building.

Well as the saying goes, "That was then, this is now."

At the New York Times, Thomas L. Friedman makes an interesting argument that rationalizes away this apparent conflict. He makes comparisons to other war-time Presidents Lincoln and Wilson. After the carnage at Gettysburg, President Lincoln (our greatest president, despite what you might hear around the South) had to make the war about more than just preserving the Union. And hence the war became about preserving freedom.

In a similar transformation, according to Friedman, President Bush has been pushed by the war to accept nation building. This is a little facile. For one thing, the connection between invading Iraq and rebuilding it is only tenuously connected to the enemies that attacked us on September 11, 2003. Secondly, as even Mr. Friedman comments, Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg address himself. President Bush isn't doing that so much, is he? (While we are the subject, have you ever heard the old Bob Newhart routine "Abe Lincoln vs. Madison Avenue?" Brilliant.)

Anyway worth considering, but I don't think Mr. Friedman's argument holds water. Marmalade maybe.

Diana West and Groupthink

This is one of the more interesting tropes of the modern conservative movement. Basically, the reason liberals, particularly ethnic liberals (Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, etc), are liberals is that they are constrained by the group they belong to. The possibility that Jews, Blacks, and Hispanics might honestly compare Liberalism to Conservatism and chose liberalism is apparently not worth discussion.

Diane West brings this argument in talking about a recent all-Latino play that failed. Apparently that a play would be put on containing all Latinos is an example of "Groupthink." The fact that actress Priscilla Lopez would be concerned that she seems to be one of a very few Latino actresses to make it is also an example of "Groupthink."

Quick, name five Latino actors or actresses (not counting Priscilla Lopez, cheaters). Name three Asian actors or actresses. Now see if you can name twenty white actors and actresses.

Does West really not know that the bar for Latino actors and actresses is higher because they have to find "Latino" roles? And frankly Hollywood and TV land are not interested in finding roles for Hispanics.

So maybe Ms. Priscilla Lopez's concerns aren't' entirely laughable.

She compares the Latino to an Islamic community in England and reveals a lack of understanding. "Indeed, the local imam of the Ryecroft Street Mosque has actually ruled out guilt as a Muslim option. ("A Muslim cannot be a terrorist as a terrorist cannot be a Muslim," he, um, explained.) Which is nonsense -- and worse than nonsense."

If this imam meant that Muslims were by their very natures innocent, she'd be right. But what if he meant that, by committing the sin of murder through their acts of terrorism, they had abandoned the true faith of Islam. Well, that would be a different scenario, wouldn't it?

New Quote, Updated Quotes Page

A new quote by Ambrose Bierce, and a new quotes page.