A little quiz

Two stories have recently arisen about Senator Kerry, a little compare and contrast might be in order. Read the following stories and consider the following question; how do the following stories reflect on the party of the principle?

In the first story, as previously reported, Senator Kerry, who is also the Democratic candidate for President, while skiing was knocked down inadvertantly by his secret service agent. To quote conservative columnist Tony Blankly on the subject, "But what may become the enduring exemplar of the Kerry style was his spontaneous expletive on the ski slopes when his Secret Service guard bumped into him by accident (while guarding him): "I don't fall down. The S.O.B. knocked me over." To instinctively say that about the man who is sworn to put himself between Kerry and a bullet, paints a lasting and contemptible character portrait."

In the second story, Republican Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard, now retired, reported that Senator Kerry did not deserve the first Purple Heart he recieved. The presumably liberal Douglas Brinkley (who is writing for Salon.com) had the following comments on this incident. "Does anybody dispute that Kerry's wound was created by enemy action? As the stipulation also makes clear, Kerry would have been awarded a Purple Heart even if he never bled, if, for example, he had suffered a concussion from a grenade. So to set the record straight: Kerry deserved his first Purple Heart -- period. To say otherwise is to distort the reality of the medal.

Unfortunately, the Boston Globe and New York Post stories omit fully reporting the bylaws. They present Hibbard at face value, downplaying the fact that he is a Republican criticizing a fellow veteran hoping to cause him public embarrassment."

Actually they are both representative of their parties. The first demonstrates that Democrats are elitist snobs who don't appreciate what they have been given and cuss a lot. The second demonstrates that Republicans are brave people willing to speak truth to power 35 years after the event happened, at a time when it will cause the most political damage.

Some of you might think that I am showing Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard, now retired, a lack of respect. The man is a veteran after all. To that I would respond, well, Senator Kerry's a veteran too, and that doesn't seem to be slowing Republicans down anyway.

Rush Limbaugh Speaks: I'm coming unglued

From the Rush Limbaugh Show.

"This is just a quick little seven-second segment, short clip of the latest Osama bin Laden tape message.

TRANSLATOR: This is a war that is benefiting major companies with billions of dollars, such as Halliburton and Co.

RUSH: Gee, folks, we have bin Laden now ripping Halliburton. There's one party in this country that mentions Halliburton all the time. Now, as I say, it's easy to say, "Oh, my gosh. Look at what's happening." But it sounds to me, it sounds to me like bin Laden is trying to strengthen and bolster the Democrats' confidence in making this allegation. He's trying -- and in the process -- he is aligning himself with world socialists who hate capitalism and hate big capitalist countries like Halliburton.

A Few Points and a tirade.

1. So what do you think it says that Rush identifies Halliburton as a "big capitalist country?" Any of you ever read William Gibson's Neuromancer? Or even better his "New Rose Hotel?" In them he creates a future world in which corporations have far more power than governments. Perhaps Rush has seen the future.

Some of you might be saying, "Hey Bryant, don't you know that corporations are far more efficient than governments? Frankly they just work better. Plus, you have a little bit of your breakfast on your left . . . no a little bit in towards the mouth . . . there it is."

To which I say, thank you, but also I have to point out that you are comparing an organization dedicated strictly to creating profit to one created, nominally at least, to serve its citizens. You also have to ignore the history of the corporation, which is at least as shameful as the history of the government (assuming we are comparing the US government to US corporations. Anyway something to think about.

2. The Democratic Party is a capitalist party. Any of you who think any differently are wrong. I was initially going to cast aspersions at your mental capabilities, but have decided that given the Conservative Movements insistence that the Democrats are socialists it's understandable if some of you get confused.

But for those of you who don't know--the Democratic Party is staunchly pro-capitalism. If you want to vote for socialism you need to look at, say, the Socialist Party USA, the Socialist Labor Party of America, the Communist Party USA, or, to a lesser extent, the Green Party.

We're sure that, having cleared this up, Conservatives will cease calling the Democratic Party socialist.

3. "But it sounds to me, it sounds to me like bin Laden is trying to strengthen and bolster the Democrats' confidence in making this allegation." There are two ways to look at this argument, I suppose. One is that he is suggesting that the Democratic Party is taking its cues from al-Queda. If I believed that the Democratic Party was taking advice from bin Laden, I would resign. Fortunately, here on planet Earth, I know that they aren't.

The other is the idea that if a despicable evil monstrous human being like Osama bin Laden says something, whatever it is must be evil and wrong. Pretty much sight unseen. OBL doesn't like Halliburton, therefore Halliburton must be great (despite, of course, the evidence of our eyes). This is a bit childish and myopic. It must occur to every thoughtful person that one can find a despicable person to support every position.

4. Finally, this is more of a reminder. President Bush and his White House (particularly Vice President Cheney) have identified themselves with Rush Limbaugh. If you want to know how the President and his counselors feel about the issues of the day turn on Rush Limbaugh.

Kathleen Parker Vs. Rolling Stone

Actually commented on this article a couple of weeks ago by Kathleen Parker on the infamous skiing incident. In my previous report of her article I quoted this heart-warming section.

"Then you catch Kerry, who shouldn't need to prove his manhood - he served in Vietnam, you know - engaging in preppy sports that require resorts and expensive equipment: skiing, snowboarding, windsurfing. Not exactly the populist sports of choice.

Can't the man shoot hoops? Or toss a football while, say, not skiing in Aspen? Catch much?"

Well Matt Taibbi, of Rolling Stone, reports that apparently he can toss a football.

"Kerry does the sports-on-the-tarmac thing a lot. It looks great on television, but in person the effect is surreal. The entire press crew will be standing at the ass end of the plane, when suddenly Kerry's gleaming, toothy figure appears out of nowhere and starts performing a photogenic ballet. The cameramen drop everything and run full-speed to encircle him. If he has to run to one side to catch the ball, the entire closed loop of journalists travels with him. From a distance this looks almost biological, like viral cells attacking a drifting mitochondrion.

I had nothing else to do -- what is there to do in that situation? -- so I decided to get in on it. I signaled to Kerry and ran a pattern across the concrete. The candidate turned and gracefully hit me right on the hands. The cameras followed, then moved on as I threw the ball to a staffer.

Back on the plane, I wrote in my notebook: "Throws tight spiral."

Anyway the rest of Taibbi's article is interesting as well, as it covers how the press coverage of a candidate works to distance him from the public or the public from him, depending on how you look at it.

I'm Trying to Think, but Nothing's Happen

In other words, you're on your own for a little bit. But if you have any suggestions, by all means pass them on in the comments section.

Around the Horn with the Press Conference of the Century

Edward Pig has an excellent overview of the Press Conference of the Century.

Rubber Hose also watched the Press Conference of the Century and provides a more personal take on it.

Bark Bark Woof Woof reviews an article discussion what the Press Conference of the Century says about President Bush's mental state.

Dohiyi Mir discusses one of President Bush's stranger statements at the Press Conference of the Century.

And Then . . . comments on President Bush's repeated mention of the 50 Tons of Mustard Gas found in the Press Conference of the Century.

It's Craptastic reminds us all of President Bush's apparent inability to answer a simple question.

Corrente read the same Saletan Article I did (see below) and had a somewhat negative take on it.

And there were some other great posts this week that inexplicably did not mention the Press Conference of the Century. But I urge you to read them anyway.

Pen Elayne on the Web has a great essay on what a liberal vision should be. She makes a lot of great points.

Chris "Lefty" Brown considers the proposition that a vote for Kerry is a vote against Bush.

BlogAmy has a plea for the ol' March of Dimes although she also covers her personal misgivings about their use of animal research.

Musing's Musings reviews his thoughts on the Israel Palestinian Peace process and makes some cogent analysis. What I find a little tragic is that he has to state repeatedly that he is a friend to Israel and recognizes Israel's right to exist. But on the other hand, I understand why he does it; in many circles there is apparently no difference between criticizing Ariel Sharon and calling for the Jews to be driven into the sea.

A New York Time Editorial on the Press Conference of the Century

You may be wondering why I keep referring to the Press Conference that occured on Tuesday as the "Press Conference of the Century." Well, I don't know either. Just seems to be one of those things. Anyway came across a New York Times editorial that slams into President Bush on his performance at the Press Conference of the Century.

"Americans knew George W. Bush was an incurious man when they elected him, but the hearings of the 9/11 investigating commission, which turned yesterday from the F.B.I.'s fecklessness to the C.I.A.'s blurred vision, have brought that fact home in a startling way. The president is trying hard to present himself as a hands-on manager who talked terrorism incessantly with the director of central intelligence, George Tenet. ("I wanted Tenet in the Oval Office all the time.") But Mr. Tenet had to concede yesterday that he was not in Crawford, Tex., for the Aug. 6, 2001, briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." Mr. Tenet told the panel he didn't meet with Bush all that month, but the C.I.A. later said there had been two meetings. No one has been able to say whether Mr. Bush followed up in any way after he asked his intelligence agencies whether there was a domestic threat from Al Qaeda, and got a loud "yes" in response.

As the president rightly said on Tuesday night, the only people responsible for the slaughter in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania on Sept. 11, 2001, were Osama bin Laden and the other terrorists. But to watch these hearings is to endure a terrifying review of the chances missed and balls dropped in the last two administrations."

Something to consider. I have my own thoughts as well, and will cover this again later.

And yet another opinion on the Press Conference of the Century

Robert Novak, of Valerie Plame fame, thinks that President Bush did ok with his Press Conference.

"The result was an unprecedented hybrid: the president delivering a 17-minute speech to the nation over the heads of reporters, who anxiously waited their turn. Bush was ready to parry Democratic claims that Iraq was becoming another Vietnam, contending that the "false" analogy "sends the wrong message to our troops and sends the wrong message to the enemy." Facing the anticipated onslaught of press demands that he apologize or admit error, the president wisely avoided an answer that would have been repeated endlessly on television.

Inexplicably, however, Bush seemed adrift when asked whether he had ever made a mistake other than trading Sammy Sosa to the Chicago Cubs when he owned the Texas Rangers. He apparently did not anticipate being asked why he and Vice President Dick Cheney insisted on testifying together to the independent commission, and simply refused to give a responsive answer even when the question was repeated. That is why the president avoids press conferences."

I guess it depends on what the goals of the press conference were. If it was to shore up the base, than probably it worked well enough. If it was to convince those who didn't already agree with the President, than it probably wasn't that successful.

More on the Press Conference of the Century

Maybe you are tired of my commentary on the Press Conference. It's hard to imagine, but it might be possible. Here's some other commentary on it.

"My heart sank when the President said, "I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with [an] answer, but it hadn't yet." Has ever a President uttered more demoralizing words in the course of seeking to reassure Americans and the world? ("I am not a crook," maybe.) I wish the President to stand by our troops now in peril on foreign shores. I wish the President to protect us from terrorist attacks at home. I wish the President to preside wisely over a vigorous and free economy and society. I wish the President were able to stand up to the pressures of those jobs. But the President cannot even come up with an answer to a question he said, mere seconds before, he has "oftentimes [thought] about" over the last couple of years: "You've looked back before 9-11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9-11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have learned from it?" The President replied, "I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it." And then he then explained about the pressure of press conferences.

Honestly, I was truly astonished to feel so saddened at that moment. I hadn't supposed any appreciable confidence in the President's ability remained in me. But it turns out I am enough of a Pollyanna to have held out some secret hope, at least till then." - Eric Rauchway for Altercation.

"I've just watched the press conference later on C-SPAN. Not only was the transcript encouraging. I found the president clear, forceful, impassioned, determined, real. This was not an average performance. I found it Bush at his best. He needs to do it more." - Andrew Sullivan

"To Bush, credibility means that you keep saying today what you said yesterday, and that you do today what you promised yesterday. "A free Iraq will confirm to a watching world that America's word, once given, can be relied upon," he argued Tuesday night. When the situation is clear and requires pure courage, this steadfastness is Bush's most useful trait. But when the situation is unclear, Bush's notion of credibility turns out to be dangerously unhinged. The only words and deeds that have to match are his. No correspondence to reality is required. Bush can say today what he said yesterday, and do today what he promised yesterday, even if nothing he believes about the rest of the world is true. - William Saletan

"Set aside the source for a moment: every word of this [President Bush's assessment of the war on terror] is profoundly true, the importance is the song, not the singer. I honestly don't care all that much about the singer and have many differences with him in other areas. But somehow, someway, this particular man grasped on 9/11 that all of the incidents listed above ARE connected, cannot be addressed piecemeal, cannot be addressed in a defensive mode - as every Western leader and every American president, Republican and Democrat alike, had previously done - and that decisive, resolute, offensive action was the only possible way to win this war, a war we did not seek, and in fact assiduously sought to avoid prior to 9/11.

The question of the moment is, is Iraq a genuine part of this war? It sure as hell is now. As Bush very keenly stated, the key to this war is to stay on the offense, to keep taking the battle to the enemy." - Eric Olsen

That's enough to get you started.

Further selections from President Bush's press conference

"And the other thing I look back on and realize is that we weren't on a war footing. The country was not on a war footing, and yet the enemy was at war with us. And it's -- it didn't take me long to put us on a war footing. And we've been on war ever since."

"Well, I think, as I mentioned, it's -- the country wasn't on war footing, and yet we're at war."

"And my answer to that question is, is that, again I repeat what I said earlier -- prior to 9/11 the country really wasn't on a war footing."

I'm not exactly sure what President means by us being on a War Footing. Other than the obvious; we declared war on and defeated both Afghanistan and Iraq (although the new government of Afghanistan has little power outside of the capital and there is a very active Iraqi Insurgency). But the homefront isn't really on a War Footing is it?

The only sacrifice the President (well, to be fair, more his advisors and supporters in the right wing media than himself) have asked, is for liberals to sacrifice their voice. Maybe I just don't understand the term "War Footing."

Wait a minute, maybe I was wrong.

I'm afraid I might have been wrong in my assessment of Mr. Bush and his inability to admit to a mistake.

"Q Thank you, Mr. President. In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa. You've looked back before 9/11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it?

THE PRESIDENT: I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it. (Laughter.) John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could have done it better this way, or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn't yet.

. . . I hope I -- I don't want to sound like I've made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't -- you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.

He should have just said "This Press conference, maybe." That would have gotton a big laugh. Oh well, I'm glad the President is confident that he is capable of making mistakes, even if he can't think of any examples.

An Exchange from the President's press Conference

Should have pointed this out earlier, but if you missed the press conference or chose not to watch it live (as I did), you can catch it Text and Video at the White House Website. Anyway this exchange piqued my interest.

Q Mr. President, I'd like to follow up on a couple of these questions that have been asked. One of the biggest criticisms of you is that whether it's WMD in Iraq, postwar planning in Iraq, or even the question of whether this administration did enough to ward off 9/11, you never admit a mistake. Is that a fair criticism? And do you believe there were any errors in judgment that you made related to any of those topics I brought up?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think, as I mentioned, it's -- the country wasn't on war footing, and yet we're at war. And that's just a reality, Dave. I mean, that's -- that was the situation that existed prior to 9/11, because the truth of the matter is, most in the country never felt that we'd be vulnerable to an attack such as the one that Osama bin Laden unleashed on us. We knew he had designs on us, we knew he hated us. But there was a -- nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale.

The people know where I stand. I mean, in terms of Iraq, I was very clear about what I believed. And, of course, I want to know why we haven't found a weapon yet. But I still know Saddam Hussein was a threat, and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. I don't think anybody can -- maybe people can argue that. I know the Iraqi people don't believe that, that they're better off with Saddam Hussein -- would be better off with Saddam Hussein in power. I also know that there's an historic opportunity here to change the world. And it's very important for the loved ones of our troops to understand that the mission is an important, vital mission for the security of America and for the ability to change the world for the better.

I find myself wondering what, exactly, Mr. Bush thinks would happen if he admitted to a little personal responsibility?

Somewhere in west Asia a young Saudi man sits, thinking. "Hmmmm. I think this terrorism thing is probably not the best way to go. Time to move on and get a real job. Wait a second, what did the President of The Great Satan say? He's admitting a mistake? Oh my. That proves that now is the time to attack."

Two Misstatements

"I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." - Senator John Kerry

"Secretary of State Powell and Secretary of State Rumsfeld and . . ." - President George W. Bush

Commented on the second of these last night, but other than noting it for posterity, didn't have much to say about it. After thinking about it, I have a bit more to say.

The first statement was clearly a boneheaded soundbite that Senator Kerry gave the Republicans. It fuels their suggestions that he's a flip-flopping ninny, and, naturally enough, it found its way into an attack ad almost immediately.

In the second example we all know that President Bush meant to say Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. In the first example, do we all know what Senator Kerry meant? We should, but in case we don't, let me run it down.

Senator Kerry apparently had nothing intrinsically against funding the $87 billion request; he did not, however, see the wisdom in adding to the national deficit when there are things that could be done to offset the $87 billion, such as limited or restructuring the Bush Tax Cuts (those that go to the wealthiest among us). He was willing to sign the bill, and in fact signed the bill with an amendment that would have called for a repeal of some of the Bush Tax Cuts. But of course, this didn't fly. Neither his Republican colleagues nor the White House would consider such an action. So in the end he ended up voting against the $87 billion in a protest vote (presumably he knew that it would pass, I would imagine everybody did).

Now you might disagree with his actions; fine. You might want to put the blame for some of the difficulties our troops are facing on John Kerry (for failing to vote for a bill that passed anyway); certainly the Bush Administration is in favor of that (much preferable to taking responsible for their own failure to plan for the occupation of Iraq). But is that really a flip-flop? Or is just a misstatement? An inelegant phrase?

Hard to say, but if the Bush Campaign has anything to say about it, you'll never even consider what Senator Kerry meant to say, will you?

Interesting revelation in the President's Press Conference

President Bush gave a press conference tonight, as I'm sure you all know, and among other things, he said the following. "Secretary of State Powell and Secretary of State Rumsfeld and a number of NATO defense and foreign minister are exploring a more formal role for NATO, such as turning the Polish-led division into a NATO operation and giving NATO specific responsibilities for border control."

For those of you who do not know, Donald Rumsfeld is, in fact, the Secretary of Defense (unless something has changed that I don't know about. Traditionally the United States has had only one Secretary of State at a time.

Here's the link to MSNBC, although there is a good chance it will be scrubbed eventually.

But, you ask me, what does this mean? In reality not that much. He misspoke; he's done it before, he'll do it again, who cares? But it is gratifying to point out, inasmuch as I'm not enthusiastic about President Bush.

Edited to change Secretary of Defense to Secretary of State above--screwed it up the first time around. I also don't want to give the impression that I think this type of mistake is extremely important. It was something that struck me as amusing when I read it so I posted it. There are reasons why President Bush's misstatements are a bit galling to me, but I've covered that ground before, so won't run over it again now.

A Second Announcement

It has been brought to our attention that, while our position on making attacks on the President verboten is approved, it would be nice and fair minded of us to find some nice things to say about the president. Certainly, we here at Make me a Commentator!!! are concerned about being fair-minded, and so we are going to find some nice things to say about the President.

First of all, we largely approved of the No Child Left behind act, although we were a little disappointed at his decision to underfund it in his proposed budget. We also felt that he gave an exceptional speech directly following September 11th.

We hope this clears up all doubts as to how fair minded we at Make Me a Commentator!!! are.

The Power of the Press Conference

President Bush has called a Press Conference tonight, the third of his term. I would gather that the big three networks as well as the news networks will give him the time. The question is, however, why a prime time Press Conference? If it simply to answer questions raised by Richard Clarke and the September 11th hearings, or to encourage us to stay the course in Iraq, well, I'm not sure what I think about that. It seems like a political use of his office.

On the other hand, perhaps he has a change in our policies in Iraq, in response to what is happening there; if that's the case, than we'll have to see what happens.

The New York Times presents the press conference in strictly political terms, talking about the concern the White House must feel about the upcoming election. " . . . other Republicans close to the White House expressed concern, noting polls that revealed growing questions among Americans about where the nation is heading, a measure that pollsters historically regard as a barometer of trouble for an incumbent. Of particular note, one Republican close to the White House said, were indications that a spate of Bush television advertisements intended to undercut Mr. Kerry had been partly blunted by the distractions of Iraq and the hearings by the independent commission on Sept. 11."

Anyway, I'll be busy watching 24, but I'll catch it on C-SPAN.com or Whitehouse.gov and comment on it. Unless I forget or get bored.

Trash Can Sinatras

The Trash Can Sinatras might be experiencing a comeback, according to PopMatters. Who knows? But since I really like the Trash Can Sinatras, this is great news.

Party Out of Bounds

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh yesterday. Well his program; he wasn't there. The guy they had doing it started hammering on the theory that the September 11 attacks were the fault of Senator John Kerry, Democratic Candidate for President of the United States. Most of this is from an NBC News report, quoted at John Kerry's Website.

In 2001, a man named Brian Sullivan, a former special agent for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), was concerned about security at Logan Airport, Boston. He helped a local TV news program run a story in which he and a fellow agent snuck illicit items on to airplanes. They succeeded 9 out of 10 times.

The news story generated publicity around the problem, and Mr. Sullivan expressed his concerns on the FAA's Hotline. He also sent a letter to John Kerry. John Kerry then passed on the letter to the Department of Transportation's Inspector General, and asked him to look into it.

According to Mr. Sullivan, who instigated this whole story, " I think Senator Kerry did get it to the right people and that they were about to take the right action." We suspect Mr. Sullivan will regret that comment when he gets offers to write about Senator Kerry's culpability for 9/11. He is already changing his tune, according to the New York Post, which quotes him as saying, "He just did the Pontius Pilate thing and passed the buck"

Now here's where it gets shaky. The question becomes what should Mr. Kerry have done? Launched a full scale congressional investigation? Gone to Logan airport himself to investigate? He got a letter from a constituent, passed it on to the correct people, and put the weight of his office behind it.

There's also the story of Steve Elson, Ex Navy Seal (so naturally he's a specialist in airport security) who tried to force a meeting with Senator Kerry and was rebuffed. The Post quotes him as saying, "Enhanced security would have prevented the hijackings, virtually without question."

I guess that's probably true; the advantage we have now looking at Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Elson is that we know what happened. It's easy enough to look at what happened in light of their warnings. However, the parallel to President Bush does not work exactly. For one thing, Senator Kerry's sphere of influence in this area was pretty limited. The President has considerably more power and, consequently, more responsibility.

I have to say it's also a bit suspicious to me that Mr. Sullivan didn't provide the same letter to the President. And that Mr. Elson only tried to warn Senator Kerry. They just happened to provide this information exclusively to the future Democratic Presidential candidate? The more likely scenario is that Sullivan sent his letter to a bunch of people, but slamming into Kerry now is the best way for him to get his 15 minutes of fame, so that's who he and Mr. Elson and the Post are choosing to focus on.

Article on Taxation

This is interesting.

"Through explicit policies, as well as tax laws never reported in the news, Congress now literally takes money from those making $30,000 to $500,000 per year and funnels it in subtle ways to the super rich -- the top 1/100th of 1 percent of Americans.

People making $60,000 paid a larger share of their 2001 income in federal income, Social Security and Medicare taxes than a family making $25 million, the latest Internal Revenue Service data show. And in income taxes alone, people making $400,000 paid a larger share of their incomes than the 7,000 households who made $10 million or more.

. .. All of these actions reward cheats at the expense of honest taxpayers, but because "tax" is a four letter word in Washington, nothing is done. Those who support tax law enforcement are denounced on the campaign trail as advocates of higher taxes.

While letting rich tax cheats run wild, Congress did finance a crackdown on the poor. The working poor, most of whom make less than $16,000, are eight times more likely to be audited than millionaire investors in partnerships.

The audits of low-income taxpayers found little cheating. Two-thirds of the poor get either their full refund or more than they sought."

The article is here for those who are interested.

Some points of View

What about the Democratic claim that you're playing the spoiler again this year?

The Democrats should stop their whining and go to work. Stop whining. If we all have an equal right to run, no one would use the word "spoiler." If we all have the right to run, everyone's a spoiler. Everyone's trying to get more votes than everyone else. So the use of the word "spoiler" to a third-party candidate is a scarcely veiled designation of second-class citizenship to the candidate. Which of course is what the two parties have always legislated. They want third-party and independent candidates out. They have all kinds of barriers state after state. But that doesn't mean the rest of us should adopt that classification. Especially since in our history some of the greatest reforms were led by third parties: abolition of slavery, women's right to vote, the trade union movement.
- Ralph Nader, Salon Interview.

". . . I don't believe that the best way to do justice to Ralph Nader's legacy is to vote for him for president. Re-electing George Bush would undo everything Ralph Nader has worked for through his entire career and, in fact, could lead to the dismantling of many of his accomplishments.

Voting for Ralph Nader, or for any third-party candidate for president, means a vote for a candidate who has no realistic shot of winning the White House. To underscore the danger of voting for any third-party candidate in elections this close, a statistic from the 2000 campaign may prove useful: a total of eight third-party candidates won more votes than the difference between Al Gore and George Bush nationwide."
- Howard Dean, New York Times Editorial Page.

Now cut out the two quotes carefully and tape them to two hermit crabs. Get the hermit crabs to fight. See which one wins. Send in the results of said crab fight here, and then we'll know!

An Announcement

It's been brought to our attention that we are perhaps a little too hard on President Bush. After all, for all his faults and despite the somewhat questionable way he became President, the fact remains that he is our President, and as such perhaps we should give him the benefit of the doubt more than we have. In this spirit, I am pleased to announce that, for the rest of the week, all criticism of the President will be verboten.

Still, all things considered, you should probably expect to see a lot of verboten.

Holding The Line

William F. Buckley, who is far from a raging liberal (or even a normal liberal) takes the Bush administration to task for holding to their June 30, 2004 date to hand over the reins of power to the Iraqi Governing Council.

"What does appear to be stupid, given our determination to see the venture through, is to stress our commitment to turn over authority to the Iraqi Governing Council on June 30. That is 11 weeks away. The notion that we can stick to that deadline at a moment when three cities in Iraq are in enemy hands, and when a Shiite clerical leader preaching the holy cause of dead Americans is snugly holed up in a mosque surrounded by death-to-the-end bodyguards, defies reason."

I have to say, I've had some of the same questions. But delaying the date to transfer power is problematic as well. It puts the stamp on the failure of the Bush administration to bring peace to the country. It would be an admission on their part that they have failed to plan adequately; and this administration is incapable of admitting mistakes.

Still, I wish they would in this case. Turning "limited sovereignty" to borrow a phrase from Colin Powell at a time when the new government will clearly be reliant on the American military to maintain it's position cannot help but undermine the legitimacy of the new government. Nobody on this side of the world will be calling the new Iraqi Governing Council our puppets; everybody on that side will. We will be committing ourselves to propping the new government up, financially and militarily, which will tie up our armies for quite a long time. Or else we will watch the government we set up fall apart almost immediately as forces who have defined themselves as Anti-American will come in.

Some of you may wonder how an Iraqi could feel negatively towards the United States after we liberated them from Saddam Hussein. Mr. Buckley comments on that as well. "Some are saying in Iraq that life was better even under Saddam Hussein. That should not surprise. The same point could have been made, at certain moments in history, about life under Hitler or Stalin. Many who are suffering at this point in the war did not suffer under Saddam Hussein, and enjoyed such fruits of stability as a tyrant can induce. Anarchy is never, ever preferred over government, however hideous."

Anyway, we'll see what happens in between now and June 30th. It is a bit sad to consider that, potentially, the key factor in determining the future of Iraq is not in the hands of the Iraqi people but in the electoral necessities of the United States.

This is a couple of days old

But that doesn't make it any less true.

"This is Bush's 33rd visit to his ranch since becoming president. He has spent all or part of 233 days on his Texas ranch since taking office, according to a tally by CBS News. Adding his 78 visits to Camp David and his five visits to Kennebunkport, Maine, Bush has spent all or part of 500 days in office at one of his three retreats, or more than 40 percent of his presidency."

Also, the Republican Party would like to remind you that if you don't vote for mighty President Bush, Terrorists will get you.

New Quote

Once again we bring you a thrilling new quote. And don't forget to look it up on your Quote Chasers Almanac.