Republicans and the War on Terror

Yesterday Salon came out with an article, by Steven Holmes, entitled "Why the Republicans Can't Fight Terror." I think it's well worth reading, with a few caveats. First of all parties are always in fluctuation; right now the Bush Administration is operating under a set of beliefs that may hamper their ability to fight terrorism, but the Republican party probably won't stay married to those beliefs forever. I think the article would be strengthened if it was more tightly directed at those running our anti terrorism policies.

I also disagree with Mr. Holmes' assessment of the effect of religion on President Bush's waging of the war. It's just a little too convenient.

Still, it is a good article that presents a lot to think about. In particularly Mr. Holmes says too things that are nearly self-evidently true, but that are often denied in practice by Republicans.

The Republicans are ideologically and dogmatically opposed to nonmarket distributions of community resources from rich to poor, even when it is self-evident that such distributions are politically stabilizing. Underlying this hostility to nonmarket distributions is a tacit conviction that there can never be too much economic inequality in a society. This set of beliefs, like those discussed above, would probably prevent any Republican administration, and certainly an ideologically rigid administration such as the one we now have, from waging an effective war against transnational terrorism. The point is not that poverty "causes" terrorism, but rather that lack of economic opportunity increases the pool from which terrorist organizations can recruit. The Marshall Plan was a nonmarket distribution, designed to stabilize an unstable part of the world and to weaken support for anti-American ideas and political movements. An equivalent today would be massive American support to the Pakistani government, earmarked to wrest control of elementary education from private religious charities. Strategically, this makes perfect sense. Unfortunately, it conflicts violently with a Republican mind-set that compulsively denigrates all government spending and nonmarket redistributions of assets from rich to poor.

This just makes sense to me. Americans may not like the idea of taking money from their taxes and giving to other nations. I can understand that myself. But taking money and investing making other societies safer and less likely to kill Americans; that strikes me as an investment and not a giveaway.

One reason that the Bush counterterrorism strategy has gone so disastrously awry is that the Republicans are ideologically and dogmatically committed to the proposition that military means are invariably the most effective means for dealing with threats to U.S. security. The Republicans cannot be trusted to wage an effective war on terrorism, because the principal means for combating nonstate terrorism is not military force but international police cooperation and the principal means for combating proliferation is not military force but tightening up the existing international nonproliferation regime. Although military force and the threat of military force can be useful in these efforts, it cannot be the principal tool.

Again, this is self evidently true. I don't mean to disparage the military; on the contrary I have enormous respect for the efforts of those men to protect us. But the military is just one tool in the war on terror. It is no insult to the hammer to suggest that at times a pair of pliers is more effective.

Anyway something to think about.

That Darn Liberal Media!

Actually maybe that title is inappropriate since I'm dealing with "Fair and Balanced" Fox. Media Matters has an interesting sketch of Pat Caddell, who often appears on Fox News programs to provide the liberal or Democratic side. I mean you can't have balance unless you have a Conservative Guy and a Liberal Guy, right? Well Pat Caddell may not be really out there fighting for liberalism.

To use a sports analogy lets imagine a hockey game (I don't know much about it, but it's in my head). One side is at their bone crunching best, pounding the ice and making 900 mile an hour slap shots. The other team goes over and joins the first teams cheer leaders (not, as you might think, to flirt and hang out with cute chicks, but actually to join in cheering for the other side).

But since he describes himself as a liberal, I guess he is balanced enough for Fox News. By the way, when spell checking this piece, my program suggested Coddle as a good spelling fo Caddell. Coincidence?

World Class Education For All

Continuing and concluding our series on Kerry's proposals, let's look at what Kerry and Edwards plan to do about education.

Meet Our Responsibilities To Our Schools
John Kerry and John Edwards will establish a National Education Trust Fund to ensure that schools always get the funding they need. They will also ensure that No Child Left Behind works for schools, states, and teachers by rewarding those who meet higher standards and rewarding schools that turn around and improve.

First of all they commit to making sure that schools get the funding they need, but they also commit to No Child Left Behind stays in effect (which punishes schools for poor performance). I'm not sure about the balance here.

Continue Reform And Put A Great Teacher In Every Classroom
Great teachers are the foundation of a great school. As president, John Kerry will enact a new bargain that offers teachers more, including better training and better pay in troubled schools, and asks for more in return, including fast, fair ways to make sure that teachers who don't belong in the classroom don't stay there.

I have mixed feelings about this one as well. Clearly the key to getting ambitious and creative people to go into our schools is to reward them. Anybody who looks at going into the teaching profession these days knows that it is a route to economic mediocrity. So certainly if we are going to get better teachers, something has to be done about that. On the other hand, the second part of the paragraph might be clearer. Making it easier to fire teachers is a good thing when it comes to issues like abuse. But there has to be a balance; teachers like a certain amount of job security same as the rest of us.

Offer 3.5 Million After-School Opportunities Through "School's Open 'Til Six"
John Kerry and John Edwards are strong supporters of after-school programs. They give students extra help, keep them out of trouble, and offer peace of mind to working parents. The Kerry-Edwards "School's Open 'Til 'Six" initiative will offer after-school opportunities to 3.5 million children, through programs that are open until 6 p.m. and offer safe transportation for children.

The unfortunate reality is that this is really a good idea. Kids need supervision, and since all of our modern conveniences have allowed us to work longer hours (funny how that worked out), than there needs to be something available. Plus this might very well be a back end way to get music and arts back in the hands of kids.

Make College Affordable For All And Expand Lifelong Learning
As president, John Kerry will offer a fully refundable College Opportunity Tax credit on up to $4,000 of tuition for every year of college and offer aid to states that keep tuitions down. And he will launch a new effort to ensure that all of our workers can get the technical skills and advanced training they need.

I like this too (was impressed by college tax credit when it was proposed on the West Wing). College isn't the silver bullet, but it is key, and making it more attainable is always a good thing. On the other hand, I think the real work has to be done in the high-schools and junior highs getting kids ready for college.

Anyway I've decided to skip the environment, mainly cause I read some articles yesterday and today that I want to comment on, and also because the environment isn't going to be an election deciding issue this time around. For those who don't know, Kerry has a pretty good record on the environment and is likely to continue working in support of these issues.

Hope you have enjoyed this review; please feel free to refer to it the next time someone says "Well, Kerry isn't running on anything but Vietnam."

Around the Horn Part 12, Chocolate Donut

In which Bryant names the post after what he happens to be eating at the moment.

Anyway space week got pushed back, so instead we are presenting "normal" week.

All Facts and Opinions has a really moving post about Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year, and how it can apply in our world.

Left is Right takes on the sport of Ice Hockey and finds it wanting.

Chris "Lefty" Brown has a nice thought piece on when good superheroes turn evil.

Trish Wilson is all over the Batman Protest at Buckingham palace, since it concerns an issue that is important to her. Quick, without looking it up, tell me what the guy who dressed up as Batman was protesting in favor of? This is a helpful illustration of why dressing up as a superhero may not be as effective as, say, carrying a sign.

Speedkill gives his take on the memos used in the 60 Minutes II story last week, which is very close to my own.

The Fulcrum takes on a recent Maureen Dowd column and asks a provocative question.

Sooner Thought has the story of a few of Nader's former supporters who are now suggesting he reconsider his run this year.

Kick the Leftist has some insight into how Ralph Nader got on the Florida Ballot.

All Facts and Opinion has some interesting questions on the intersection between letting the assault weapons ban expire and the War on Terror.

Corrente has a nice little bit on the Vice President's mouth which may need to be cleaned out.

And that's this week's edition. I'll be back later to continue my examination of Kerry's Programs (still have education and the environment to go).

A Safe and Secure Homeland

OK. So now we are back to one of the key issues of the campaign. As the Vice President has made extremely explicit, if you vote for John Kerry you are running the risk of America being hit by terrorists again. So let's see what John Kerry and John Edwards propose to do about protecting you and me.

Track And Stop Terrorists
Many of the intelligence problems that allowed terrorists to slip into our country before 9/11 have not been addressed. John Kerry and John Edwards will improve our ability to gather, analyze, and share information so we can track down and stop terrorists before they cause harm.

I'm not sure what specific problems they are proposing to fix here. I mean it is clear that many of the recommendations of the 9/11 committee and others have yet to be implemented. But beyond that this is mostly a good idea, not necessarily a plan.

Protect Our Borders And Shores
Today, our borders, our ports, and our airports are not as secure as they must be. John Kerry and John Edwards will make our airports, seaports, and borders more secure without intruding upon personal liberties.

This is a common complaint, but an accurate one. The Bush Administration in pursuing its war in Iraq and in protecting it's taxcuts for the wealthy have neglected upgrading systems to protect us at our vulnerable points.

Harden Vulnerable Targets
Chemical industry lobbying has kept the Bush administration from strengthening security at chemical plants, where an attack could endanger 1 million Americans. John Kerry and John Edwards will always put Americans' safety ahead of big business interests and take strong measures to harden likely targets-including nuclear plants, trains, and subways-against possible attack.

Another very good proposal. And one that illustrates the ideological differences between President Bush and Senator Kerry. President Bush favors a hands-off approach to corporations, even when such an approach might be dangerous for the American people. Senator Kerry favors a more realistic approach.

Improve Domestic Readiness
Our first defenders will respond to any attack with courage and heroism-but they also need the equipment and manpower to do the job. John Kerry and John Edwards will back up their words with resources and ensure that America's first responders have everything they need to protect their communities.

There's an old poem / parable about a fence up on the hill or an ambulance down in the valley that I suspect Bush Supporters like to trot out. Yes, providing better equipment, training, and compensation to first responders doesn't answer the question of stopping terrorists from hitting us. But it is still a damn smart thing to do, as both President Bush and Senator Kerry and everybody else with half a brain has admitted that the odds are very good we will be hit again no matter what we do.

Guard Liberty.
We must always remember that terrorists do not just target our lives - they target our way of life. John Kerry and John Edwards believe in an America that is safe and free, and they will protect our personal liberties as well as our personal security.

This is a not very well disguised critique of the PATRIOT act, but it is something to consider. It is comforting that Edwards and Kerry at least recognize the inherent difficulties in giving up a little liberty for security.

As before feel free to look along the right of the linked webpage for more details.

An Energy Independent America

I've been thinking about health care the last hour, and I've concluded that it just isn't that important. Don't get me wrong; in the long run fixing America's Health Care system is essential. But in this election, at this time, the key issues aren't going to include health care.

One could make the argument that this subject, energy policy, is similarly unimportant (to the current election). But I think that that is inaccurate; our long term ability to deal with terrorism will hinge, to a certain extent, on our ability to wean ourselves from middle eastern oil. So let's see what Kerry and Edwards plan to do.

Explore And Develop New Energy Sources
Tomorrow's energy economy will be fueled by new energy sources. The Kerry-Edwards plan will invest in the research and exploration needed to turn ideas into fuel and develop renewable energy sources.

Well this is a good start, if not exactly a detailed plan. I can fill in the blanks myself (they will push for funding of alternative energy research and so on), but it's not much more concrete than saying they want to modernize the military.

Develop Tomorrow's Technology Today
Under the Kerry-Edwards plan, America will take the lead in developing the new technology and production methods needed to ensure that resources such as coal and natural gas are used more efficiently and cleanly, and fully integrated into the New Energy Economy.

There's are long running urban legends about cars that run on water or lightbulbs that never need changing that are surpressed by big business. There's a reason such myths have such longevity; because human nature is such that they are believable (at least the part about big business quashing such ideas). How many of you would support a proposal that, despite having long term real benefits for your neighbors and fellow-citizens, would also put you out of a job? Still our reliance on coal and natural gas will require us to figure out ways to use these fuels better and more efficiently, and obviously developing the technology to do so is a good idea.

Make America Energy Independent Of Middle East Oil
Our security in the war on terror demands an end to our dependence on Middle East oil. Under the Kerry-Edwards plan, we will strengthen our national security while growing our economy and protecting our environment.

This of course is the point to focusing on energy.

As always, please check to the right of the Kerry Web Page if you want more details on these plans.

Affordable Health Care for All

I'm going to skip a little lighter over this section . Health Care Proposals are a Democratic staple, so it should come as little surprise, even to someone who thinks that John Kerry is running only on his medals, that he has one.

Cut Your Premiums
John Kerry and John Edwards will cut family premiums by up to $1,000. That's $1,000 in real savings people can use to buy groceries, pay the bills, and save for their children's future. And that will mean more jobs and more competitive American businesses.

Certainly Mr. Kerry is right that reducing premiums would pump money into peoples pockets, but he doesn't explain (here) how he intends to do this. For that you need to look into the details of the plan.

Cover All Americans With Quality Care
The Kerry-Edwards plan will give every American access to the range of high-quality, affordable plans available to members of Congress and extend coverage to 95 percent of Americans, including every American child. Their plan will also fight to erase the health disparities that persist along racial and economic lines, ensure that people with HIV and AIDS have the care they need, end discrimination against Americans with disabilities and mental illnesses, and ensure equal treatment for mental illness in our health system.

This is a veritable banquet of programs, some of them quite sensible. But the question remains; will American's accept the idea that all Americans should have access to health care? Many would argue that those who do not have coverage, don't have it because they have failed to plan for their futures and so don't' deserve it.

Cut the Cost of Prescription Drugs
The Kerry-Edwards plan will reduce prescription drug prices by allowing the re-importation of safe prescription drugs from Canada, overhauling the Medicare drug plan, ensuring low-cost drugs, and ending artificial barriers to generic drug competition.

I do think drug companies have the potential to be as demonized as, say, French people, and certainly this provision socks it to them. Even some conservatives I know complain about the enormous profits taken by the drug companies. But the other side to this is that they have to fund research. So what is the proper balance between greedily gouging themselves at the expense of Americans Health and their justifiable need to make a profit after investing so much in research and development? It's a tricky question.

Cut Waste And Inefficiency
Today, approximately 25 percent of health care costs are wasted on paperwork and administrative processing. The Kerry-Edwards plan harnesses American ingenuity to cut waste, save billions, and take new steps to ensure patient privacy.

Now this is more like it. One of my favorite arguments against "socialized" medicine is "Well if you have socialized medicine you'll have a bunch of bureaucratic red tape and forms to fill out." I always wonder if the person making that argument has actually been to a doctor recently. We already got enormous amounts of paperwork and red tape.

More than the other sections we've covered, understanding the details of the Kerry-Edwards health plan requires a more in-depth reading.

A Stronger Economy

Continuing our series from this morning; we are going to look at what John Kerry and John Edwards plan to do about the economy.

Create Good-Paying Jobs
As president, John Kerry will cut taxes for businesses that create jobs here in America instead of moving them overseas. John Kerry and John Edwards will also stand up for workers by enforcing our trade agreements.

This might have been better named, as I assume all Presidents, including President Bush, would like to create Good-Paying Jobs. The substance of the proposal, however, is more promising. Cutting taxes on companies who employ Americans will increase the value of American workers, which is a good thing. Enforcing our trade agreements would also help protect and provide jobs. One of the advantages to moving overseas is the lack of worker protections and the lack of environmental standards (among other things). Many of these items are addressed in our treaties, but are casually ignored. So this could be another way to make American Companies (and our foreign Competition) play by the rules.

Cut Middle-Class Taxes To Raise Middle-Class Incomes
When John Kerry is president, middle-class taxes will go down. Ninety-eight percent of all Americans and 99 percent of American businesses will get a tax cut under the Kerry-Edwards plan.

I'm not sure what to think about this one; I have kind of a "I'll believe it when I see it" attitude. On the other hand, I don't think President Kerry is likely to raise taxes dramatically or at all on the middle class.

Make Washington Live Within A Budget
John Kerry will cut the deficit in half during his first four years in office. He will end corporate welfare as we know it, roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and impose a real cap to keep spending in check. And when John Kerry puts forward a new idea, he'll tell you how he's going to pay for it.

Used to be anybody who talked about the federal government living within a budget was a Conservative. Times have changed. Clinton, a liberal, managed the government and got budgets that created a surplus. President Bush, a conservative, expanded the Government and due to his foolish fiscal policies, expanded the deficit to an enormous amount.

Invest In The Jobs Of Tomorrow
Today, businesses are harnessing new technology to manufacture energy-efficient cars, high-grade steel, advanced plastics and other new products. And this requires a bigger, skilled labor force to make them. John Kerry and John Edwards believe we should invest in these jobs and invest in the people who will fill them.

I don't know exactly what this means, but it sounds good. Kind of like modernizing the military, it's something every President is going to promise. I don't see much here on how he is actually going to train American workers to work in these jobs.

As before if you want to see more detail on these plans, and there is considerably more detail here, please go to the right of the screen linked to above.

Dealing with a Contention

Why are the Swift Boats relevant? Because, the right wing tells us, that's what Future President Kerry's whole campaign is about. It's all he's running on. Of course these are the same people who tell us that Kerry wants to solve terrorism by being sensitive to Terrorists so you have to take what they say with a grain of salt.

At any rate to deal with this contention I've decided to spend a day dealing with President Kerry's actual proposals. While you might disagree with what he proposes; at least that's a step up from saying that he has no proposals at all.

So let's start with National Security. If you go to Senator Kerry's website, and click on one of the issues, you see a page divided into too parts. The top part is a general overview of the issue, and the bottom part are several specific proposals. I'm going to focus on the proposals, and assume that you are at least somewhat aware of the problems facing our nation in the area of National Security.

Launch And Lead A New Era Of Alliances
The threat of terrorism demands alliances on a global scale - to utilize every available resource to get the terrorists before they can strike at us. As president, John Kerry will lead a coalition of the able - because no force on earth is more able than the United States and its allies.

This is one of Mr. Kerry's most repeated criticisms of how the Bush Administration handled the run-up to the Iraq War. Bush Diplomacy, which I've referred to as bully diplomacy on more than one occasion, basically means that all the rest of the nations of the world should do whatever the hell we say. It seems like Kerry will bring a more balanced approach to dealing with our allies; an approach that involves listening as well as telling. So of course this gets distorted into "Senator Kerry won't protect America unless France says we can."

Modernize The World's Most Powerful Military To Meet New Threats
John Kerry and John Edwards have a plan to transform the world's most powerful military to better address the modern threats of terrorism and proliferation, while ensuring that we have enough properly trained and equipped troops to meet our enduring strategic and regional missions.

This is standard boilerplate. Everybody promises to upgrade the military. But one advantage Senator Kerry will have over President Bush in this regard is that he won't be as determined to protect a tax cut for the very wealthy. That will probably free up some cash to spend on this and other goals.

Deploy All That Is In America's Arsenal
The war on terror cannot be won by military might alone. As president, John Kerry will deploy all the forces in America's arsenal - our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, and the appeal of our values and ideas - to make America more secure and prevent a new generation of terrorists from emerging.

I have to say I really like this approach. One of my criticisms of the Bush Administration, which I touched on above, is their near total disdain for Diplomacy and the Diplomatic Corps. I get the impression a Kerry Presidency would see these people in a different light.

Free America From Its Dangerous Dependence On Mideast Oil
To secure our full independence and freedom, we must free America from its dangerous dependence on Mideast oil. By tapping American ingenuity, we can achieve that goal while growing our economy and protecting our environment.

I don't know whether or not this goal is achievable in the short term, but it definitely has to be part of our long term goals for a number of reasons. We don't have an infinite supply of oil for one. For two, on of the biggest difficulties we have with dealing with the Middle East is that it does have oil so we can't really get tough with countries like Saudi Arabia. So I applaud putting this on the table.

Anyway that's all for now. Some of you might disagree with these proposals; I expect that there will be ones that I'm not 100% comfortable with. But at least it's a discussion about his actual proposals rather than pretending that he hasn't got any. If you want further details on these proposals, you can visit the link above. On the right side of the page are speeches and plans on the subject.

An Update

Early in the week we reported and had guest commentary on the plight of Ms. Lynne Gobbell who was fired for having a John Kerry bumper-sticker on her car. Well it appears that Ms. Gobbell has a new job; she's a campaign worker for Mr. John Kerry.

I contacted Mr. Irwin J. McIckleson, a made up 1910's plutocrat, to see if he had any commentary on this new development. He was in busy supervising the construction of the worlds tallest solid gold garden gnome, but he consented to say a few words.

I feared something like this might happen. Now Ms. Gobbell and other employees like her will have the deluded impression that they should she be treated with kindness and decency. This Mr. Kerry is upsetting the natural order of society, which I discussed at length earlier in the week. Ms. Gobbell should have gone hungry and been forced to sell apples dressed in a potato sack! That is the proper fate of a disrespectful employee who dares to disagree with her employer. I don't think Mr. Kerry will be getting my vote this year, or any other year he happens to run for something.

Mr. McIckleson, being a made up character with no basis in reality, does not get to vote anyway. In other news if you would like to lend Ms. Gobbell a hand, please visit this site and donate.

Those Poor Wealthy People

Walter E. Williams latest column has everything I could ask for. He makes a beautifully impractical and wrong-headed proposal (which I'll get to in a moment). And he uses his favorite tic, that of putting words in his readers mouth. You might say, "Wait a moment, Bryant, what do you mean by that?" Well kind of just like that.

But back to his impractical and wrong-headed proposal. Basically he proposes the wealthy should get more votes.

So here's my idea. Every American regardless of any other consideration should have one vote in any federal election. Then, every American should get one additional vote for every $10,000 he pays in federal income tax. With such a system, there'd be a modicum of linkage between one's financial stake in our country and his decision-making capacity.

The impractical part of this scheme is that in order to pass it you have to make explicit that the poor just don't count. I mean we all know that that's true anyway. I gave some $300 in political contributions during this election cycle, which is probably somewhat above the median for all U.S. Citizens, and I have exactly no possibility of getting personal consideration of what I'd like in Government. We all know that it's the guys who can make donations with lots of zeroes in them (before the decimal point) that can get their representatives ear (Republican or Democrat).

William's system just makes that explicit. And of course it is a spit in the face of people who work hard, raise kids, pay their taxes, but don't make enough to have to pay $10,000 in taxes. It denies the egalitarian spirit of the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Williams proposal, in effect, says that we are not created equal, but that the wealthy deserve a little more. Well, the truth is they get more than a little more already. Do we need to make it explicit?

I will say that if Mr. Williams proposal was part of a larger plan of complete publice financing of Senate and House races, I might be able to compromise. But I'm pretty sure Mr. Williams buys the "money equals speech" argument and so would want the Wealthy to retain that part of their power over the United States Government as well.

Fly Paper

In truth I need some fly paper; or I needed it a couple of weeks ago. Seemed like all I had were flies. But since I gave up my policy of throwing trash on the floor, they seem to have disappeared.

But of course, what I am really referring to is the so-called "Fly-Paper Strategy" espoused by Andrew Sullivan and others to explain why our troops being in constant danger in Iraq is a good thing. Basically the theory is that if the terrorists are fighting our soldiers in the middle east, they can't fight us in the west. Well, this argument has a number of flaws in it, and I particularly like the way Joshua Micah Marshall dealt with it this week.

As a TPM reader put it to me both hilariously and brilliantly more than a year ago, this 'fly paper' thesis is like saying we're going to build one super dirty hospital where we can fight the germs on our own terms.

Clearly that analogy points in some uncomfortable directions. But the salient point is clear: everyone who is not an utter fool knows that the number of young and disaffected men in the Muslim world who are potentially willing to take up arms against America is, for practical geopolitical purposes, all but infinite. Killing those already bent on suicide missions against the US is undeniably a good thing. But doing so in a way that is guaranteed to replace them with ten new volunteers is the most foolish way to go about it. It is the classic case of dousing the fire with gasoline.

Of course that leaves untended the fact the guerrillas we're blowing up in Iraq aren't the folks running the safe houses in Karachi and Peshawar who constitute the real threat. Adrift as well is the straightforward matter that turning Iraq into a killing field isn't really compatible with making it into a redoubt of democracy, prosperity and western values.

Knocking holes in this argument is really too easy and after a bit beside the point. The real problem with this argument is its proponents -- folks who seem inclined to put insipid wordplay above the lives of American soldiers and marines, indeed, above against the future security of the country itself.

Mr. Marshall also had a very solid article on how Iraq is both at the center of this campaign and largely undiscussed in any serious way.

Depressing

Just went to the Bush Website for a bit, trying to run down some comments. It's constant attacks on Senator Kerry wore me down. Read a speech President Bush gave this week talking about the $87 Billion and how "There is nothing complicated about supporting our troops in combat."

Then, if I might ask, why didn't you provide them the equipment they needed in the first place? Why didn't you admit that this war was going to cost a certain amount of money? Is it really that important to protect your tax cuts (which, from where I sit, have yet to turn he economy around)? Why did you threaten to veto your own bill?

But what are you going to do. This is an election, and I'm sure there will be many rushing forward to tell me that Kerry is just as negative towards President Bush. Personally I think he could stand to get a little tougher. In particular, I think he should take this suggestion from Paul Krugman's latest article to heart.

Can Mr. Kerry, who voted to authorize the Iraq war, criticize it? Yes, by pointing out that he voted only to give Mr. Bush a big stick. Once that stick had forced Saddam to let W.M.D. inspectors back in, there was no need to invade. And Mr. Kerry should keep pounding Mr. Cheney, who is trying to cover for the absence of W.M.D. by lying, yet again, about Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda.

Some pundits are demanding that Mr. Kerry produce a specific plan for Iraq - a demand they never make of Mr. Bush. Mr. Kerry should turn the tables, and demand to know what - aside from pretending that things are going fine - Mr. Bush intends to do about the spiraling disaster. And Mr. Kerry can ask why anyone should trust a leader who refuses to replace the people who created that disaster because he thinks it's bad politics to admit a mistake.

Aldrich's Phony Evidence

Here's how Gary Aldrich starts his latest article.

The most important fact to remember about Hard-Left Liberals is that, for them, truth is relative - a mere tool to be used to garner any advantage over a political foe.

So that's good to know.

Of course, Mr. Aldrich claims he saw Mr. and Ms. Clinton decorating a White House Christmas Tree with condoms and drug paraphenlia (presumably not one out in the visitors area). So I'm inclined to take what he says with a grain of salt anyway.

At any rate he covers both the supposedly forged memos that 60 Minutes II used on their broadcast, and the old timey suggestion that Kerry was taking his orders from Moscow.

I haven't really covered "Memo-Gate" but the story is everywhere, particularly as it turns out 1 in 3 bloggers is an expert in fonts and typewriters from the 1970s. As I'm not a specialist in that particular field, I will defer to those who are (or those who at least have done a little research on the subject).

I would like to comment that Aldrich laying this on Kerry's head, particularly in the title of his article, Kerry's phony Evidence, is pretty well completely unsupported. Except of course by the old theory that all liberals are part of the international communist conspiracy and thus it's clear that Kerry and the guy who passed on this evidence are both taking orders from Leader X.

Which, of course, brings us to Aldrich's contention against Senator Kerry.

On my desk are copies of FBI documents - not forgeries - that label Kerry's group, Vietnam Veterans Against the War or VVAW, as the national security risk that it really was.

The title of these documents is "New Left - IS." To FBI agents serving at that time, we knew this to mean that a pro-Communist group known as "The New Left" was considered an internal security threat to this nation. The New Left was known to have adopted a Marxist ideology, and Senator John Kerry was a leader of this group.

The FBI no longer uses the label "IS." They have converted all such investigations to a more accurate name: Domestic Terrorism.

Oh my gosh! Senator Kerry was Domestic Terrorist and now he wants to be President? Well let's review what horrendous acts of terrorism Kerry committed.

He spoke out against the Vietnam War. He threw his ribbons. He attended a rally with Jane Fonda (they weren't the speakers, but were at the rally at the same time). Anything else? I can't think of anything. It was a lot easier to get labeled a "domestic terrorist" back in the 1960s and early 1970s because of the valiant work of J. Edgar Hoover and President Nixon to label everybody to the left of Atilla the Hun a communist sympathizer.

He ends with the standard phony-baloney charge that Kerry release his files. This is phony because Kerry has, in fact, released his files. But since those files didn't contain his weekly telegrams to Moscow, Aldrich is still digging.

Oh, and in case you are wondering who Mr. Aldrich considers a hard-left liberal, I have to conclude that it's any Democrat who's not Zell Miller.

9-11-01

I was just looking through Senator Kerry's recent speeches and I came upon these words which he spoke concerning the lessons of September 11th.

In the years ahead, all of us will complete this mission as we share the lessons of September 11th with our children and grandchildren. We will tell them that on September 11th, ordinary men and women became heroes at a moment’s notice – and so can you. We will tell them that we were strong because we took care of each other – and so can you. We will tell them that we came together in tragedy, chose confidence over fear, and that our love for America far outshines the darkness of those who hate.

Finally, we will tell them that on September 11th and the days that followed, we learned in the hardest way possible that the American spirit endures. It is that spirit which leads us to defy those who would harm us, and affirm that freedom will win. It is that spirit which sustains all of you as you continue to rebuild your lives. And it is that spirit which will guide us all as we rebuild those towers – stronger, higher, and more beautiful than ever before. Just like America.

I find them pretty moving myself, particularly because they paint such a hopeful picture of what we as a nation can do.

What I Can Promise You Is . . .

Just read a passionate article by Ellen Goodwin on the Vice President's comments last week.

So it's come to this. The presidential campaign took off in New Hampshire, where the state motto is “Live Free or Die.” Now it's heading into the home stretch, and the Republican motto is “Vote for Us or Die.”

In the days leading up to 9/11 anniversary, the vice president finally raised the alert -- color it crimson -- that a vote for Kerry was a vote for terrorism. If voters make “the wrong choice,” he said, “then the danger is that we'll get hit again, and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating.”

At least Cheney didn't call Kerry himself a terrorist, a label he once applied to Nelson Mandela. But this was no slip of the tongue. It was a rhetorical baby step from the language of the Republican convention that aggressively put the war on terror at the center of the campaign and Bush at the helm.

Of course the pitch that only Republicans can protect America has been gong on since September 12th (and of course, in a slightly different form, long before that).

I also think that Tom Tommorow's latest cartoon (here at Salon, I'll see if I can remember to link to the Working for Change version tomorrow for those of you who don't like ads) is right on the money. I've had several friends comment on how they are glad Gore wasn't in the White House when this happened; I'm not exactly sure what they mean, but certainly the Republican noise machine would not have been gentle on Mr. Gore.

Guest Commentary

I'd like to welcome Irwin J. McIckleson, a person I just made up (any resemblance to people living or dead is strictly coincidental) to provide a special commentary.

Good morning. As a stereotypical 1910's plutocrat I have to say that reading some of the news of this strange future world turns my head. For example, I read a recent article in the Decatur Daily and I saw a very strange thing. An employee was challenging her employer.

According to this article, Ms. Lynne Gobbell is going to vote for Senator Kerry in the upcoming election, while her boss supports President Bush. What a terrible breech of employer-employee relations. I can tell you, in my day, our employees knew that we employers knew what is best for them, and acted accordingly. If this Mr. Phil Gaddis supports President Bush, than Ms. Gobbell, as a loyal employee, should simply support President Bush as well.

The idea of an employee being able to think for herself (and don't get me started on the whole idea of female employees, a subject I will return to at another time), it's madness. Society is structured in such a way that the superior people are able to open business and employ others. Employees are naturally inferior or else they would be employers.

Fortunately this Phil Gaddis is a man after my own heart. Realizing that Ms. Gobbell's free thinking could weaken proper employer-employee relations thoughout out his organization. He promptly fired the ungrateful employee. He then returned to explaining to his loyal employees that they had better be grateful for President Bush's tax cuts benefiting him so he could employ them. That is the spirit of the 1910's brought to the present.

We appreciate Mr. McIckleson's comments, and hope you have too.

Transparent Lies

There are a few transparent deceptions being practiced by the Bush Campaign that we've pointed out before.

We've discussed the $87 Billion vote. We've discussed the "sensitive" war comment. And so have many many others, including people who's reach far exceeds our own.

And yet President Bush and Vice President Cheney continue to make the "sensitive" war comment and the $87 Billion vote a significant part of their campaign speeches. I do wonder sometimes how voters feel about that? I mean the President and the Vice President distorting the issues right in front of them. Neither of these is exactly a secret (although neither of these statements has gotten the analysis it deserves from the media either). Why does the Bush campaign think it can get away with it?

Here's another one, that we may have touched on before, but Michael Barone's column today reminded me of it.

In an August back-and-forth, Bush got Kerry to say that, knowing what he does today, he still would have voted for the Iraq war resolution. Then last week, he said it was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time"

Here's how this is explained. Senator Kerry felt that the President should have had the authority to bring Iraq to the table and to negotiate. President Bush took that authority and misused it by taking us to war too quickly. Simple right?

Still, I'd look for this to show up in campaign speeches as another example of a "flip-flop."

I will say that Kerry might have better worded that statement so as not to parrot a statement made by Howard Dean during the primaries, a statement he criticized at the time (a fact which Mr. Barone also points out, although with considerably more glee).

New Quote and Format Changes

Obviously the first order of business is that there is a new quote and a new
Quotes Page.

One of the advantages to this format is it's ease of tinkering with. As such, for the next 8 weeks (at least) I intend to change the format on a weekly basis, with a new color and a new logo at the type. Obviously the key word there is intend. But we'll see how it goes. Posting the new format is a two step process so if you see this and everything looks the same, well, reload in five minutes.