Say why does everything suck?

If you want to understand the Bush Economy, you need to read Paul Krugman. He's smart, he knows his stuff, and he knows how to explain it.

I quoted him in the last post, but he has another brilliant article this very day detailing the excuses and spins the Bush Adminsitration and their buddies are using to derail speculation that maybe President Bush's economic policies have something to do with the economic down turn.

"Officials often claim, falsely, that the 2001 recession began under Bill Clinton, or at least that it was somehow his fault. But even if you attribute the eight-month recession that began in March 2001 to Mr. Clinton - a very dubious proposition - job loss during the recession wasn't exceptionally severe. The reason the employment picture looks so bad now is the unprecedented weakness of job growth in the subsequent recovery.

Nor is it plausible to continue attributing poor economic performance to terrorism, three years after 9/11. Bear in mind that in the 2002 Economic Report of the President, the administration's own economists predicted full recovery by 2004, with payroll employment rising to 138 million, 7 million more than the actual number."

The whole article is entertaining, and of course, relevant to our discussion.

Who's Loaning Us Money?

Where does the money to pay for President Bush's Deficits come from? I mean a deficit implies that the United States is borrowing money to make up the difference between national expenditures and national revenues, doesn't it? So who's loaning us money?

Well some of the money is coming from foreign nations; possibly this part of our debt is no problem. I mean if, say, Japan wants to call in the money we owe them, we'll just beat the crap out of them. Maybe. But, unfortunately, a lot of that money has been loaned by ordinary American's like you and me (as well as corporations and local governments and so on and so forth). Everytime you buy a Treasury Note you are, in effect, loaning the Government money. A lot of people have T-Bills in their portfolio.

Here's Paul Krugman's sobering analysis of the long term effects of President Bush's deficits (which I previously quoted).

Here's one way to look at the situation: Although you wouldn't know it from the rhetoric, federal taxes are already historically low as a share of G.D.P. Once the new round of cuts takes effect, federal taxes will be lower than their average during the Eisenhower administration. How, then, can the government pay for Medicare and Medicaid — which didn't exist in the 1950's — and Social Security, which will become far more expensive as the population ages? (Defense spending has fallen compared with the economy, but not that much, and it's on the rise again.)

The answer is that it can't. The government can borrow to make up the difference as long as investors remain in denial, unable to believe that the world's only superpower is turning into a banana republic. But at some point bond markets will balk — they won't lend money to a government, even that of the United States, if that government's debt is growing faster than its revenues and there is no plausible story about how the budget will eventually come under control.

At that point, either taxes will go up again, or programs that have become fundamental to the American way of life will be gutted. We can be sure that the right will do whatever it takes to preserve the Bush tax cuts — right now the administration is even skimping on homeland security to save a few dollars here and there. But balancing the books without tax increases will require deep cuts where the money is: that is, in Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.

The pain of these benefit cuts will fall on the middle class and the poor, while the tax cuts overwhelmingly favor the rich. For example, the tax cut passed last week will raise the after-tax income of most people by less than 1 percent — not nearly enough to compensate them for the loss of benefits. But people with incomes over $1 million per year will, on average, see their after-tax income rise 4.4 percent.

Something to consider. But of course, the working poor, those "Lucky Duckies" have life a little too easy anyway.

Through the Past Darkly

Let's go over how we got here. Much of this information comes from "It's Still the Economy, Stupid : George W. Bush, The GOP's CEO", by Paul Begala.

President Reagan had a fairly strong economy, the growth of which was to a great extent based on his prodigious defense spending. President Reagan's policies, however, also increased the deficit by an enormous amount, and in President George H. W. Bush's presidency the bill came due.

Then we had the Clinton Years. It's hard not to notice that the economy seemed very strong in the Clinton Years. Why?

Well there are a few explanations. One is that President Reagan's policies and tax cuts ended up causing the expansion in the nineties. This isn't very logical as the key element of President Reagan's economic strategy, tax cuts, had since seen several tax increases. One under President Reagan, one under President Bush and another under President Clinton. If Tax Raises were the economic poison they are supposed to be, how did we get the go-go nineties?

Another clue suggesting that Clintonomics was a rejection to Reagonomics was how Republicans reacted to his proposals. Remember that line above about tax increases being poison? Well check out this commentary by Rep. John Kasich (R-OH).

"It's like a snakebite. The venom is going to be injected into the body of this economy; in our judgment it's going to spread throughout the body and it's going to begin to kill the jobs that American's have."

Of course the history of the 1990's does not exactly support this analysis. Another possible explanation is to explain it all in relation to the Tech Bubble and the admittedly brilliant work of Alan Greenspan during the 1990s. Alan Greenspan, however, felt inclined to share a little of his credit.

"My colleagues and I have been very appreciative of your [president Clinton's] support of the Fed over the years, and your commitment to fiscal discipline, which . . . has been instrumental in achieving what in a few weeks . . . will be the longest economic expansion in the nation's history."

The Tech Bubble certainly was problematic; although two salient facts should be noted. Number one the technology sector wasn't the entire economy. Number two, President Clinton reduction of the deficit helped create the credit necessary to fund the growth in the technology sector (and in other sectors as well).

President Bush's economic policies haven't exactly produced the kind of rampaging economy you'd expect. Part of that is September 11th, of course, which he can hardly be blamed for. But of course President Bush also gets credit for emptying out the surplus and taking us back to deficits in record time.

And along with tax cuts for the wealthy, President Bush has chipped away at all sorts of programs designed to help the working poor and the middle class. In effect, the poor face a tax increase due to cutbacks in services and benefits that the government provides. Their jobs are less safe, they have less access to healthcare, schools for their kids aren't as good, the food they eat is less screened, and the air they breath is less healthy.

Bush Bashing Day 2 : The Domestic Front

In order to understand President Bush's domestic policy it's helpful to know this simple truism.

Conservatives believe that people making, say, $15,000 or $20,000 have life a little too easy. Conservatives also believe that people making say $120,000 or $150,000 have life a little too hard (and don't get them started on the suffering of people making over $500,000).

That's not how I look at it personally (frankly my heart goes out to anybody trying to raise as family on $15,000 a year), but it does explain a lot of President Bush's economic policy.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to make life harder on the people making over $120,000 a year. I have nothing against them, and in fact applaud their accomplishments. I am a proud capitalist. But I think that a Democratic government should focus on protecting and helping those who don't have a lot. The wealthy can, more or less, take care of themselves (as we saw in our little review of President Bush's life story yesterday).

That sad thing is that a single minded focus on making life easier for the wealthy and harder for the working poor is, in the long run, not a solid way to build a society. What's that old line about a chain being only as strong as it's weakest links? President Bush's economic policies are building an America with a few really nice looking links and a lot of busted ones.

Some Quotes from President Bush

I mentioned the Bushisms earlier (twice, if memory serves), but this isn't that. These are other quotes that I think are worth considering in light of what we've discussed today. I'm not going to provide my own commentary, as I think you can draw your own conclusions.

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." Quoted by Richard S Dunham, Washington Watch, "A Gentleman's 'C' for W," Business Week Online, 7-30-01

"I'm the commander - see, I don't need to explain - I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." - Quoted by Bob Woodward.

Q. 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.

President Addresses the Nation in Prime Time Press Conference

I appreciate the chance to -- I deal with my press corps on a regular basis. It's a beneficial -- it's a mutual beneficial society. See, I need them to get the message out, and they need me to be a messenger. And we're working hard to make sure that our relationship is cordial and professional." President Bush, President's Remarks to the Unity Journalists of Color Convention

George W. Bush: There's Adam Clymer, major-league asshole from the New York Times.
Dick Cheney: Oh, yeah, he is, big-time.
Exchange overheard during a Labor Day campaign rally at a high school in Naperville, Il.

"I regret that it [the comment noted directly above] made it to the public airwaves. I was making a comment to Vice President Cheney, I didn't obviously realize the mikes were gonna pick it up. I regret that everybody heard what I said." - President George W. Bush

Enjoy! Check back in tomorrow when we will run through President Bush's economic plans.

The Texas Air National Guard

I'm not going to belabor this issue. President Bush chose to join the Texas Air National Guard as way to avoid the war in Vietnam. It's possible that a family friend interceded in favor of President Bush's father (also a President Bush, although of course this was before even that), and that President Bush 43 didn't make the call himself.

But there is still a contrast between a man, Senator Kerry, who chooses to join the Navy and requests an assignment on a Swift Boat Patrol (one of the more dangerous jobs in the Navy in Vietnam) and President Bush who joined what Molly Ivin's describes (in Shrub the short but happy political life of George W. Bush) as "a safe haven in Texas Guard Units. The unit that accepted Bush included the son of former Texas senator Lloyd Bentsen, the son of former Texas governor John Connally, and enough rich young men to field a polo league. It also included a few black guardsman - several members of the Dallas Cowboy's football team."

Even if you cut out all the stuff about Senator Kerry's medals and whether or not he earned them, there is still a contrast.

I don't know if President Bush failed to attend to his duties in 1972. I suspect he did; I've not seen any convincing information to suggest that he didn't. And you'd think if such information existed, President Bush would be in a hurry to display it.

And that's all I have to say about that period in President Bush's life.

President Bush's Demons

Take this for what it's worth.

This is from a book review of Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President by Justin Frank. I don't buy everything I read in this article, but this section seems pretty plausible to me.

While the conventional wisdom might suggest that Bush fears being unmasked as a dolt, Frank believes that Bush's rigidity -- also manifest in his ironclad daily routine -- protects him from inadvertently revealing the darker emotions he's never come to terms with. In addition to the fear of not living up to his father's example, there's the anger at being expected to, and the fear of the destructive power of that anger should it ever be unleashed. The primitive moral vision Bush subscribes to -- in which the world is divided into the good, "freedom-loving" people of America and "evildoers" like Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein -- is another inflexible schema that imposes order on the internal chaos that's always threatening to rise up and swamp him. Maintaining such control takes a considerable amount of energy, according to Frank, which may be one reason why Bush needs so much sleep and finds it so hard to concentrate.

Bush's born-again Christianity, an anomaly in his patrician East Coast clan, serves a similar function. For Bush, faith is less about the joyful worship of God in a community of believers (as Frank points out, he seldom attends church) than it is about forcing a structure on both the world and his own life without the risks inherent in a genuine attempt to understand either one. As Frank shrewdly observes, unlike your garden variety AA member, the born-again Christian need not ever examine his pre-conversion past; it can be partitioned off and dispensed with as irrelevant, which is just what Bush has done. The rowdy George W. who drank too much and, when soused, actually owned up to his wrath at his father and his own lot in life, now no longer exists.

But wait, I hear you saying. How can President Bush both learn that he is pretty well invulnerable to failure and also learn that he has a terrible dark side that must be kept under control? It's a matter of transference, in my opinion. When he fails, such failings are projected onto others. It's not that the policy in Iraq is struggling or even failing; the real problem is that the media is reporting such struggles or failings.

But like I said, take it for what it's worth. Here is another review of Mr. Frank's work, one from the Guardian UK.

Why Bushisms Matter Part 2

This is from a book called "Fraud: The Strategy Behind the Bush Lies and Why the Media Didn't Tell You." The book was excerpted at Salon, and this is a good quote that goes back to how Bushisms distinguish between President Bush and Senator Kerry (and the inherent phoniness in the distinction).

"The conservative media apparatus is an integrated system in which stories circulate between talk radio, conservative magazines and newspapers and the Fox News Channel, generating momentum and pushing their way into more mainstream news outlets. The most enthusiastic goal of this media machine is locating and publicizing foolish things said by liberals, no matter how obscure or inconsequential the speaker may be, to inspire mainstream contempt for liberals. The idea that the words of some random professor or student are more important than the actions of the country's leaders may be farcical, but by giving endless attention to these alleged outrages, conservatives sustain the image of liberals as powerful and elitist and conservatives as persecuted and victimized. Were they so inclined, liberals could no doubt find conservative citizens who say stupid things too. But no one is paying them to undertake the search.

When ordinary people, told endlessly to be suspicious if not contemptuous of those with too much education, hear people snicker at George W. Bush's inability to put together a grammatical sentence, they sympathize. Far from being damaging, jokes about the president's intelligence and ineloquence serve to distract from his status within the aristocracy, providing evidence that Bush is not one of the elite, indeed is scorned by them. Presidential elections are won and lost over a variety of factors, but which candidate seems the smartest is not one of them. When liberals make jokes about the bizarre tangle of words that sometimes emerges from Bush's mouth, he is only too pleased since it serves the end of separating him from the elite."

Incidently, in spell checking this, the spell checker didn't like the word Bushisms. The suggested replacement word; "Bushwhaking." That's not very signicant, but it is, in some small way, gratifying.

Resentment

A quick note. I've been harping on all of the "good luck" President Bush has had in his life, and I might come off a little resentful. I suppose on some level I do resent President Bush's luck and his wealth. I've had a good life; but it is occasionally a little depressing to consider the many nice things that wealthy people have that I am unlikely to ever experience. But that's not really their fault, nor is it President Bush's fault that he was born into a life where his failures don't matter.

My main point is to suggest that you consider what effect learning that one's failures don't matter has on a person. How does that affect your perception of the world around you?

Something to think about.

Bushisms - Why they Matter

"I'm also honored to be here with the speaker of the House-just happens to be from the state of Illinois. I'd like to describe the speaker as a trustworthy man. He's the kind of fellow who says when he gives you his word he means it. Sometimes that doesn't happen all the time in the political process."-Chicago, March 6, 2001

Why do Bushisms matter?

Well, why are people inarticulate? Well there are a couple of reasons. One is that they aren't totally familiar with English. Another is that they lacked the opportunity to get a good education. There is no shame in either of these reasons. But neither, of course, applies to President Bush.

"I know something about being a government. And you've got a good one."-Stumping for Gov. Mike Huckabee, Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 4, 2002

He presumably learned English from his fellow Bush's and went to school at Andover and Yale and Harvard. Even in these days of grade inflation, one has to assume that people can learn to speak well if they want to. But that wasn't, apparently, high on Bush's priorities.

"Security is the essential roadblock to achieving the road map to peace."-Washington, D.C., July 25, 2003

One wonders what would happen to a young black man, who lacked President Bush's connections, in Midland Texas (or anywhere else in the nation) who talked as inarticulately as President Bush. I suppose such a young man, were he talented and ambitious enough to try and get a good job, would be lectured endlessly about how important it is to present yourself. He'd be told that it is essential in our society to communicate clearly and to act a certain way. But, of course, nobody gave President Bush that lecture, and if they did, it apparently had no effect (either on his success or his speaking ability.

"I understand small business growth. I was one."-New York Daily News, Feb. 19, 2000

Of course we might also note President Bush and Senator Kerry came from remarkably similar backgrounds. They both grew up in privileged New England families and they both attended the finest schools. President Bush sounds like a Texan, Senator Kerry sounds like a New Englander.

President Bush sounds like a natural normal joe; Senator Kerry sounds like an educated New England Senator.

And, of course the one that we are asked to believe is a big phony is Senator Kerry.

She Don't Lie, She Don't Lie, She Don't Lie

Incidently, I am relaxing a bit my rule about always typing President Bush, rather than just Bush. I'll continue to do my best, because I still have respect for the office, but if I miss a few, I'm not going to shed any tears.

For those who don't know President Bush has been accused of abusing Cocaine in his "lost years." Here's a This Modern World Cartoon that gives the salient details as to why we might suspect that this is true.

I'm not very interested in the moral issue of whether or not President Bush did Drugs. What matters to me is that, if this did happen, and as nothing has been conclusively proven, than it is another example of him getting into a bad situation, and that situation having little to no long term consequences.

Edited to add; for those who want additional info on Mr. Tomorrow's charges, here's a story from the 2000 election.

Bush's Education

This also comes from the article by Joan Walsh, referenced below.

Bush atteneded Yale in the 1960's, at a time when there were numerous protests. His comment on those who attended Yale, as related by one of his biographers is as follows:

"These are the ones who felt so guilty that they had been given so many blessings in life -- like an Andover or a Yale education -- that they felt they should overcompensate by trying to give everyone else in life the same thing."

An interesting comment from someone who would make education a focus of his Presidency and Governorship later in life.

Business Acumen

It goes without saying that President Bush's business career was not very inspiring. He worked for a variety of businesses each of which largely failed. And yet, for President Bush, failure was never the end. There was always someone there to pick him up, dust him off, and give him tons of money. Frankly, they were probably there to catch him before he even landed.

And why?

Well it wasn't because of his business acumen. It was strictly because of his connections. His only success in business was that other people liked using him to get help from his father.

To quote Salon's Joan Walsh, in a review of several biographies of President Bush, "Then came the putative "entrepreneurial" years, when Bush returned to his dad's Midland, Texas, oil roots and got family and friends to help him fail ever upward. Eventually he turned his investment in the aptly named, money-losing Arbusto Energy into a million-dollar stake in a much bigger firm and ponied up about $600,000 for a tiny share of the Texas Rangers baseball team, which was worth almost $15 million when he sold it last year. (To be fair, maybe the books explain more than I've given them credit for. Because if your life worked out this dang well, you might wanna run for president, too.)"

Yep. That's not of course what life teaches most of us. Most of us learn, sooner or later, that you have to pay for your mistakes and so you are better off not making any, if you can avoid it. I mean over and over again, we are going to see that if President Bush had to live the same kind of life you and I live, well, he sure wouldn't be president.

Like Ms. Walsh says, "if your life worked out this dang well, you might wanna run for president, too."

A Brief History of President Bush

I am tryin to play this particular post straight, just so you know.

Here's the official bio, from the White House.

President Bush was born on July 6, 1946, in New Haven, Connecticut, and he grew up in Midland and Houston, Texas. He received a bachelor's degree from Yale University in 1968, then served as an F-102 fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard. President Bush received a Master of Business Administration from Harvard Business School in 1975. After graduating, he moved back to Midland and began a career in the energy business. After working on his father's successful 1988 presidential campaign, he assembled the group of partners that purchased the Texas Rangers baseball franchise in 1989.

He served as managing general partner of the Texas Rangers until he was elected Governor on November 8, 1994, with 53.5 percent of the vote. He became the first Governor in Texas history to be elected to consecutive four-year terms when he was re-elected on November 3, 1998, with 68.6 percent of the vote.

The devil, as they say, is in the details.

Hmmm. Pretty sketchy details on his "career in the energy business." But we'll get back to that.

The Bio also neglects to note that he went to the Phillips Academy, Andover, Massachusetts. That's quite a distance from Texas. And of course we'll be returning to his education in a bit as well.

Laying My Cards on the Table - President Bush's Character

It's always tricky deciding whether to put the argument before the evidence or the evidence before the argument. If you but the argument first, particularly in a case like this where I'll build it over a number of posts, it will sound like a bit over the top. On the other hand if I provide the evidence first, some of it will sound nick-picky and some of it will sound mean spirited, and you don't really know how to put it all together.

In this case, however, I think the danger of you tuning my evidence out because of my argument is the lesser of two evils. It's not like you don't know that this argument is going to be Bush Bashing.

At any rate, here is my assessment of President Bush's Character. Life has taught him that his mistakes don't matter; reality protects him from the consequences of his errors. He has also become very certain of his positions and his ideas; to the point where other points of view are largely irrelevant. To me this is a dangerous combination.

But wait, you ask, how could come to such a nutty conclusion? Read on and find out. Well, read the posts I am posting after this post but which will appear closer to the top of the page.

Three Days of Bush Bashing

Yep. I am out of town Thursday and Friday or this would be longer, but as it is we have three days of Bashing Bush ahead of it.

But before the merriment starts let's be clear on what I mean by Bush Bashing. I mean criticizing the President. To Bash Bush is to criticize him. You might think that there is some necessary threshold of criticism one needs to reach before it really becomes Bush Bashing; but you'd be wrong. Any criticism of President Bush no matter how minor is Bashing Bush.

Also for the benefit of those who have not been following American Political Discourse, I am also a Bush Hater. A Bush Hater, this year, is someone who does not want President Bush to win reelection. In other years it was someone who did not agree with President Bush's agenda.

It might seem like these terms are somewhat weighted against Democrats; as who wants to be described as a Basher or a Hater? But that is the dialogue in America. One nice thing about living in America as a Liberal is that we, apparently, completely control the discourse in America. Conservatives complain all the time about our stranglehold on the media, and this is just one more evidence of it. I am sure if Republicans controlled the national discourse, they would apply much gentler term those who disagree with the President.

But now that we have our terms clarified, allow me to repeat that you have three days of Bush Bashing ahead of you. On the first day I will cover President Bush's character. On the second day I will discuss his domestic agenda and on the third day I will cover his foreign policy accomplishments.

Some of you, no doubt, are already upset at the partisan tone I'm taking. That's fine; and I'll understand if you decided to check out for a few days. But there is a very important election coming up. And there are few actions you might take more partisan than voting. I hope you are all going to do that, and I want to present information and analysis on President Bush to make your decision easier in November.

Some Additional Quotes

"If you are a proud democrat you are an extreme leftist." - Rush Limbaugh

"Even fanatical Muslim terrorists don't hate America like liberals do." - Ann Coulter

"I tell people, don't kill all the liberals. Leave enough around so we can have two on every campus - living fossils - so we will never forget what these people stood for." - Rush Limbaugh

"We're going to keep on building the party [the Texas G.O.P.] until we're hunting Democrats with dogs." - Phil Gramm

"Don't do it because the Republicans represent a great alternative - because they don't. Do it because the Democrats - far to many of them - are evil, pure and simple." - Joseph Farah

New Quote

Here you go. I'll update the Quotes page next week, for a change.

Responding to Criticism

Due to repeated complaints a post on President Bush's diction has been deleted. We hope that this meets with our readership's approval.

I am thinking about having my Spine removed

Yesterday I posted a bit on a gaffe by President Bush, a post for which I have received a certain amount of criticism. Apparently pointing out Presidential Gaffes is symbolic of the evil partisanship that has engulfed our society. I, in fact, have noticed this partisanship, and I find it rather distressing. One solution is to become a spineless Democrat, an Alan Colmes Democrat, a weakling Democrat. On the surface this would seem to be an ideal solution, and removing my spine would make it a lot easier to hide behind my water heater.

But doubts remain.

For I've also noticed that Ann Coulter gives a blanket label of Traitor to Liberals. I've noticed that Rush Limbaugh describes liberalism as a psychosis. I've noticed that Dennis Prager insinuated that Liberals are comfortable with child molestation. I've noticed many other examples just as mean spirited.

You might say something like, "Hey does Rush Limbaugh represent the views of the White House?" The answer is that he does. Vice President Cheney and other administration officials have appeared on his show, where he has fawned over them. The Bush Administration has never criticized Rush, not even when he compared the abuse at Abu Ghraib (abuse that led to the deaths of a few involved) to a fraternity hazing.

Also to underline a point, I don't know any liberal with a voice equal to Ann Coulter's who hates conservatives the way she hates liberals. I'm not disappointed in that; rather I'm proud of "my" side for not stooping that level.

We have a war of words going on right now. The conservatives are bringing rhetorical mustard gas and howitzers; I have a pen knife and even that is too much of an advantage.

I'm sorry if you don't like the way I do things; but I can't please everybody. And given that I can't please everybody, I'll settle for pleasing myself.

I guess I'll keep my spine after all.

Round the Horn Part the Duex Ex Machina

Mercury X23 has a discussion of the intersection of politics and celebrity.

Dohiyi Mir has changed locales, so deserves our congratulations. Also he has some cheering info on recent polling data. Cheering to me, at any rate. Less so to President Bush's supporters.

corrente has an update on President Bush's reported absence from his national guard duties.

Collective Sigh has an interesting and sad commentary on free speech zones and American Democracy.

Iddybud has a letter from Ohio on John Kerry's speech, accepting the nomination.

It's Craptastic has a great little tidbit on a certain Republican running for public office in a state not his own.

Musing's Musings has a nice run down on the above-mentioned unnamed candidate for office (I'm not naming him so as not to ruin It's Craptistics post, but he does have a name).

Pen Elayne on the Web has some comments on Air America and how she likes it.

SpeedKill has a treatise on the argument that having Saddam out of power justifies the war.

Trish Wilson's Blog has a story on deadbeat dads contrasting reality and satire.

The Fulcrum has some commentary on Bruce Springsteen and this election.

Steve Gilliard's News Blog has a great (and well written) piece on French Cooking. Personally I would love to learn to make cassoulet but it just seems so gosh darn hard. Someday I won't let that recipe book intimidate me.

Some people just can't handle a little Slime

In this case the person is Senator John McCain, who called a recent ad put out by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth "dishonest and dishonorable." All of a sudden, Senator McCain has recalled that in the last campaign cycle people supporting President Bush but not members of the campaign did a real number on him.

Those interested in this issue might want to know about how this "grassroots" organization is being funded. Joe Conason has one account; Media Matters for America has another. Both are good.

It is worth noting, as the AP story notes, that members of Kerry's actual crew have testified to his heroism; while swift boat veterans who served on other boats have testified that his heroism is largely fictitious. Which group sounds more believable is an exercise left up to the reader.

A Fable for Our Times

But written (or compiled) by Aesop. It's called "The Seller of Images."

A certain man made a wooden image of Mercury and offered it for sale. When no one appeared willing to buy it, in order to attract purchasers, he cried out that he had the statue to sell of a benefactor who bestowed wealth and helped to heap up riches.

One of the bystanders said to him, "My good fellow, why do you sell him, being such a one as you describe, when you may yourself enjoy the good things he has to give?"

"Why," he replied, "I am in need of immediate help, and he is wont to give his good gifts very slowly."

Somehow it seems to appropriate to this season of politics.

Kaleidoscope

Talking Points Memo is a great website; well written and put together. Today Mr. Marshall (who writes the blog) has a bit on the race in Illinois against Barack Obama for the United States Senate. Apparently the Republicans are considering running either Andrea Barthwell or Alan Keyes.

Andrea Barthwell has a few drawbacks, in particular there is an embarrassing Memo out there. According to the Associated Press, "In front of her staff, Andrea Grubb Barthwell made repeated comments about the sexual orientation of a staff member and used a kaleidoscope to make sexually offensive gestures . . ." I don't know why, but that little bit of bizarrity is to take this rather pathetic story and make it something more.

As for Alan Keyes, Mr. Marshall seems to prefer him (as do I). And according to Mr. Keye's website, he "[i]s capable of leading our country to widespread moral and political renewal, once all of America has a chance to see and hear, first-hand, his self-evident brilliance." So that's something to look forward to. Still, I was suitably impressed by Obama's performance at the Democratic National Committee to favor his election (which seems pretty certain at this point).

Heh heh heh . . . Kaleidoscope . . . heh heh heh.

A Change in Taxation

I was going to comment on this eventually after hearing two guys on the radio talking about this. President Bush is apparently going to propose eliminating Income Tax and switching us over to a national Sales Tax (the guys on the radio opined that President Bush should sale it more as getting rid of the Income tax as opposed to setting up a national Sales Tax). Echidne of the Snakes has done a great and detailed review of why the arguments in favor of this change don't make a lot of a sense (which kind of renders pointless my own review of such problems).

My question for the guys on the radio and Karl Rove is exactly how foolish do you think Americans really are? Do you really think they are going to hear something like "we promise to get rid of the income tax" and just mindlessly assume that there are no hidden costs? If they are that gullible, why not just offer everybody free ice cream if they vote for President Bush?

Anyway go read Echidne of the Snakes' comments, they really are quite good.

Color Blind Society

Interesting article by Michelle Malkin on how hard it is to be a journalist and a conservative and what is occasionally known as a person of color (she is Asian (at least she looks Asian in the picture)). Apparently there is a conference on diversity in journalism, but what really interests Ms. Malkin is that there be more diversity of opinion, not of skin color.

So, apparently, in order to test other reporters diversity of opinion she has prepared a questionnaire with such questions as "I supported Bill Clinton's impeachment" and "I believe Racial Profiling at the Airport makes sense" Basically her questionnaire is a list of 20 conservative positions, and gives reporters five points for every conservative position they take. After her questionnaire she says;

" I'm sure a large number of my culturally and ideologically diverse readers would earn a perfect score, as I did. What is the average score among UNITY attendees? Take the test, my fellow journalists of "diversity," and show us your true colors."

So basically the more conservative you are the more diverse you are? Makes perfect sense.

This is as clear an illustration of the Conservative commitment to ideological diversity as I have seen. In the long run Conservatives don't want ideological diversity; they want the adoption of Conservative principles. Ideological diversity is just a buzz word they've adopted to strengthen their own hand.

Children's Crusade

20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
1 Corinthians 14:20

Dennis Prager has gone to the trouble of analyzing us Democrats succinctly and completely based on the speech of Ilana Wexler, the 12 year old founder of a group called Kids for Kerry out in California. In review it is Mr. Prager's analysis, however, that I would characterize as childish.

Basically he takes some liberal stereotypes, assumes they apply to the entire party, and explain that the decision to put Ms. Wexler on stage stemmed from those reasons. Allow me to demonstrate a similar analysis.

Republicans are mean grumpy sourpusses. We all know that they tend to wear stodgy suits and have poor sense of humor. So it makes sense that they would pick Dick Cheney, a humorless mean-spirited grumpy guy to be their vice president.

See how grown up and sensible that kind of arguing is? Of course I only wasted three sentences of your time; Dennis Prager goes on with this kind of argument for considerably longer.

Of course he eventually gets around to trashing young Ms. Wexler.

"Listening to a 12-year-old publicly mock the Republican vice president of the United States brought Democrats almost orgasmic pleasure, especially since no Democrats had the courage to do so in their speeches.

Of course, this girl has accomplished nothing compared to Dick Cheney. She has no wisdom, no humility and no knowledge beyond the leftist platitudes spoon-fed by her parents and schools. "

I am guessing that Mr. Prager has never read the story of the Emperors New Clothes. He then trots out the lame argument that using the F-Word in Rolling Stone is somehow worse than using it on the senate floor to a Democratic Senator. Of course we all know what the real difference is. Mr. Kerry is a Democrat; Mr. Cheney is a Republican.

For those of you interested in seeing what Ms. Wexler said, here is a link to a video. it's short, and I can't seem to find a transcript.

Having Served

An interesting, if President Bush-Serving article by David Brooks at the New York Times today. Basically he is exploring how we as a nation view the military. His first point is a little silly, which is the idea that we either love the Military or loath the military; those are our only two options. I am pretty sure that our emotions towards the military are a bit more shaded than that.

His second point that, while those who loathe the military are full of crap, it may not be much more healthy to worship the military. As he puts it:

"When the military is in ill repute, we ask too little of it. When it is admired, we ask too much. Now, for example, many people seem to think that military experience is the key to foreign policy judgment and national leadership.

But I can't help noticing that John F. Kennedy, who knew something about heroism, didn't look to military heroes when he was contemplating the crisis of his times. In his book "Profiles in Courage," he celebrated senators. The courage he investigated wasn't military courage at all. It was political courage, which requires a different set of traits."

The problem is that Future President Kerry's decision to serve in combat conditions and Current President Bush's decisions to avoid service in combat conditions aren't significant in showing how these gentlemen make foreign policy decisions. They are important, however, how how they reflect character. Whether you like it or not, President Bush avoided combat by entering the Guard (we all know that wouldn't work today but it did work back then). Senator Kerry chose to go to war and to serve in combat conditions. You need to make your own decision on how significant those choices were, but to me they reveal the character of the two men involved.

As a sideline, an astute cultural observer like Mr. Brooks could hardly be blind to the fact that Republicans have been attacking Liberals as unpatriotic and unmanly. Future President Kerry's service makes those particular charges hard to apply (not that they aren't going to try anyway).

Edited for accuracy due to comments in a note below.

You should know this

You probably do. It is a well known, scientifically demonstrable fact that readers of "Make me a Commentator!!!" are the smartest people on the planet. But just in case you missed this particular story, here it is.

Senator Kerry voted against $87 billion dollars which was in part going to support the troops. I've heard a couple of explanations for this. One is that he wanted President Bush and congressional Republicans to agree to rescind some of the tax cuts in order to pay for the $87 billion. The other explanation is that there $60 billion for the troops that Kerry wanted to see passed right away, and $27 Billion for reconstruction contracts that Kerry wanted to consider in more detail. At any rate he voted against the $87 billion.

You already know more about this funding than the Bush Campaign would like you too.

But here's another tidbit that I've mentioned before. President Bush threatened to veto the $87 billion, including $60 billion to support our troops if the bill was not configured the way he wanted it. He threatened to veto this bill that he is now heckling Future President Kerry over.

Of course there is always the possibility that this was just rhetoric to force the bill into a configuration he was happy with. If they had resisted him, he would still have signed the bill for the troops. It's impossible to say. By the same token, the bill passed with a vast majority. What would Senator Kerry have done if the vote had been close? It's hard to say. Perhaps he would have voted for it, in that situation.

This does seem to be a campaign strategy of the Republicans this time around; accuse your opponents of doing, more or less, what you are doing. And hope the American people are too dumb to catch on. We saw this with the evil Move on Nazi Ads. For those who don't remember this; Move on had a contest called Bush in 30 seconds. Two ads used Nazi imagery and were yanked from the competition. Republicans pointed out that this proved Democrats inherent viciousness and evilness and that such ads had no place in the national discourse.

And then, of course, used clips from those ads in an ad of their own. Guess it's not that bad when they do it.

I know I've said all this before; but it drives me nuts when the Republicans say that Black is White and approximately half of America (or more) nods in agreement.

Edited to add; this was triggered by readint the Daily Howler, which I really can't say enough about--you should read it every day.

Let's have Michael Moore Executed!

Here's a site where you can sign a petition calling on the Attorney General to bring up treason charges against Michael Moore. Treason is a crime which carries the death penalty, for those who don't know.

Thank goodness we live in a country that values freedom of speech. Where we can listen the ramblings of Jon Alveraz (founder of Patriotic Americans Boycotting Anti-American Hollywood (PABAAH). Yep. Because Democrats, unlike some Republicans, believe in that we should allow others to express their opinions, even when such opinions are clearly anti-American, as Mr. Alverez's are.

Mr. Alverez want's to limit people's free speech; that is his goal in life. He wants to live in an America where only conservatives are free to speak openly. And taking down Michael Moore (who, I'll admit, I have some issues with as well) is just one method to create that America.

Mr. Alverez's campaign to keep Fahrenheit 9/11 from opening was presumably not as successful as he would have liked it to be, but calling for the execution of Michael Moore; well, maybe Mr. Alverez should get one of those things you squeeze to relieve your aggression.

Incidently, 2,134 people have signed up to have Michael Moore Executed so far. So I guess he's probably safe for the time being.

New Quote

And a
new quotes page. Enjoy.

I am Proud to be a Liberal

Just in case anybody has any doubts on that score. I am a liberal, I'm proud of it. Anybody who wants to call me a Liberal should go right ahead. I'm also proud to be called a progressive. Calling me a progressive does not conflict with calling me a liberal. They aren't exactly synonyms, but in political terms they are similar.

Rush Limbaugh made a lot of hay yesterday out of a quote by Rob Reiner in which Reiner said . . . Well I'll just print the quote.

"I don't believe that there is a bias in the mainstream media. I think you have a fairly balanced mainstream media and I think you do have certain outlets, whether it's Fox or Rush Limbaugh or certain other outlets that are heavily tilted the other way. That's not to say now that there's now more progressive outlets being formed."

From that statement Rush Limbaugh discerns that Mr. Reiner is embarrassed of his liberalism. If he wasn't he would say "Liberal" outlets rather than "progressive" outlets.

In other news President Bush has said that "Results Matter" in this election. I'd agree, which of course is why I'm voting for Future President Kerry. Who replied to President Bush's attacks with this accurate observation, "They don't have a record to run on so all they can do is attack."

Round the Horn and back again

Some people say that Happy Furry Puppy Story Time has revealed a great new rhetorical device certain to win any argument. 

Gamers Nook returns us to those halcyon days of yore with a musical selection.

All Facts and Opinions relays why she will not be voting for Ralph Nader.

Left is Right explores the possibility of a new political party arising at this time.

Archy has a great pitch for a political comedy with one minor drawback; it's happening in real life.

Bark Bark Woof Woof has actual reporting from the Democratic convention floor.

The Invisible Library has a discussion of the conditions protesters have been met with at the Democratic Convention.

Respectful of Otters has a book review of what sounds like a fascinating book, called Beyond Fear.

Well that's enough for this week--busy morning, but hopefully I'll be back later.

Cartoonish villains and Revenge Fantasies

Went and saw "I, Robot" last night. It wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it might be, so I was reasonably satisfied. But that's not what I want to talk about here. Instead I want to talk about an trailer I saw before the main movie started for a forthcoming movie called "Paparazzi."

Apparently the movie is about some big Hollywood action star who finds himself the subject of the Paparazzi. They take pictures of him and his wife naked, and also pictures of his kid. Then he punches one of them, and, well, why don't I let the official synopsis tell what happens next.

"The paparazzi become increasingly relentless, ruthless - even criminal. One night they trap Bo and his family in a high-speed chase that ends in a terrible accident, sending Abby into intensive care and 6-year-old Zach into a coma."

Yep, a reporter (of sorts) becomes transformed into a cartoonish monster, people who kill without mercy. You have to watch the trailer to look at how cartoonishly evil they look as they flash their cameras again and again into the stars eyes as he drives. One of the paparazzi literally says "let's box them in."

And guess who is one of the producers of this movie is? That's right, it's Mel Gibson.

This is a revenge fantasy movie. Revenge fantasies are pleasant enough, I guess. But they always involve dehumanizing your victims. The hero is totally justified in what he does by the very inhuman nature of his enemies. The Paparazzi are evil, pure and simple, and so killing them, taking the law into your own hands (as the character in this movie apparently does), well, that's totally justified.

I mean it's only murder if your victims are human, isn't it? I mean if we thought that the Paparazzi was so aggressive because he was about to lose his house, and his marriage was on the rocks, if we knew that he took these pictures because he is angry at a Hollywood that betrays the huge rewards given him, if we know that he cries and laughs and feels pain, in short if we know that he is Human . . . Well it takes all the fun out of the revenge fantasy.

You know, now that I think about, I'm not so sure I like the idea of enjoying revenge fantasies. Seems pretty destructive.

The West Wing

There's an article over at Salon which contains interviews with Rob Reiner and Richard Schiff, who plays Toby Ziegler on NBC's The West Wing. A good interview, well worth checking out.

"What issues matter to you?

Retaining our claim to democracy is one. President Clinton gave an incredible speech the other night -- you know, "forming a more perfect union." We've been fighting, living and dying for 200 years to continue the tradition of forming a more perfect union. Sometimes we regress, but it's all formulated on the dialectic and discussion. It's not dictatorial and not based on rigid pillars of ideology."

Anyway, you have to watch a little ad to see the interview, but he also comments on the direction the show has taken since the departure of Aaron Sorkin, if you are interested in that.

Suzi Registered Voter and the Commentators

Suzi Registered Voter had certainly enjoyed listening to the Big Democratic Dog and other speakers at the Democratic Convention. As she was walking around she saw Conservative Cat talking to a group of very odd looking creatures.

Suzi had never seen such odd creatures in all her life. They were a little like moles and a little like jellyfish and a little like horseshoe crabs. After a moment she recognized them as Commentators. Note, dear reader, that the brave commentators of the Liberal Coalition look nothing like this. No, they look much more attractive and charming.

You see a television Commentator has to twist himself or herself into so many strange positions and has such a tiny area to do it in (particularly on those little handheld TV's people have), that they soon end up looking very strangely indeed.

Suzi Registered Voter was curious about these strange creatures and walked over listening to them commentating on the proceedings.

She heard one commentator growl out that the Big Democratic Dog had called half the people in America whackos. Suzi put her hand over her mouth. What a terrible thing to say about so many people. But then Suzi, being a very reflective person, considered what the Big Democratic Dog had said. Why, she couldn't remember the Big Democratic Dog even saying the word "Whacko."

Another one of the commentators hopped up and down and said, in a very quick voice, "The problem with John Kerry is John Kerry is out of the mainstream." Suzi thought about John Kerry's opinions on the issues, and concluded that he wasn't far out of the mainstream.

A third commentator walked forward, trying to look very formal and dignified (although his tie didn't really fit around his neck), and said that when the Big Democratic Dog was President, Ken Lay had stayed in the White House 13 times. Suzi Registered Voter had to put her hand over her mouth again, this time to keep from giggling. Everybody knew that that story was a bunch of baloney, and it was silly that this commentator brought it up again.

Suzi Registered Voter decided that the Commentators were being a bit silly and she walked off to hear another speaker. A very dynamic woman was standing, and one of the other conventioners said that she was the wife of the man who would be President. Suzi Registered Voter thought that she made many good and inspiring points.

"For many generations of people around the globe, that is what America has represented. A symbol of hope, a beacon brightly lit by the optimism of its people- people coming from all over the world.

Americans believed they could know all there is to know, build all there is to build, break down any barrier, tear down any wall. We sent men to the moon, and when that was not far enough, we sent Galileo to Jupiter, we sent Cassini to Saturn, and Hubble to touch the very edges of the universe at the very dawn of time. Americans showed the world what can happen when people believe in amazing possibilities.

And, that, for me, is the spirit of America - the America you and I are working for in this election. It is the America that people all across this nation want to restore - from Iowa to California, from Florida to Michigan, from Washington State to my home state of Pennsylvania. It is the America the world wants to see, shining, hopeful, and bright once again."

Suzi nodded at these words and thought they were much more interesting and important than all the fibs Conservative Cat and her Commentator friends were spreading.

Woe is Ann Coulter!

Oh what tribulations does Americans most well known leggy Conservative Commentator have to suffer?  After writing what could be her definitive column on liberals, USA Today spikes it.  Poor Ann.  Let us all shed tears in her general direction.

Fortunately she posted her mangum opus on her website, so that we don't have to miss out on her brilliance.  She opens her treatise with this brilliant paragraph.

"Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston, conservatives are deploying a series of covert signals to identify one another, much like gay men do. My allies are the ones wearing crosses or American flags. The people sporting shirts emblazened with the "F-word" are my opponents. Also, as always, the pretty girls and cops are on my side, most of them barely able to conceal their eye-rolling."

Note the immediate use of Biblical imagery. By calling Democrats the "Spawn of Satan" right off the top she places us in a black and white old testament context. We know who the evil doers are (they are Democrats). The second part of that sentence, however, throws a different light on her role in this Manichean Drama.

She describes herself and other conservatives as having to use covert signals, like gay men. In this biblical setting that Ann Coulter has thrust us into with her prose, one can only assume that doing anything like a "gay man" would be, in a word, wrong. Ann is defining the Democrats as evil "spawn of Satan," but she's not all that good herself apparently. One hears echoes of the one hundred forty sixth Psalm ("Put not your trust in princes") or of Bob Dylan's Subterranean Homesick Blues ("Don't follow leaders / watch the parking meters.")

Ann brushes the implications of this statement aside almost immediately, as if, having raised the doubt, she is content to ignore it. Instead she begins describing her allies and her enemies in this Mephistophelian landscape within which she finds herself. Her allies are those who wear the cross or those who wear the American flag. Like the Florida delegates for example.



Perhaps I spoke to quickly about us returning to moral clarity. For these are pictures of delegates to the convention. Presumably they are Democrats and therefore the "Spawn of Satan." Is Ann saying that she is allied with the Spawn of Satan who adopt a more pleasing image? Or is she deliberately confusing her own role in this drama.

The line about people wearing T shirts with the F word on them is a bit coy, but the meaning is clear. Ann can't be literally talking about people with those shirts on, but clearly is talking about a metaphorical shirt. Finally she moves on to talk about pretty girls being on her side. One is reminded of another biblical passage, namely the second half of Isaiah chapter three, in which another group of "pretty girls" is mentioned. Truly Ann has plunged us into a spiritual minefield where nothing is exactly as it should be.

Or else Ann is just a sloppy writer and doesn't really think through the implications of what she is writing.

Apparently USA today has decided that the latter explanation is more plausible, and I have to say, now that I've dropped my erudite critic voice, that I agree. Salon has a great article on how and why she was dropped that goes into her piece further. The piece contains a great bit on comparing Ann Coulter to Michael Moore (who USA Today has apparently tapped to cover the Republican Convention.

"USA Today editorial page editor Brian Gallagher, defending the choice, told a reporter Coulter "was a voice from [the conservative] side with standing and visibility." Notice how credibility was not a requirement. By contrast, for the Republican convention in August, USA Today has tapped Academy Award-winning director Michael Moore to file dispatches.

Are the two really compatible? Nowhere in his movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" does Moore suggest, for instance, that Republicans hate America or that Bush's Cabinet members are akin to Iraqi terrorists. Moore is an accomplished and, yes, partisan filmmaker; Coulter is a factually challenged name-caller. Could USA Today honestly not tell the difference?"

Anyway, tune back in later when we continue the adventures of Suzi Registered Voter at the Democratic National Convention.

Suzi Registered Voter and The "Haters"

- with apologies to Cat Lovers. I am, of course, a Dog Lover.

One day Suzi Registered Voter was walking along. She saw a big crowd of people talking to each other excitedly. Suzi couldn't hear what they were saying but they were waving their arms. One person even got on his chair and raised his hands over his head.

While Suzi was looking at the crowd of excited people, a Conservative Cat walked up and said, "Look at all those people who are filled with hate."

Suzi looked down and saw Conservative Cat and said, "They don't look so hate-filled to me."

Conservative Cat sat on his haunches and said, "Oh they are trying to pretend not to be hate filled, but they all hate President Bush."

Suzi sat down next to Conservative Cat and said, "Oh. I don't like hate-filled people."

Conservative Cat purred a little to itself and said, "Oh well you wouldn't like those people than. You're better off just ignoring them."

Suzi Registered Voter thought a moment, and said, "But how do I know they are hate-filled?"

Conservative Cat looked up at this and said, rather brusquely, "Well I just told you they hate President Bush. They hate him so much they try to hide their hatred. That's why they are smiling over there." He waved a paw over at the crowd of people. "They are thinking of how much they hate President Bush and trying to trick people into thinking they are positive, upbeat people."

Suzi nodded sagely. "That's very tricky. But with your warning, perhaps I should still go over and hear what they are saying."

Conservative Cat leapt at this and landed right in front of Suzi. "Oh no, Suzi. Don't go over there. You don't want to be around such hate-filled liars and hypocrites."

Suzi stood up and said, "Well I can listen for a little while. Look the Big Democratic Dog (and dear readers, I'll leave it up to you to guess who this might be) is going to make a speech."

Conservative Cat hissed and said, "Oh don't listen to him. He's a liar and a cad and a murderer and all kinds of bad stuff. He's the worst of the lot." At this point Conservative Cat began foaming at the mouth. Cats can't usually foam at the mouth, but Conservative Cat managed it just the same. "I hate him. I hate him. I wish he had been killed for all the bad things he did."

Suzi Registered Voter didn't say anything.

After a moment Conservative Cat, in a sulky voice, said, "Anyway he's just trying to steal the thunder of their new candidate. He wants Senator Kerry to lose so his wife (who I hates and hates and hates) can be President."

Suzi Registered Voter didn't say anything, but wondered how Conservative Cat knew so much about what the Big Democratic Dog was thinking.

The Conservative Cat started pacing away, still a little sulkily. "Go over there with the Bush-Haters if you want. Anybody who even looks at those people must hate Bush already, Bush-Hater." Cats have many admirable qualities but they are rarely good sports.

So Suzi Registered Voter walked over just as the Big Democratic Dog was finishing his speech. So this is what Suzi Registered Voter heard.

"In the Civil War, America was at a crossroads, divided over whether to save the union and end slavery-we chose a more perfect union. In the 1960s, America was at a crossroads, divided again over civil rights and women's rights. Again, we chose a more perfect union. As I said in 1992, we're all in this together; we have an obligation both to work hard and to help our fellow citizens, both to fight terror and to build a world with more cooperation and less terror. Now again, it is time to choose.

Since we're all in the same boat, let us chose as the captain of our ship a brave good man who knows how to steer a vessel though troubled waters to the calm seas and clear skies of our more perfect union. We know our mission. Let us join as one and say in a loud, clear voice: Send John Kerry."

That didn't sound very hate-filled, Suzi Registered Voter thought, but she realized that she hadn't listened to very much at all. So she stayed and paid attention to the whole convention. And Conservative Cat, high on a perch in a tree in a park near the convention, scowled and made angry growls and hisses.

Let's all go to the movies!

I went to see Control Room last night. It was an excellent thought provoking movie.

I think the greatest strength of the film is how it humanizes Muslims / Arabs / Middle Easterners. Instead of seeing the faceless villains or victims of other movies, we see them talking and expressing points of views. I know that's not a revelation or anything; but it is nice to have it brought home. I retain a healthy skepticism about Al-Jazeera (for about the same reasons that I retain a healthy skepticism about Fox News), but it is good to understand a little better where they are coming from.

More on Angry Democrats

Robert Novak writes an astoundingly myopic piece today on the current and constant Republican script; we Democrats have an irrational hatred of President Bush.  Of course it must be irrational; President Bush's actions deserve nothing but praise and admiration. 

The most myopic part of Novak's piece is his coverage of Max Cleland.

"Until 2002, Cleland had been treated gently by Republicans as a Vietnam War triple amputee veteran, and he never lost an election. This treatment enabled him to float in the Senate under the ideological radar, representing conservative Georgia while voting the straight liberal line. It ended two years ago with then Rep. Saxby Chambliss's Republican campaign, which pointed out that Cleland bowed to organized labor's demands to vote against the homeland security bill because of union representation questions."

Anybody familiar with the 2002 Georgia race in question has to know that there is a lot more going on than one vote. Indeed the Bush Administration set up an organized attempt to slander and slur Mr. Cleland. A more complete reading of that campaign might have included a certain ad put out by the Republican Party. Jim Boyd wrote an article for the Star Tribune on the subject.

"Take what they did to Max Cleland, for example. Cleland is a triple-amputee Vietnam veteran, former head of the Department of Veterans Affairs and for one term a U.S. senator from Georgia. Then the Republicans decided to do a number on him. In a hard-fought campaign for re-election, Cleland got everything the Republicans could throw at him, including the kitchen sink. His challenger was Saxby Chambliss, picked and managed by the White House's Karl Rove and Georgia GOP Chairman Ralph Reed. The absolute low point was a television ad which showed Cleland's photo together with those of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, equating the three. Cleland, the ad said, had shown his true colors by voting against homeland security. He was, the ad implied, unpatriotic.

Of course he wasn't. Through the long process of creating the Department of Homeland Security, Cleland had supported an alternative plan pushed by Democrats. It differed with the Republican version chiefly in the way it treated federal employees who are members of unions."

At any rate Mr. Novak is right that there exists a difference between the image that the party wants to portray to undecided voters and the image that the party loyalists would like to see. But this difference is not unique to the Democratic Party; President Bush is going to face the same problem when he finally holds his campaign.

The Block of the Writers

Nice to know that I'm not the only one suffering from a lack of inspiration. Jeff Jacoby has an article today in which he clearly wants to focus on how much we Liberals hate President Bush in the context of the ongoing election. So naturally he takes as his chief evidence an article written a year ago.

Because that's presumably easier than digging up a lot of hateful things we are saying right now. Granted that article, "The Case for Bush Hatred" by Jonathan Chait, published in The New Republic, was a bit extreme. But most Conservatives apparently believe that even mild criticism of President Bush, coming from liberals, can only be motivated by hatred. So you'd think he could find some examples.

Jacoby's not content to recruit an article from last November. Why not through in a deception while he's at it? Let's read this sentence and see if we can pick out the lie. "That was before MoveOn.org posted two videos on its website depicting Bush as Adolf Hitler."

Did you catch the deception? If you read that story it sounds like MoveOn posted two videos comparing President Bush to Hitler doesn't it? But the truth is somewhat different. MoveOn held a contest, entitled Bush in 30 seconds (if memory serves), allowing people to turn in ads criticizing President Bush. Two contestants turned in the ads which used Nazi imagery. MoveOn promptly removed the ads, saying that they had exceeded the boundaries of good taste.

Coincidentally, the Bush Campaign then choose to use those images in a web ad of their own, splicing the images of Hitler in between images of Howard Dean, Al Gore, and John Kerry. You'd think if these images were so bad and so beyond the pale, they wouldn't want to use them. But I guess this was a special case.

Let's take another statement. "Clinton-bashing got pretty intense, but rare was the Republican who was proud to call it "hatred." Many Bush-haters, by contrast, embrace the term enthusiastically." I guess Jacoby has a hard time telling the difference between one (Mr. Jonathan Chait) and many. He's also not adjusting for irony. After Hillary Clinton referred to a "vast right-winged conspiracy" more than one Conservative commentator or politician was happy describing themselves as members of this conspiracy.

Conservatives have been calling Liberals Bush-haters for a couple of years now. If some liberals besides Mr. Jonathan Chait have accepted the term (and Mr. Jacoby's article gives no evidence that they have (other than assertion)), than might not the same logic apply?

New Quote

I wasn't around at all yesterday, but here I am back with a new Quote.  And a new Quotes Page.

Fox and Friends

Well it's safe to say that this hasn't been a banner week for Future President Kerry.  I don't think it's a disasterous week; none of the big anti-Kerry stories (Berger's wandering hands, the problems with Richard Clark's story) are real campaign sinking torpedoes.  But it's not been the greatest.

On the other hand it hasn't been a terribly grea weak for Fox News either, as this new Documentary Outfoxed has gotten out to the people.  It demonstrates to those who don't know that the best argument for Fox News isn't that it is fair and balanced (it isn't) but some vague argument about how it balances the more "liberal" news stations. 

One claim being made by Fox defenders and employees is that they can't be seen as pro President Bush because they are the ones who broke the story of President Bush's DUI.  Well Eric Boehlert takes issue with that particular interpretation in an article at Salon today.

"The truth is that it was a resourceful 27-year-old reporter at a local Fox affiliate, WPXT-TV in Portland, Maine, who uncovered the DUI story, not the Fox News Channel in New York or Washington, the partisan national network that's the focus of Robert Greenwald's new documentary, "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism." Nobody associated with "Outfoxed" or elsewhere participating in the media debate has suggested that local Fox news teams in places like Bakersfield, Calif.; Birmingham, Ala.; or Boise, Idaho operate under Republican marching orders as they cover arsons, car crashes and zoo openings. So it's not that unusual that an enterprising reporter, operating off the FNC reservation as it were, could play a starring role in the DUI story. Not surprisingly, Ailes and Cameron are now conveniently trying to pretend that it was Sean Hannity's "Fair and Balanced" Fox News, those bold seekers of the truth, who unearthed the damaging dirt on Bush that almost cost him the election."

Of particular note in Boehlert's article is the way they chose to present it in 2000 as compared to how they present it today. 

Around the Horn; It's all one song

Here we go with another exciting trip round the Liberal Coalition Universe.  An extra long one today, I hope.

First of all we welcome the return of MercuryX23's Fantabulous Blog, and in this post he contrasts Liberal humor with that that emmenates from the current Governor of California.

And Then . . . has some trenchent comments on the 9/11 report and the difference between repairing a machine and defeating evil forever. 

Kick the Leftist has some thoughts on the Philipines pulling out of Iraq.

Rick's Cafe Americaine has an important piece on how Insurance Companies are taking advantage of American Soldiers.

Rook's Rant has a piece on the timing of President Bush's request for intelligence.

For those who love music, Sooner Thought has an article on a recent Sting / Annie Lennox concert. 

Sooner Thought also posted a piece at The Liberal Coalition website about Kalyn Free, who seems like someone worth checking out, and lending a hand too as she tries to get into Congress.

The Yellow Doggeral Democrat has a section dealing with Dennis Kucinich's endorsement of John Kerry. 

The Gotham City 13 have a treatise on a soldier in Afghanistan who claims to have had constant contact with Donald Rumsfeld.

Dohiyi Mir has some hard-boiled commentary on a certain member of the Bush Campaign. 

bloggg has a collection of quotations from our current President. 

blogAmy has some well written thoughts on going through a Police Barricaide.

The mighty edwardpig emerged, groundhog like, saw President Bush's chances unfolding, and apparently returned to haitus.  Hopefully he'll return often from haitus; he's good. 

rubber hose has some commentary on where the national Abortion debate is. 

Anyway that's an extra long one.  Hope you enjoyed--tune in next time when the cow says "Neigh."

The Law is an Idiot

Good article today at Salon by James K. Galbraith.  He goes through President Bush's recent approval numbers, but then moves onto something puzzling President Bush said recently, as part of his effort to explain why we invaded Iraq.

"Bush made this clear the other day with his definitive defense of his war in Iraq. He said: "Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq ... We removed a declared enemy of America who had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them."

Was this just the latest lame defense of failure? Or was it a calculated statement of doctrine? It could be either. Unlike the neoconservatives before the United States went into Iraq, we should be prudent and assume the worst.

Read Bush's statement again. In it, he asserts a right to remove any "declared enemy" with "capability" to produce weapons who "could have passed that capability" along.

"Capability"? "Could have"? What trouble spots in the world doesn't this fit? It certainly fits North Korea and Iran. Will this doctrine thus lead to a raid on the internationally legal Iranian Nuclear Plant next year? It could, as the Times of London has reported, citing an unnamed U.S. administration source. "

Anyway the whole article is interesting, but I for one think we might have enough to right now without invading Iran or North Korea. 

John Kerry already controls France

This in interesting news that Emmet Tyrell passes off almost offhandedly in his latest article. 

"Just when things were going swimmingly for the presumptive Democratic presidential ticket, a cloud appears on the horizon. The French Consulate in New York has tacked onto its front door an announcement reminding Americans once again of French haughtiness ... and of French geopolitical ambitions."

You catch that?  Apparently it's bad news for Future President Kerry that France has advised those seeking visa's be polite.  That's because Future President Kerry is the secret king of France; so anything France does reflects badly on him.  I guess you can see why people complain about the media; they should be telling us all about Kerry's control of France.  But I'll bet you weren't even aware of it until this moment.   

I'm Dreaming of a Genie In a Magic Bikini - An Absurdist Post

"My Friends, do you ever marvel . . . at me?" - Rush Limbaugh, just before 2:00 p.m., July 21, 2004.

"I keep saying, greatness does not need to be explained. Greatness does not need to be defined and John Kerry continues to have to explain himself and to define himself because who he is doesn't stand out, and who he is doesn't strike anybody as great." - Rush Limbaugh on or around Monday, April 26.

I just can't get my head around those two statements.  They seem so . . . contridictory. 

"My Friends, do you ever marvel . . . at me?" - Rush Limbaugh, just before 2:00 p.m., July 21, 2004.

I guess honesty forces me to admit that at times I do marvel at Mr. Limbaugh.  But not for the reasons he's probably thinking of. 

"My Friends, do you ever marvel . . . at me?" - Rush Limbaugh, just before 2:00 p.m., July 21, 2004.

Oh and those three ellipses are not indicating any missing lines; just to show the pause. 

Independents Unite!

Kathleen Parker writes an interesting article over at Townhall about the virtues of being independent of either party.  Apparently both parties are guilty of extreme partisanship.

"We're ripe for a terrorist attack, yet we've become so stridently self-absorbed and distracted by partisan one-upmanship that you begin to wonder whether anyone's manning the barricades."
 
What crowd pleasing title does Ms. Parker give this discussion of the perils of partisanship?  "Beyond bashing Bush."  In it she mentions Michael Moore twice, but can't find room for Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage.  She could also note that the Bush campaign spends three or four times more on their campaign website bashing Kerry than Kerry's website spends bashing Bush. 

So I have to admit I find this article remarkably similar to other articles that have more honestly admitted that they think Democrats are partisan and if they weren't partisan they would be more pro-Bush.   

Still, at least she didn't suggest that Democrats hate President Bush irrationally. 

Foreign Policy

For those interested in good political writing (as opposed to what I seem to be capable of today), you might check out this piece by Joshua Micah Marshall  that appeared in the Atlantic.  Mr. Marshall writes "Talking Points Memo" over there on the left and this article concerns how President Bush and Future President Kerry's foreign policies are likely to differ.  Well worth checking out.

Deep Thoughts

I've been thinking about the latest edition of This Modern World. For those who haven't seen it, here it is.
 
I have to admit that I do fit some of the characteristics of a "sensible Liberal."  And, on the other hand, I've commented more than once on the dangers of being overly concilitary towards Liberals.  It's enough to realize that many conservative leaders don't want liberals to exist in America to realize that compromise is not always the wisest course of action. 
 
Tom Tomorrow is also correct when he notes that many liberals should just admit that the anti-war protesters were right and we were wrong. 
 
I disagree, however, with the idea that moderation in discourse is always wrongheaded.   The two examples he gives (discomfort with calling the President a Liar and liberal attacks on Fahrenheit 9/11) I can get behind.  Some of the attacks on Fahrenheit 9/11 have been misguided at best (while others have been dead on, such as those from the Daily Howler).  On the other hand, there are occasionally some outrageous things said by those on the left.  One has only to summon Ted Rall to one's mind.  Are we committed to never criticizing those on the left?  
 
One possibility is that we should have two parties; one for Moderate Liberals and one for People Further Left (boy is that an awkward phrase).   But, in reality, that's a pipe dream.  The truth is that for the foreseeable future, rightly or wrongly, we've got one party for the left and one for the right. 
 
I will reiterate a criticism I've had with this argument; it gives short shrift to the idea that a Moderate Liberal might actually disagree with the Person Further Left.  It's assumed that the Moderate argues from a Moderate position simply as a tactic, but that in reality his goals are essentially the same as the Person Further Left.  That may not always be the case. 

I'm reminded of an old Limbaugh bit where he made fun of Moderates by suggesting there woudl never be book called "great moderates in history."  Of course Limbaugh basically assumes anybody not a hardline Conservative is essentially a liberal.  Mr. Tomorrows last line seems to indicate that he feels that "Sensible" Liberals are more or less working for the Republicans. 
 
Anyway I can tell I'm having a hard time getting my point to come out organized, so I'll just cut it off here. 

Both Sides of the Mouth

Rich Lowry writes an article today in which he imagines all liberals to be essentially the same person, and that "person" is hypocritical because he seems to have two different opinions on the issues.

Perhaps an example would demonstrate to Mr. Lowry the folly of this argument. Take Ms. Moderate Liberal and Mr. Less Moderate Liberal. Ms. Moderate Liberal says, "Well, invading Iraq might have been an ok idea, but the way he went about it unilaterally and without the support of the UN, well that wasn't very smart." Mr. Less Moderate Liberal says, "Are you kidding? Invading Iraq was always a bad idea, and we should never have done it, particularly since Iraq was no threat to the United States." Mr. Lowry, evesdropping on this conversation and unable to tell two liberals appart, assumes hypocricy on both parts.

But of course Mr. Lowry hardly needs to go to the trouble of listening to what liberals say when he can just make stuff up. Take this section. "If he restrains government spending, he's heartless. If he supports government spending, he's bankrupting the nation and robbing from future generations."

Of course, I need hardly point out that while Liberals are critical of President Bush's failure to keep much control over spending, of far more concern are his tax cuts, which are a much larger part of the equation in figuring out how high the deficit is going to go. Mr. Lowry chooses not to spend much time on taxes in his little essay.

Mr. Lowry is, of course, no stranger to how a President can inspire some intemperate comments; I think we all remember how sensible the Republicans were during the Clinton Years.   

There's a Riot Going On!!!

Well a couple of big stories in the news on the upcoming Republican Convention.  It's already well known that dozens of protests are planned during the convention which is being held to tie in with the remembrance of September 11th (so that Team Bush controls the news cycle for quite a little while). 
 
Well it turns out that some Conservative groups are planning counter protests.  According to AP Reporter Sara Kugler, "Activists planning to demonstrate against the upcoming GOP convention should be on the lookout for young conservatives gearing up to protest the protesters." 
 
These brave young conservatives are apparently called the Protest Warriors (and in a 100% unrelated story, the good folks at Make me a Commentator!!! are considering changing their name to Commentary Warriors).  
 
This is at the top of their website.  "Welcome to ProtestWarrior.com, a website created to help arm the liberty-loving Silent Majority with ammo -- ammo that strikes at the intellectual solar plexus of the Left. "
 
The intellectual solar plexus of the Left.  There's a phrase that's rife with possibilities. 
 
In other happy news is this editorial, by Adam Cohen, at the New York Times.  Apparently Mayor Bloomberg in 2004 is somewhat similar to Mayor Daley, Mayor of Chicago in 1968.  The 1968 Democratic Convention was somewhat of a debacle, as anti-war protestors clashed with the Chicago City Police Force.  Could such a debacle happen in 2004?  
  
While it doesn't seem likely that we will see a repeat of 1968, according to Mr. Cohen, it also seems unlikely that the Protesters will receive a warm welcome. 
 
"Mayor Bloomberg's roots lie in a social organization that's very different from the clubhouse, but equally intolerant of spontaneous outbursts. Until he ran for mayor he had spent his life in the corporate world, where ? as in a political machine ? people pursue a common goal by working through the system. Employees who try to harangue leaders into changing corporate policy are not engaging in free speech. They are being insubordinate."

Mr. Cohen calls on Mayor Bloomberg to welcome the protesters, provided they stay within the law.  At any rate, we got Protesters, Counter-Protesters, and a Mayor who prefers silence to dissent.  I'm not saying anything is necessarily going to happen, but it probably could. 

Confusion about the Message

(Overheard at the Offices of the Center for Consumer Freedom.)  

Flunky:  Look, Boss I'm just not sure about this latest article. 
 
Boss:  What, that hollywood piece?  It's boffo. 
 
Flunky:  Well it's gratifying, but what's our point?  I mean do we list all these hollywood people and point out how according to Government Regulations they are all overweight.
 
Boss:  So.  Gives a visual representation of how over regulated we are, and how detatched from the real world Government pencil pushers are? 
 
Flunky:  Yeah Boss, but we don't like Hollywood either.
 
Buss: (eating Danish) What's that?
 
Flunky:  Our fans don't like Hollywood either. 
 
Boss:  So?
 
Flunky:  Well this is going to make them look good, isn't it?  Sort of pointing out their healthfulness. 
 
Boss:  So we make a lot of jokes about how big hollywood types are all fatsos.  I thought I had a few jokes like that in there anyway.  Something about Conan the Obese?
 
Flunky:  Yeah, I noticed that.  You know he's a republican, right? 
 
Boss:  Yeah but Conan was a piece of crap, so I figure it's ok. 
 
Flunky: Anyway I'm just saying our message might be a little confused.  Are we angry at the regulators or Hollywood. 
 
Boss:  Look, nobody will notice, so who gives a  damn?  Just run it and let's go have lunch. 

OK not really heard at the offices of the Center for Consumer Freedom. I made that part up. But the rest of it is true.

Left Behind Redux

You remember a couple of weeks ago I pointed out a website that dealt extensively with the Left Behind series.  Well, Nicholas D. Kristof deals with the series today and he asks some pointed questions.
 
"These are the best-selling novels for adults in the United States, and they have sold more than 60 million copies worldwide. The latest is "Glorious Appearing," which has Jesus returning to Earth to wipe all non-Christians from the planet. It's disconcerting to find ethnic cleansing celebrated as the height of piety.

If a Muslim were to write an Islamic version of "Glorious Appearing" and publish it in Saudi Arabia, jubilantly describing a massacre of millions of non-Muslims by God, we would have a fit. We have quite properly linked the fundamentalist religious tracts of Islam with the intolerance they nurture, and it's time to remove the motes from our own eyes."
 
Pointed questions indeed.