What Terrorists Want!

Jay Bryant makes an interesting statement in his latest article, which is dedicated to a new theory the Bush campaign and their surrogates are floating; Iraqi Insurgents want Senator John Kerry to win. We'll return to that in a moment, but first this statement.

So if you were al-Qaida, what would you do?

You desperately want George Bush out of office. Anyone who doesn't believe that (and liberal apologists sometimes try to claim otherwise) belongs in a can labeled "Planters."

Anybody who believes that the terrorists prefer President Bush to John Kerry is clearly nuts. Hmmmmmm. If you will excuse me for a moment, I am going to make a quick visit to my psychologist Ludwig Von Ludovich.

Nope, Dr. Von Ludovich says I'm about as sane as normal (normal for me, anyway). So let's deal with this question.

Analyzing what Presidential candidate al-Qaida would prefer requires looking at what al-Qaida's long term goals are. Al-Qaida doesn't want to commit acts of terror just for the sake of committing acts of terror. OK, there are probably some who do, but the leadership have larger goals and a larger ideology in mind. Their biggest long term goal is to defeat and humiliate the West. They have other smaller goals; like changing our policy towards Israel and the Palestinians.

A second point; they think they will win. God is on their side. Even now, with displays of American Military might in Iraq and Afghanistan, they think that our culture is weak and that they can defeat us. They are fighting a transformative war; one that will transform their culture to more closely approximate what they believe an Islamic society is supposed to be.

For a parallel look at American Neo-Conservatives. They wanted a war too. A transformative war that would show the Middle East how to be Democratic and America Loving. So would they have really been enthused by, say, Saddam Hussein stepping down and naming one of his ministers president in his place? Probably not. Certainly you can't imagine them saying, "Oh boy, with Saddam gone, this war will certainly be easier." The idea is laughable; while I am sure they are concerned about the health and welfare of American troops, they are also extremely confident in our Soldier's ability to defeat nearly any enemy.

Why are terrorists supposed to favor John Kerry over President Bush? Because John Kerry, according to Republicans, is a cowardly two-faced liar who will immediately begin surrendering in the war on terror.

Why would that be a positive thing for Terrorists? Instead of winning the terror war, they would get a forfeit, at best. Not the victory that could transform the middle east and possibly the world into their version of utopia.

Anyway, on to a new Republican Talking Point. The Iraqi insurgents are killing American troops because they want John Kerry to be the next President of the United States. Apparently this has popped up in a number of places, including Jay Bryants article. Atrios has a piece on the Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, who has made this point. Michael Barone uses it as a sideline in his article.

Before a grudgingly polite National Guard Association, Kerry argued that the Bush administration's record in Iraq is one of mistakes and failures. He can point to increasing violence and casualties. But Bush can respond that the terrorists are just trying to affect our elections and shake our resolve -- he will have a forum this week when Iraqi interim president Ayad Allawi visits Washington.

And Jay Bryant dedicates his whole article to a theory which is not, he is quick to deny, a conspiracy theory. It runs like this in short form.

The National Intelligence Committee, Al-Qaida, and John Kerry all want President Bush to lose in November. The National Intelligence Committee agrees to publish a very negative report on Iraq at just the right time. The Terrorists, conferring with their allies in the states, realize that an attack on US soil will help Bush. They realize, however, that attacking in Iraq will hurt President Bush by making his war look like a failure. So naturally they use a go-between to let Senator Kerry know that it's time to focus on Iraq, while stepping up their own campaign there.

To use Bryant's own words.

If Kerry finally stops flip-flopping on Iraq and sticks to the rhetoric of his National Guard speech, it will be prima facie evidence of his confidence that the Iraqi security situation will not improve before November, though he may not himself know why. If he should happen to win, his strategy, and that of America's worst enemies, will have succeeded.

I mean it was inevitable that the Bush Campaign and their surrogates were going to paint Senator Kerry as the al-Qaida candidate, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. But it is still depressing to know where this campaign is.

For those of you who feel this is a valid talking point, let's turn it around. How about if I wrote a piece along these lines.

Anybody who thinks that Al-Qaida wants President Bush to be defeated in November is clearly deluded. The terrorists have had so much more success with this Republican President than they have ever had in the past, that I can't believe they would want a change. First of all, they had their single deadliest attack on American Soil ever, killing nearly 3,000 people. That didn't happen under Clinton. It happened under good old George W. Bush. So it's clear. If you want more terrorism, vote for President Bush. If you want to be protected from terrorism, vote for Senator Kerry.

I can tell how typing that made me feel. Part of me was happy, but it was a small mean-spirited part of me. But if you are going to support this talking point, or Vice President Cheney's words a couple of weeks ago, you have to concede that this argument is at least as valid.

New Quote, New Format!

Here we go. First of all a new quote. And a new Quotes page.

And of course we are changing the format again.

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.

A Conservative Party No More

Not much posting yesterday, because I'm somewhat sick. Don't read this too closely or you might catch it.

Anyway read an interesting article yesterday entitled "Why Conservatives must not vote for Bush," by Doug Bandow, a self described Reaganite Conservative. In it, he acknowledges the pretty self evident truth that a vote for President Bush is, in many cases, more important as a vote against Senator Kerry. But he says that this attitude might not be entirely justified, particularly in the area of fiscal policy.

Moreover, whatever the personal preferences of a President Kerry, he could spend only whatever legislators allowed, so assuming that the GOP maintains its control over Congress, outlays almost certainly would rise less than if Bush won reelection. History convincingly demonstrates that divided government delivers less spending than unitary control. Give either party complete control of government and the treasury vaults quickly empty. Share power between the parties and, out of principle or malice, they check each other. The American Conservative Union's Don Devine says bluntly: "A rational conservative would calculate a vote for Kerry as likely to do less damage" fiscally.

Maybe so, respond some conservatives, but how about the Bush tax cuts? The president tells campaign audiences: "They're going to raise your taxes; we're not." But even here the Bush record is not secure. Bruce Bartlett of the National Center for Policy Analysis points to the flood of red ink unleashed by the administration and predicts that tax hikes are inevitable irrespective of who is elected in November. That is, Bush's fiscal irresponsibility could cancel out his most important economic success for the GOP.

The article is well worth reading, and strikes me as pretty balanced. He does point out areas where an old-school conservative will see better results with a second term for President Bush.

Round The Horn Part -3.5 A Trip to Deadwood

Howdy Partners, as promised today we have our special cowboy edition of Round the Horn, so settle in and well see what the open range offers up.

Why coming 'cross the plains is Gamer's Nook with a story about flesh-eating robots. T'aint political but shore is interesting.

Happy Furry Puppy Story Time is riding round the bend with a stagecoach full of potential slogans for President Bush's campaign; if you get there soon you can vote for the one you like the best.

The Yellow Doggeral Democrat looks ready to draw his irons and gun down a statement made by a certain polecat earlier this week.

And looky here, there's Rooks Rant with a tall glass of Saspirilla and some tough questions for the President Bush hombre.

Let's just step in this watering hole, Ricks Cafe Americain, for a glass of moonshine and a troubling redaction by our Justice Department.

archy is riding in on a silver mustang, hops down and delivers an interesting critique by a Republican of the Republican Party, and with a hearty hi-ho spaghettio he's off.

Heading by the old Telegraph office, we get a message from Echidne of the Snakes on framing and how it is used to craft political discourse.

bloggg comes out of the bank, with both six shooters blasting away and has some a curious e-mail she received on a day in the life of Joe Republican.

Finally as we leave the dusty little town of Deadwood we pass by Boot Hill, where, in the last rays of the afternoon, we see a short but moving tribute to intellectual snobbery, carved by The Invisible Library.

And that's it for cowboy week here at Make me a Commentator; tune in next week, when will present the list in some other interesting and amusing way. Possibly as a space show.

Another Take

The New York Times editorial page has some further commentary on the Vice President's comments yesterday.

At the very best, Mr. Cheney was speaking loosely and carelessly about the area in this campaign that deserves the most careful and serious discussion. It sounds to us more likely that he stepped across a line that the Bush campaign team had flirted with throughout its convention, telling his audience that re-electing the president would be the only way to stay safe from another attack.

There is a danger that we'll be hit again no matter who is elected president this November, as President Bush himself has said on many occasions. The danger might be a bit less if the current administration had chosen to spend less on tax cuts for the wealthy and more on protecting our ports, securing nuclear materials in Russia and establishing an enforceable immigration policy that would keep better track of people who enter the country from abroad.

Good questions.

The War on Islam

Cal Thomas, like many liberals, has issues with the terminology of the War on Terror. Many liberals criticize that terminology as extremely vague; placing us in a state of war for the rest of our lives. Will we ever really eliminate all the world's terrorists? Parenthetically, you might spare us the tired rejoinder "So you are saying we should do nothing." There's a lot of room between doing nothing and declaring an impossible and infinite war.

Cal Thomas also feels that the War on Terror is too vague a term. "It's long past time to ditch political correctness and identify the enemy, which is not disembodied "terrorism" but radical Islamists who commit terror in the perverted name of their god."

He does remind us all that John Kerry may well get the Muslim vote so I guess that's something we should all be concerned about, and he closes his article suggesting that there is no evidence of moderate or peaceful Muslims.

What's nice about Mr. Thomas is that he doesn't proscribe any action to correct this problem. He just let's you know that Muslims are evil, they are voting for Kerry, and we should declare war on them. But he leaves it up to the individual to decide how to interpret that. There's no danger in that vagueness, because I'm sure all of Mr. Thomas's readers will know exactly what he means when he says declare war on (radical) Islam.

At least I hope they will.

A Quote from the Republican Vice Presidential Nominee

It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States.

If only those awful Democrats would quit politicizing the War on Terror. Then Zell Miller would have stayed in the Democratic Party. If we Democrats really loved our country, the way Dick Cheney loves his country, we would either disband, or work out a system where President Bush could be the presidential candidate from both parties. Liberalism has no place in a post 9/11 world; there is no such thing as honest disagreement in a post 9/11 world. In a post 9/11 world you either support President Bush and the Republican Party or you support the Terrorists.

Kind of makes you feel guilty even looking at my weblog, doesn't it? But take a moment and consider that this is America. America is a Democracy (I know it's not a pure democracy, but it was founded on Democratic policies and that's what I mean), and if we are to fight terrorism, to fight any war we need to do it as a Democracy. Which means that disagreeing with President Bush is what those who disagree with him are supposed to do.

Another consideration. If Vice President Cheney really feels this strongly about the issue, would it really be responsible, from their point of view, for President Bush and he to actually allow President Kerry to take office if he wins the election?

Got this from Echidne of the Snakes who got it from Atrios who got it from ABC News.

Convention Blues

Sydney H. Schanberg writes an excellent article for the Village Voice on the tone of the Republican Convention. He makes one particularly good point about the $87 Billion that I've thought but haven't expressed very well.

Senator Miller, a conservative Democrat from Georgia who recently threw his support to President George Bush, again and again smeared Democratic candidate John Kerry and his party's leadership as unpatriotic and therefore unfit?all the while insisting that he wasn't questioning anyone's patriotism, just "their judgment." His tone was brutal and sneering.

"For more than 20 years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak, and more wobbly than any other national figure. . . . As a senator, he voted to weaken our military. And nothing shows that more sadly and more clearly than his vote this year to deny protective armor for our troops in harm's way, far away."

I realize politicians of all parties twist history every which way to their benefit, but wasn't it the Bush administration that sent the troops into Iraq without enough body armor or armor for the sides of their battle vehicles? Casualties rose as a result. Soldiers' parents went on the open market back home to buy state-of-the-art body vests with ceramic-plate reinforcement, and then shipped them to their sons and daughters in Iraq. Not until early this year did the Pentagon begin to fill the gap. No part of this failure had anything to do with a vote by Senator Kerry.

This is a question that isn't asked very often and certainly isn't answered. Why did our troops go to Iraq without protective armor in the first place?

Of course, we know the answer; the Bush administration appears to have believed the cakewalk scenario where our soldiers wouldn't face too much danger. And they wanted to minimize the cost of the war for various reasons. So they did it on the cheap, and our soldiers and our soldiers families have paid the price.

For all of this, the article isn't manifestly critical of the President; indeed, it's a call for the President to reject the ideological blinders and negative campaign and reread and absorb the speeches of Franklin D. Roosevelt that he claims to admire.

In that spirit here is a selection from a speech President Roosevelt made on February 23, 1942, in remembrance of Washington's Birthday.

Here are three high purposes for every American:

First. We shall not stop work for a single day. If any dispute arises we shall keep on working while the dispute is solved by mediation, conciliation or arbitration-until the war is won.

Second. We shall not demand special gains or special privileges or advantages for any one group or occupation.

Third. We shall give up conveniences and modify the routine of our lives if our country asks us to do so. We will do it cheerfully, remembering that the common enemy seeks to destroy every home and every freedom in every part of our land.

This generation of Americans has come to realize, with a present and personal realization, that there is something larger and more important than the life of any individual or of any individual group-something for which a man will sacrifice, and gladly sacrifice, not only his pleasures, not only his goods, not only his associations with those he loves, but his life itself. In time of crisis when the future is in the balance, we come to understand, with full recognition and devotion, what this Nation is, and what we owe to it.

Voting! It's what's for dinner!

Jonah Goldberg, in his column today, takes on a spate of recent books about voting patterns.

The big book is, of course, "What's the Matter with Kansas" in which Thomas Frank criticizes the people of Kansas's choice to vote against what he considers their economic interest. For a good and somewhat critical review of the book, check out this article at Salon. He also takes on an article by Mr. Larry Bartels that suggests that many Americans are like Homer Simpson, voting for a big tax cut for Mr. Burns because taxes are too high, even though Simpson himself won't ever get a tax cut.

Both these arguments, as Mr. Goldberg points out, assumes that cultural issues are unimportant compared to economic issues. "People vote - or at least should vote - based upon the kind of country they want their kids to live in. And that means they vote on more issues than narrow economic interest, however defined."

Well and good, and I happen to think that a consideration of social issues has it's place in deciding who to vote for. What Mr. Goldberg won't touch, however, is the relative importance the Bush Presidency places on those issues. After four years of the Bush Presidency, the wealthy who supported him have had their economic needs met and then some. They've received massive tax cuts (and the promise of future tax cuts), weakened Government regulatory power, an impotent Environmental Protection Agency, no crackdown on offshore banking, and so on and so forth. The only major economic goal President Bush hasn't delivered good progress on is drilling in ANWR.

Meanwhile on the social side of the net, President Bush has managed to get some extremist judges put on the bench (although it should be noted that such judges are as determined to protect big business as they are to end abortion). And he has done some faith based initiatives. And he's talked about supporting an marriage protection act. Oh and the stem cells; he's conflicted about them.

So personally I have to wonder if the people of Kansas who are voting on these big social issues are getting a lot of bang for their buck? As compared to, say, the wealthy and the corporations who support President Bush. A more cynical man than myself might make reference, once again, to the old bait and switch.

Jonah Goldberg also seems a bit conflicted on whether people should vote or not. Early in his article he makes the statement, ". . . I'm the sort of curmudgeon who thinks voting should be more difficult and there should be less of it." That statement puts Mr. Goldberg in an interesting quandary; he is chiding the Democrats for not trusting the people to vote their interests while admitting that he doesn't entirely trust the people to vote for their interests.

The Power of Mythology

Continuing from Paul Krugman's great article, let's look at another aspect of Republican Mythology. The myth of the "liberal media."

I hear some of you saying already, "Wait a minute, are you saying that there is no liberal bias at all?" Oh, there probably is a little. My old theory was that the media skewed a little left on social issues and a little right on economic issues, and I think that still might hold. But the mythology of the "liberal media" has nothing to do with that.

I've praised the Daily Howler enough that you should all know what I think of it. Well, on Friday, they outdid themselves with a few succinct paragraphs that analyze this problem and give, what seems to me, a very workable solution.

Forty years ago, the GOP did something quite smart; it began to develop a meta-narrative to explain its place in the world. That meta-narrative is Liberal bias, a pleasing tale the GOP recites to explain all unpleasant events. (You saw Bush do it last night.) Voters have heard about "liberal bias" for decades. Any time an event occurs which puts the GOP on the defensive, hacks haul out this pleasing excuse. And they've learned to use this old script quite well.

The time has come when our uncaring Democrats have to start telling the truth to the people. But what meta-narrative should the Dems tell? They need to tell an accurate narrative: Every four years, Republican hacks make a joke of our lives, inventing strange stories about the Dem candidate. They distract; they deceive; they direct us to trivia; they make a joke of our public discussion. It's perfectly clear that our Big Major Dems don't really care if this costs them elections. But will these lazy, feckless pols ever defend the rights of the public? Will they ever show that they actually care when a joke is made of our White House elections? On Wednesday night, the Bush camp was lying in voters' faces in those speeches by Miller and Cheney. And the DNC plainly doesn't care - doesn't bother debunking the charges, doesn't bother explaining the process. As long as they get to sell us their cook books, the whole thing is just fine by them.

The DNC needs a meta-story - the Republicans keep making a joke of your discourse. But to tell a story, again and again, DNC honchos have to believe it - and care. We see no sign that they really do care, and that explains our quadrennial clowning. Clearly, the Washington press doesn't care. Does the DNC care? Let them prove it.

I couldn't agree more. One of the more frustrating things about this campaign is watching republicans tell the same discredited stories over and over again. Senator Kerry's $87 Billion for example. Or Kerry being the most liberal senator in the Senate. Or Senator Kerry's voting against weapon systems (parrotted by Zell Miller at the RNC). How many different ways are there to explain the deceit? And why aren't the people who tell such transparent falsehoods embarrassed or ashamed? Where are our people to hit back. Why doesn't the "liberal" media discourage such blantant disregard for the truth?

I don't know, I guess there aren't any answers to those kinds of questions.

Mythology

Why is mythology so important? Because even the most ardent atheist wants to find some meaning in reality. We all want the comfort of knowing that our lives matter. And so all of us, to a certain extent, create comforting fictions to protect ourselves from the harsh realities of life. This isn't 100% a negative thing. If a person believes themselves to be a kind person they will sometimes then work to actually become a kind person.

How does this play back into Presidential politics? Well Paul Krugman writes another great article at the New York Times today about the mythology of President Bush's war.

What is clear is that whenever political debate turns to Mr. Bush's actual record in office, his popularity sinks. Only by doing whatever it takes to change the subject to the war on terror - not to what he's actually doing about terrorist threats, but to his "leadership," whatever that means - can he get a bump in the polls.

One thing I've noted is that when you talk to the actual substance of that "leadership," President Bush often comes up short. He's gotten tough with the terrorists? He supports the military? He upholds American honor? He has a firm resolve?

He's gotten tough with the terrorists saying that he doesn't really care if we capture Bin Ladin or not and admitting that the War on Terror may not be winnable. And of course his surrogates often remind us that we will be hit again (which, to be fair, is perfectly accurate).

Well, he supports the military by favoring a lot of cuts in military benefits and veterans benefits. He castigates Senator Kerry for voting against weapon systems that his Vice President also voted against.

Upholding American honor means, in this case, ignoring the objects of much of the rest of the world and invading Iraq anyway. An invasion that, to put it kindly, probably hasn't gone the way President Bush would have liked.

His firm resolve is, frankly, looking more and more like simple stubbornness and unwillingness to change. I remember how he answered the question of whether he had made any mistakes.

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.

At any rate, the rest of Krugman's article is thought provoking, and well worth checking out.

The Old Bait and Switch

The prevalence of President Bush's negative and attack based campaigning is a truism, despite some people, like David Limbaugh's, attempts to deny it. In his latest article, Mr. Limbaugh attempts to deny the self evident fact that the President and (particularly) the Vice President are running a very negative campaign by suggesting that Kerry was negative first and more viciously.

This issue matters, because the media are using the lie that Bush started the attacks as a foundation for Kerry to go nuclear against President Bush with impunity -- certainly with their full blessing. But Democrats have been personally attacking the president for four years.

You see the switch? He didn't use the phrase Senator Kerry has been attacking the President personally for years/ Nope, it was Democrats that have been attacking the President personally for years.

Limbaugh then dissects Senator Kerry's response to the Republican National Convention. Kerry finally responded to the personal attacks by President Bush and Vice President Cheney and their surrogates by tackling the Vietnam issue head on. In a scathing statement, Kerry said the following.

For the past week, they attacked my patriotism and my fitness to serve as Commander-in-chief. Well, here's my answer. I will not have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have and by those who have misled the nation into Iraq.

The Vice President called me unfit for office last night. Well, I'll leave it up to the voters to decide whether five deferments makes someone more qualified to defend this nation than two tours of duty.

Strangely enough this isn't the part of Senator Kerry's speech that David Limbaugh chooses to dwell on. I guess he realizes that focusing on this issue won't make his guy look very good. So instead he talks about Iraq and pretends that this is the big counter punch.

Senator Kerry, throughout his campaign, has been critical of the President's decision to lead us into war in Iraq. So this let's Limbaugh make fun of the media for pretending that Senator Kerry's criticisms of the Bush Iraq policy are something new. Kind of cheap, but better than admitting what Kerry's counter-punch was really all about.

And, it goes without saying, that claiming your opponent has engaged in a reckless foreign policy initiative by deceiving the American people about the costs and the rationale is not a personal attack. I suppose I wouldn't blame President Bush for taking it personally, but it's not. It's an attack on President Bush's policy decisions. That is a long way from suggesting that Senator Kerry is a coward and a braggadocio, casting aspersions on the service he gave to his country.

New Format

Here is the new Format, for a little while anyway. For those who want to read articles from last week I suggest following this link to get the old format.

New Quote

And, as always, a new Quotes Page.

What do we Mean?

What does it mean to say that September 11th changed everything? I mean it's such a vague statement when you think about it. What could it mean? Well Kathleen Parker in her latest article (which covers Zell Miller's speech at the RNC) puts it in perspective.

The world changed on Sept. 11, 2001, and the old default modes no longer work. The old political templates and loyalties do not apply.

That understanding prompted Miller to abandon his Democratic Party to endorse President George W. Bush for re-election.

The world became more dangerous on September 11, 2004 and because of that increased danger we must vote for Republicans forever. The old loyalties no longer apply; if Democrats really loved their country they would abandon their party, and line up solidly behind whatever President Bush wants to do.

Of course this all assumes that President Bush knows what he's doing and his plans are solid. I don't blame Ms. Parker for thinking that; after all she is a conservative. I would expect her to support a conservative President. On the other hand, as a liberal, I'm not sure why I should be expected to give up my opinion that President Bush doesn't know what he's doing and the last four years have been a string of mistakes and errors.

But then again, maybe I just don't understand how September 11th changed everything.

Anger is as Anger Does

Great editorial by Paul Krugman today at the New York Times, although not one that is likely to win him any Republican friends. It's about the Republican convention and the tone of negativeness that characterized it.

Why are the Republicans so angry? One reason is that they have nothing positive to run on (during the first three days, Mr. Bush was mentioned far less often than John Kerry).

The promised economic boom hasn't materialized, Iraq is a bloody quagmire, and Osama bin Laden has gone from "dead or alive" to he-who-must-not-be-named.

Another reason, I'm sure, is a guilty conscience. At some level the people at that convention know that their designated hero is a man who never in his life took a risk or made a sacrifice for his country, and that they are impugning the patriotism of men who have.

That's why Band-Aids with Purple Hearts on them, mocking Mr. Kerry's war wounds and medals, have been such a hit with conventioneers, and why senior politicians are attracted to wild conspiracy theories about Mr. Soros.

It is an interesting theory; certainly the convention was all about attacking John Kerry and the War on Terror, with a smattering of Compassionate Conservative. We'll have to see if this is a message that motivates the American people.

Round the Horn Part (2)2, Avast Ye Maties

Yep it's pirate day here at Make me a Commentator!!! You can't see me but I am in fact wearing a pirate outfit.

But first some serious notes.

Last weekend I thought I was pretty diligent at getting everybody in the Liberal Coalition, but I missed a few. I want to make sure to say that these were not left off for any reason other than my stupidity, they are both fine sites.

blogAmy has an interesting contrast between President Bush's attitudes in years previous and his attitudes this week.

All Facts and Opinions has some interesting information on global progress on woman's issues.

As for the other members I didn't link to last week, New World Blogger, who is a really fantastic bloggist handling international issues, hasn't updated her blog since July 15 unfortunately. Edwardpig went on hiatus on June 8, only returning once, and (I think) should also return to the world of blogging because he is quite good. T. Rex's Guide to Life has apparently had a very busy summer, but will possibly be returning soon, which would be nice, particularly with the election so close (he's very good with polls as I recall). Words on a Page has also gone on hiatus but don't know when it will be returning; hope it does.

I certainly understand the desire to walk away for a bit, but I don't know if I could without walking away (from this particular website) forever. I've thought about doing that, shutting it down and coming back in a couple of months in a new guise, but the feeling usually passes.

But on to the rest of Round the Horn, Special Pirate Version.

Avast ye maties, set sail to Musing's Musings for a missive on a letter President Bush used in his acceptance speech.

If ye would find buried treasure, seek out this reaction to President Bush's story at Iddybud,and turn left at the thing that looks like another thing.

Then you best be sailing to the fair port of Dohiyi Mir for a fascinating look at President Bush in the polls.

Only a scurvy dog would pass on the chance to read Bark Bark Wolf Wolf's response to Senator Kerry's response.

Grab a pint of grog, mosey up to the bar and read this article from Collective Sigh on the Bermuda triangle of John Kerry, The RNC, and the Weather Channel.

Top the mainsail and chart fair winds for rubber hose, where I spy a piece on elevating the discourse.

Draw cutlasses and charge to Steve Gilliard's News Blog for a piece on Zell Miller's melt down and Republican reactions to it.

And remember to check back here for next week, which will be Cowboy Week! Unless I forget.

Let's Pretend!

Since America is like a 10 year old child, I suppose it's a good idea to join Vice President Cheney in a fun little game of let's pretend. Won't that be fun? Let's all put our pretending hats on and consider these words from our Vice President.

Even in this post-9/11 period, Senator Kerry doesn't appear to understand how the world has changed. He talks about leading a "more sensitive war on terror," as though Al Qaeda will be impressed with our softer side.

The Vice President doesn't mess around, does he? Right off the bat he gives us something especially hard to pretend. But there's no point in pretending things that are true, I suppose. So for the moment pretend that Senator Kerry wasn't talking about being sensitive to possible terrorist threats or to the opinions and intelligence of our allies. Oh and you'd best forget that the President has talked several times of waging a sensitive war. Instead, let's pretend that Senator Kerry is a big sensitive crying person who wants to invite all the terrorists over for cookies and punch.

I know that's a hard thing to pretend, but it's good practice. Anyway here's something else that the Vice President would like us to pretend.

Senator Kerry also takes a different view when it comes to supporting our military. Although he voted to authorize force against Saddam Hussein, he then decided he was opposed to the war, and voted against funding for our men and women in the field.

This is a little easier. All you have to do is forget that the President threatened to veto the very same bill if he didn't get it the way he wanted it. And of course forget that the bill was passing by a wide margin when Senator Kerry cast his vote.

Senator Kerry says he sees two Americas.

Oh this is easier still. All you have to do is pretend that Senator Kerry is Senator Edwards.

But still I'm tired of pretending. I think that first pretending, about the "sensitive" war has tired me out terribly. But remember all you Americans, that your Vice President would you like you to continue pretending, at least until November.

Hey Kids!

White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card had some interesting comments yesterday. "It struck me as I was speaking to people in Bangor, Maine, that this president sees America as we think about a 10-year-old child. I know as a parent I would sacrifice all for my children."

Interesting. I mean obviously we should focus on the second part of the statement, the part about President Bush being willing to sacrifice all for his country. But that first part is interesting too. President Bush sees America as a 10-year-old child. I'm not really sure how to take that.

But it's a long way from considering oneself "first among equals," isn't it?

There's No Riot Going On!

Watch, as soon as I say this one will break out.

Still so far the protests haven't created any major problems. How do I know this? Articles by Gary Aldrich and Emmett Tyrrell, both of whom would love to trumpet liberal wrong doing and law breaking, don't mention them.

Both of their columns are on New York and the police state that exists there currently. Emmett Tyrrell contrasts the protests of today with the protests of yesteryear (1968 to be exact). He suggests that today's protesters are a more diverse crowd, which I guess is a good thing. He does offer this interesting line. "Violence was greatly feared at this convention owing to the huge number of Democrats who account for 80 percent of the registered voters in the city." Well, I can see why you'd want to focus on that as the potential cause of violence, but I do think there are some other factors that play into it. And even if you buy that reasoning, doesn't it still beg the question of why hold the Convention in New York City?

Both Tyrrell and Aldrich share a concern that the Police may be getting out of hand. Tyrrell comments on friendly (or "conservative") reporters getting rounded up along with protesters. Aldrich wonders why so many cops are visible and carrying automatic weapons.

Apparently authorities think this show of power sends a strong message to possible troublemakers. But I have to wonder -- protesters I've seen are rude but unarmed. Rock and bottle throwers normally don't bring along guns. If there was an isolated incident involving a firearm, the normal number of police officers could surely handle it as they usually do. If they have evidence of the possibility of guns, then they should move swiftly to arrest such persons preemptively.

Moreover, real terrorists either blow themselves up with bombs or attack with timing devices. Do authorities actually believe they will be engaged in shootouts with armed terrorists? If so, it will be the first time in American history. We should remember that at other times when officers have used their guns against crowds, they have been found to be guilty of terrible excesses. In turn, incidents like Kent State created historical moments of martyrdom, which those in authority have never overcome.

Of course the answer is to profile. Anybody who looks like a "violent" protester or a Muslim should be hassled by the police. All the conventioneers should be left alone. I'm not sure exactly how you tell a violent protester from a non-violent protester (except of course, if the protester is committing an act of violence). I'm sure that there are going to be many reports from the protesters indicating that they are getting more than their fair share of police attention.

But of course the big story, from my point of view, is that this isn't 1968.

That Darn Liberal Media!

Media Matters, an invaluable resource, has the story of a little poll MSNBC ran after Rudy Giuliani's speech. Apparently the question was as follows.

Did Rudy Giulianis speech reassure you or move you to support the Bush-Cheney ticket.

Choice 1 - Reassure

Choice 2 - Move you to support

I don't know if you can catch the tricky subtlety of those choices, but neither choice allows for people who are not going to vote for President Bush. They apparently caught on and changed it, but it still is an interesting reflection of their mind set.

Your Weekly Rush: Ideological Connections

There's an interesting song by Jefferson Airplane entitled "A Small Package of Value Will Come to You, Shortly." It consists of the band saying stuff, modified by reverb, over a nice beat. The last thing you hear in the song before it fades into "Young Girl Sunday Blues" is a voice yelling "No man is an island" and a quieter voice saying "He's a peninsula," which sets of some laughter. This is just to indicate that no person's ideology is formed in a vacuum, but is influenced by all that has come before and all that one has been exposed to.

I've often referenced my division of the Modern Conservative movement into four parts (Traditional Conservatives, Classic Conservatives, Libertarian Conservatives, and Limbaugh Conservatives), but this, perhaps, creates the false impression that these schools of thought are separate and distinct. In fact a better way of looking it is somewhat like a pool or lake. All of the currents of thought (and many more that might be added) while recognizable and distinct, are not separate from any of the other trains of thought in modern Conservatism. Individuals are influenced by these strains of thought, and to a certain extent may identify with them to a greater or lesser extent.

All this by way of saying, Rush Limbaugh is probably the most influential conservative thinker of the 1990s and so far the 2000s. His brand of conservatism, whether you like or dislike it (give you two guesses as to my opinion of it) is the dominant form right now. And you need look no further than the President of the United States appearance on the Rush Limbaugh show yesterday.

President Bush (who got cursed with a really goofy looking picture at the Rush Limbaugh website) started his interview by saying "It's an honor to talk to you." and later in the interview stated, in response to a request for an overview of the President's 2nd term agenda, "I mean, you're a good friend and I would hate to let you down . . ."

For those of you who don't listen to Rush Limbaugh regularly, I should note that he very rarely allows guests to appear on his show. As he has explained often enough, he is the show. His opinions and his views are what make the show work. It's not like Hardball or the O'Rielly Factor where, although the hosts are clearly important to the show, having guests on is part of the format.

Of course, you might also argue that President Bush is appearing on the Rush Limbaugh show because he's a big phony. While he's really a reasonable and rational guy, he wants all of Rush Limbaugh's fans to think that he's one of them. To that argument I say, OK, but doesn't that still show the importance of Rush Limbaugh's thought on the modern conservatism?

Anyway obviously the importance of Rush Limbaugh has some interesting implications for the future of the Republican party / Conservative movement. For example, is Ann Coulter an aberration, or is she the next logical step? Something to consider.

Reality is Partisan!

Once again we see how reality is partisan. For example, these Swift Boat Veterans have made many complaints about Senator John Kerry, detailing specific aspects of his military career that they describe as ignoble or cowardly. Unfortunately for those poor swift boat veterans, reality fails to agree. Other witnesses come forward and contradict their stories. The official Navy Records contradict their stories. In some cases common sense contradicts their stories.

Fortunately, our "liberal" press corps does everything they can to cloud reality so as not to shock those who believe the Swift Boat Veterans. A very good article at Salon by Eric Boehlert dissects the heroic role our reporters and news people are playing in protecting us from the liberal-dominated reality.

A Dallas Observer headline was typical of the shoulder-shrugging quality of the Swift boat coverage: "A group of veterans says John Kerry stretches the truth about his Vietnam service. Whom can you believe? Who knows?" USA Today, ignoring the official Navy records, threw up its hands and announced, "A clear picture of what John Kerry did or did not do in Vietnam 35 years ago may never emerge." Early on in the controversy, ABC's "Nightline" reported: "The Kerry campaign calls the charges wrong, offensive and politically motivated. And points to naval records that seemingly contradict the charges." [Emphasis added.]

Seemingly? A more accurate phrasing would have been that Navy records "completely" or "thoroughly" contradict the Swift Boat Veterans charges that emerged 35 years after the fact. Just this week, a CNN scrawl across the bottom of the screen read, "Several Vietnam veterans are backing Kerry's version of events." Again, a more factual phrasing would have been "Navy records completely back Kerry's version of events.” But that would have meant undermining cable news' hottest story of the summer.

Even when faced with bold-faced Swift Boat Veterans contradictions, the press rarely blinked. In an Aug. 25 dispatch, the Associated Press revealed that in 1971 O'Neill met with President Nixon and told him, "I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border," a conversation captured on the White House's secret taping system. Asked about the quote, which completely contradicts O'Neill’s "Unfit for Command" claim that any soldier, including Kerry, who entered Cambodia would have been court-martialed, O'Neill simply told the AP he never went to Cambodia. The AP then failed to ask the obvious follow-up: What part of "I was in Cambodia," did O'Neill not understand?

Thank goodness for such reporters. Remember, they have to face the mocking slurs of such media watchdog groups as the Daily Howler and Media Matters, but they are standing firm to protect every American's right to believe in the Swift Boat Veterans, without facing any troubling contradictions from "reality." Of course, protecting the Swift Boat Veterans claims from the crushing weight of reality also protects a story they've invested quite a bit of time in promoting and commenting on, so I guess it's a win-win situation from their perspective.