For more on Kerry

Check out Counterspin--some good comments on it today. Particularly on how this really is most likely Karl Rove rather than Clark.

Empty Wallet Economics Update

I've finally decided to update the page that contains my economic theory, Empty Wallet Economics. Previously it was a jpeg or some stupid thing because of my limited computer skill and then my laziness. But now it's a normal old web page, with a new addendum. Enjoy.emptywallet explained.gif

Kerry

Well, if you don't know it now, you will know it soon. Kerry is being accused of Marital Infidelity (fancy words for foolin' around on his wife) by the Drudge Report.

We'll see how this plays out; so far Kerry hasn't responded (as far as I know).

In a related story the Enquirer has a front page story on Kerry's loose morals, drug use, and plastic surgery (the unholy trifecta). Rush Limbaugh was complaining about this during lunch, presumably because the Enquirer had a similar story about him that they all picked up on. Maybe it's because the story about Rush had more proof and the stories about Kerry are less provable.

Common Sense Person

Gary Aldrich writing today asks the following musical questions.

"If a decorated firefighter becomes an arsonist, is he still considered a hero?

If a dedicated FBI agent leaves his agency, then attacks it – and becomes a professional witness for the defense - is he still a “hero?”

The answers are obvious to any common sense person.

But, if a Vietnam-era soldier comes home, blasts his country, gives aid and comfort to our enemies, and tosses his war medals over the White House fence – in this unique circumstance – then he’s apparently still a hero in the minds of many, including the mainstream media."

Hmmmmm. So let me see if I follow the logic here. Kerry served with distinction in Vietnam and then after leaving the service protested against it. This is equivelant to an FBI agent leaving his agency and becoming a witness for the defense.

Well, I'd buy that. I mean let's consider why the FBI agent might have left the agency. If he goes to work for the defense, is it possible that he's found holes in FBI cases that the agency refused to address? Yes it's possible; it may even be likely. So this poor FBI Agent decided he had to leave a system he believed had become unjust and work for people he knew to be wrongfully accused (perhaps in Mr. Aldrich's America, nobody is falsely accused).

By the same token, Senator Kerry apparently returned from Vietnam and believed that the war was unjust. So he began protesting against it. One might consider that his patriotic duty.

The problem for Mr. Aldrich is that they haven't successfully rewritten history quite yet. I mean they would like us to remember Vietnam as a just war unjustly protested by drugged out hippies and communists. But they aren't there just yet. The pictures are still in our national memory.

Calling All Voters

Want to know how Conservatives really see you? Check out Emmett Tyrrell's latest article, "The Moron Vote." This is because only an "the angry, stupid, political neurotic who has proceeded into middle age convinced that the world is against him-her" would support Howard Dean.

So his latest article is on how Senator John F. Kerry is going to win the Moron Vote over to his side. Apparently it's through gross distortion. Oh wait a second, that's Tyrrell's method for turning people against John F. Kerry.

This ties back to the whole National Guard issue you may have been following. Tyrrell paint's a picture of Kerry as having been the leader on this issue and as using it against President Bush. "Now Sen. John Pierre Kerry is the frontrunner, and he has developed a fine ploy for corralling the moron vote. He and McAuliffe have stirred up this controversy about how frequently the president attended National Guard meetings three decades ago. And they have transformed their entire party into the most heroic congeries of patriots and GI Joes ever seen on earth. The morons are entranced."

Yep. American voters; any of you who are interested in seeing George W. Bush's missing national guard time cleared up, this whole scandal has been cooked up to trick you, the Moron Voter. I so wish more people knew about Tyrells opinions. Wouldn't it be nice if, just as they asked Clark to defend Michael Moore, someone asked President Bush, "Do you agree with Emmit Tyrrells assessment that people who are supporting Democratic candidates are morons?"

Kerry's War Protesting Record

It's clear that the Right will make this an issue. Apparently Kerry, after having fulfilled his duty to the United States Military, thought the Vietnam War was an unjust and criminal war. So naturally that makes him a traitor. In particular there is a picture of Kerry at a protest with Jane Fonda in 1970. Joe Conason breaks it down in today's post.

"On Monday, Rush Limbaugh published a photograph of Fonda at what appears to be an antiwar rally, under the headline "John Kerry With Hanoi Jane in September, 1970." And indeed, a blurry face about two rows behind her does resemble the young Kerry.

But Limbaugh, like so many who attack Kerry for working with Fonda against the war, distorts reality. Fonda didn't travel to Hanoi until August 1972. Obviously that was two years after the September 1970 rally and, more important, a year after she joined demonstrations led by Kerry and his fellow vets in Vietnam Veterans Against the War."

So I guess the accusation is that Kerry's failure to predict that Jane Fonda would visit Vietnam and steer clear of her should make him ineligible for the Presidency.

Rush does (as Conason points out) sound a little nuts discussing this. "You want to go out there and you want to attack George W. Bush, the commander-in-chief, in charge of the war on terror, fine.

We've got pictures of Jane Fonda in Hanoi. We've got pictures of Kerry throwing those medals of other people over the fence. We got Tom Hayden. We got the Chicago Eight. We've got all those people spitting on the soldiers when they came back. We've got all the Democrats calling them "baby killers." We've got it all, if you want to bring it back up."

I really really really doubt that Rush has pictures of all "those people" spitting on soldiers or all the Democrats calling them "baby killers." Really, all the Democrats? That doesn't make any sense.

Can Kerry Win?

Well Geov Parrish writes today on why Kerry might win after all. Two weeks ago he wrote on why he thought Kerry was a sure loser, but today he's not as sure.

"My mistake was in assessing the ability of George W. Bush to run, successfully, against John Kerry. That hasn't changed. But what I left out of the equation is that Bush must also run against himself. That is the race that will define November. And, as we've seen in these last few days, when Bush confronts himself, it's his prospects for a second term that lose.

Bush's unprecedented appearance on Meet the Press last Sunday was a revelation to the political junkies who watch Sunday morning TV. We now understand why this president has avoided news conferences that aren't pre-scripted, or any other environments where hard questions might be asked. Put simply, he can't answer them."

I strongly disagree with Parrish's assessment of Kerry; I think the man has a lot of strengths to go along with a few weaknesses. But I agree that this election will hinge on what President Bush does or fails to do more than on what Kerry (or whoever our final nominee is) does.

For another look at President Bush's performance on Meet the Press, check out Archy's review of Peggy Noonan's review.

And Now I'm not Sure What to Say

Reading Bill Murchinson's article today on The Disunited States of America. Nice article. Says directly what many of his colleagues are dancing around. Running against President Bush for President gives comfort to the enemies of the United States.

"Maybe, provided you believe polls produced nine months before the election, the president is about to retire in disgrace: a political Bernie Ebbers. Whatever the case, we should brace for the possibility of a campaign in which the leader of the war on terrorism is daily called, by many of his own constituents, a fraud and a betrayer.

If you were an Iraqi Baathist or a Shiite ayatollah, an American infantry corporal or a potential Islamic suicide bomber, a French foreign secretary or a United Nations diplomatist, how would you receive the news that Americans are fed up, potentially, with the president who started this war? Would this encourage or discourage you concerning prospects for the drip-drip of American hands being washed, Pontius Pilate-style, of a deadly and burdensome commitment?"

Well there it is. Although Murchinson turns to attacking Kerry specifically, doesn't this line of reasoning apply to any Democratic candidate? Presumably any candidate who loved their country would chose to set this out, and the fact that we've had 10 candidates running for the Democratic ticket shows the depravity of the Democratic Party.

That is, of course, if you believe that President Bush has done a good job on the war on terror. If you believe he's done such a good job, that to criticize him is a willful act of blindness stemming from a disdain for America. I don't. I think President Bush has done good in some areas (small ones), but for the most part he has not handled the post September 11th world very well at all. His invasion of Iraq in particular appears to have been a blunder in a number of ways (the rationales for the war have crumbled like crumb cake, they insufficiently planned for victory, and so on).

I mean if you thought President Bush was doing a bad job, well, wouldn't it be your patriotic duty to in a democratic fashion remove him from power?

In other news, those of you who read yesterdays article on David Brooks might be interested in James Pinkerton's take on the article from Salon.

What I meant to Say Was

I haven't tracked the ongoing story of how poorly the President did on "Meet the Press" because so many others have. But David Brooks' latest deserves a bit of comment. In it Mr. Brooks admits what a poor performance the President gave by marking down how he would have done it.

He gets to September 11th in 20 words. "Tim, I know I'm repeating myself, but I am a war president. Do you remember how you felt on Sept. 12, 2001?"

Oh, wait a second, I meant September 12th. I felt pretty bad on September 11th myself, but maybe it took a little longer for it to sink in for Mr. Brooks.

But anyway that gives you the argument; if we don't vote for President Bush, if we don't support his policies in the war on Terror than we are not remembering September 11th. "I look around and observe that many of my fellow Americans don't seem to be living on Sept. 12, the way I am. And if they don't feel in their bones the presence of war, I don't know what argument I can use to persuade them.

I look on the Democratic side and see that primary voters last Tuesday ranked terrorism last on their issues of concern. I see John Kerry accusing me of stoking a "culture of fear." On the Republican side, I notice conservatives are panicked and peevish toward me over spending and immigration."

Of course this argument doesn't work so well if you believe that the Democratic Presidential Candidates will fight the War on Terror with the same passion and a bit more common sense.

The New Pollution

Well now that Kerry is the front runner there's a ready made mantra against him, one that both the left (meaning those who support other Democratic Presidential candidates) and the right can use. But of course the right will use it more aggressively.

The mantra is this; Kerry supported the war on Iraq and based his conclusion on the same information the President got, so it's hypocritical of him to not support the war now. Here's a few examples.

"So let's be honest, if President Bush lied about the threat, so did Democrats in Congress, including Kerry and Edwards. If he exaggerated the threat, those Democrats were conspirators in the act. If he made a mistake in attacking Iraq based on available intelligence, so did Kerry and Edwards."
-David Limbaugh, "Kerry, Edwards and company: Have they forgotten?"

"The leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, presents an inviting target of inconsistency, hypocrisy and opportunism when his statements about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction are examined."
-Cal Thomas, "Time to take the offensive"

So let's take a moment and consider. Kerry has explained his vote with the argument that he underestimated President Bush's desire to invade Iraq. He believed that a show of force was necessary; but that President Bush went further than he expected. I buy this. Back when Saddam was forced to let inspectors back in; I had hopes that war could be averted. But then it turned out that President Bush had no intention of playing fair with Iraq or the United Nations. So on that level Kerry's statement makes sense.

The other argument is that President Bush and Senator Kerry looked at the same information and came up with the same answer. Well, that's nonsense. If there was institutional pressure to come back with a specific answer in Iraq, that pressure took place in the executive wing of the Government. By the time the information got to Kerry, the damage had been done. I suspect that most of us, looking at what Kerry was shown, would have signed off to a certain extent on the idea that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. But that doesn't answer the question of whether or not the information was not painting a complete picture in the first place.

A whole flock of new links

Well I've joined the Liberal Coalition (although you wouldn't know it from my posts today, which have been less liberal than normal). They haven't sent me my secret decoder ring or the keys to the liberalmobile, but as soon as they do I will spring into action, stricking fear into the hearts of conservatives (with the astounding power of snarky posts).

In other news, I continue to have a rich fantasy life.

At any rate, that explains the new list of links, right below my other list of blog links; Pen-Elayne on the Web gets to be on both lists because, frankly, she's just that good. Anyway check out the other websites--many of them seem quite good, although I haven't reviewed them all in detail.

Bush / Hitler Comparisons

Byron Williams, who I've quoted a couple of times recently, is apparently in hot water because of his opinion that comparing President Bush to Hitler is not accurate. So his article today explains his position.

"My reluctance to make the Hitler analogy was due in part to my own experience at the childrenÂ’s portion of the Yad Vashem museum in Jerusalem. Although the experience dates back 14 years, the memory still reverberates in my soul. The childrenÂ’s portion is, very simply, a 100-yard corridor surrounded by darkness with the exception of a few lights and mirrors that give one the impression of being beneath the stars. There are no photos, artifacts, or words, just a voice that echoes the names of children who died under the Nazi regime. Upon completion, one is left only with the futile attempt to understand what would prompt such evil.

Everything that Hitler did in 1933 was geared to the end product in 1945. We must never forget that among HitlerÂ’s sadistic objectives was the elimination an entire group of people from the face of the earth. By 1945, he had reached 66 percent of goal.

I am not an apologist for the antics of the Bush Administration, but as a theologian as well as a writer I cannot allow loose, insensitive historical analogies to go by without a response. If the comparison is based on the consolidation of power and the rollback of civil liberties, then history has provided myriad individuals who fall into that category, including Franklin Roosevelt and the treatment of Japanese Americans post-Pearl Harbor. There are many applicable analogies between this president and those who sought to rollback freedom more appropriate than the mass murderer of millions upon millions of innocent people."

I have to say that I find myself in complete agreement with Mr. Williams. Also I think it's fair to ask who benefits from an extended discussion in the Democratic party of whether or not President Bush is a lot like Hitler? This is an election year; perhaps one of the more important election years of our lifetimes. diluteute our message with this discussion is, in my mind, not the wisest course of action.

Advisors to the President

Well, Bob Herbert, in his latest article, has a suggestion for the President. "If I were advising the president, I'd suggest he form his own truth squad to vet his policies and public statements and advise him on ways to maintain a high level of credibility..

Good advice, but probably unnecessary. President Bush is going to govern according to a hardline conservativism; he's made that clear. People who agree with his philosophy don't see most of what Herbert points to (Iraq, the Deficit, etc.) as problems, but as evidences of President Bush's strength. The only places where President Bush is going to have a difficulty with his base is in programs like "Leave No Child Behind" or the recent Prescription Drug plan. When it comes to growing the government, they will care that a program initially estimated at $400 Billion (the Prescription Drug Plan) will now cost $583.

And it is doubtful that such a committee would really win over Mr. Herbert who closes his article with this comment. "It's time to put an end to the fantasies and the deceit, which have landed us in a quagmire overseas and the equivalent of fiscal quicksand at home.

It's not too much to ask that the president of the United States speak the clear truth about his policies and their implications. Mr. Bush would do himself and his country a favor by establishing a closer relationship with reality and a more intense commitment to the truth.

Those Americans who have put their trust in the president deserve nothing less."

New Quotes

This week's quote comes from my favorite album of last year (one of them anyway), Neil Young's Greendale. Thoroughly brilliant and well worth checking out.

Also updated the Quotes Page.

Preconceptions

Good, if brief, editorial there at the New York Times today, on the continuing economic problems. Although some would like us to believe that the economy is in recovery, the truth is that the employment numbers don't lend themselves to that conclusion. The editorial runs throught this and talks about how each party's desire to mold the economic news into their narrative works.

"Because the White House's view of the economy is driven by a political narrative, little effort is made to grapple with some of the thorny questions posed by the slow job growth. Has technology-driven productivity growth and outsourcing placed a new speed limit on the rate of job creation? Can the government raise this speed limit?

The Democrats are enamored of their own narrative of corporate robber barons' conspiring with low-paid overseas workers to destroy the American middle class. So the Democratic candidates also fail to engage the complex reality and are too quick to resort to protectionist demagoguery."

Well, yes, but i do think the author of this one underestimates the corporate bias against the American Worker.

Rich Lowry - Not Entirely Trustworthy

He writes an article today that proports to be an interview the John Kerry. However, it is probably a satire on the fact that Kerry served in Vietnam. An honest satirist makes sure that his readers know that it is satire. But in this case Lowry doesn't bother to do that.

His point is, of course, that Kerry shouldn't bring up Vietnam. Stories about Kerry's Vietnam Experiences should remind us how vain and shallow he is (and not presumably how George W. Bush sat that one out).

David Limbaugh's Electoral Advice

In a nutshell, drop Kerry and run Edwards.

Limbaugh says that "all the polls" show that support for Kerry is solely based on our love for a winner, and definately not due to anything he's bringing to the table. So we will have buyer's remorse down the road. But of course, he's happy about that (in fact he names hs article "I'm Glad They're Nominating Kerry.")

He thinks we should run Edwards because although Edwards isn't that tall (nice of you to take the high road, mr. Limbaugh), he has the "appeal to the stupid masses" shtick down to a science. "Nevertheless, Edwards' smarmy pseudo-populism scares the heck out of me. Beginning in the courtroom, he has refined to an art the knack for victimizing and polarizing, pitting injured plaintiffs against evil defendants, and wage earners against entrepreneurs. Just like he convinces juries he cares more about the plaintiff's injury than his share of the verdict, exit polls reveal he has fooled primary voters into believing he cares more about "working folks" than his own lustful desire to be president.

If he truly cared, he wouldn't try to poison people's souls with envy and he wouldn't ignore the evidence so cogently presented by the brilliant Thomas Sowell that there are not nearly as many poor people in America as some would have us believe."

Yep times are great in America for everybody who matters. Following Limbaugh's style, this is a message President Bush and his legions push all year long. Everything is fine, and the only people suffering are lazy slobs who deserve it. Still, I suspect that Karl Rove has a bit better grip on reality than Limbaugh so my wishes may not be realized.

I also like the phrase "his own lustful desire to be President." Yep, that horny Edwards, always wanting to be President. Not like George W. Bush who had the Presidency forced upon him.

Your Weekly Rush

Well Rush was talking about the George Tenet Testimony yesterday, and he got one of his few liberal callers. Rush is careful to screen out any intelligent liberals with good arguments, so the liberals who do show up on his show are usually nitwits. This person made the point that George Tenet has had 5 years since being appointed by Clinton to rebuild the CIA. Rush explained Liberals' true feelings about the CIA.

"The correct answer is he shouldn't be rebuilding the CIA. We hate CIA. The CIA is the focus of evil and the CIA is why we're in trouble, we've got to get rid of the CIA and the reason we've got to get rid of the CIA is because of this Iraq debacle. This is what a true good liberal would really say if he were telling the truth. You don't call here and start defending the CIA. You don't call here and defend Clinton and the CIA. You don't do that. You're denying us who you really are. And I'm just not going to let it happen. You people got psychological problems, I'm going to try to help you."

Luckly for us all, Rush is an even bigger nitwit than his caller. Let's break this down.

1. Liberals hate the CIA and want it destroyed.

Truth: Many liberals do feel ambivelant towards the CIA, but few serious liberals want to see it destroyed.

2. If a Liberal defends the CIA he is denying who he is.

Truth: Only if you accept the first premise.

3. Liberals have psychological problems.

Truth: Huh? Don't I remember the old Soviet Union using supposed mental disorder as a means to get rid of people they didn't like? I would think Rush would not want to emulate the Soviet Union, but perhaps I've misjudged him.

Anyway I personally like the CIA although I do want to see it reformed in some areas.

Mr. Kerry

Although the Primary Season is far from over, currently Senator Kerry is out in front. So naturally he's drawing fire from Republicans (in much the same way that Former Governer Dean was drawing them three weeks ago).

Joe Conason examines Kerry and some of the charges against him in an article at Working for Change. He states, "If he wins the Democratic nomination, Mr. Kerry will pose certain challenges that aren’t so easily solved: He’s a decorated war veteran, a hunter and a politician who doesn’t hesitate to fight back when attacked. Those qualities distinguish him from the soft targets that Republicans enjoy hitting most."

I hope he's right. It would be nice to have a Democratic Candidate take the fight to the Republicans; but we'll have to see what happens down the road.

Great News for the Economy

Well, it looks like the Wall Street High Life is roaring back. I deduced that from the front page of yesterdays Wall Street Journal, where I spied (with my little eye) a headline saying "With the Market Up, Wll Street High Life Comes Roaring Back."

Apparently a year ago poor Bret Grebow, 28 Hedge Fund Manager, had to take cheap flights on JetBlue airlines. Luckily now that the markets back up he's able to charter flights to whereever he wants to go. Isn't that great?

Yep, we should all be happy that although the economy still sucks on the bottom, people on the top are doing wonderful.