Friday, May 21, 2004
Thursday, May 20, 2004
The odds against it are high ...
... but I think it would certainly be the most exciting choice Kerry could make.
(I don't know who the people are who put this together, but they have put a lot of thought into a well designed site.)
Working the refs
Kevin Drum worked the refs (in this case, Jonathan Alter) and it may have produced some positive results.
A hopeful sign?
Kerry has done something that Gore never did in 2000: met with Ralph Nader. Initial reports are that the results have been positive:
Mr. Kerry did not ask him to abandon the race, and Mr. Nader showed no signs of bowing out. But Mr. Kerry's wooing did seem to be having the desired effect already. In an interview immediately after what participants called a very friendly one-hour meeting at Mr. Kerry's headquarters, Mr. Nader called Mr. Kerry "very presidential," fondly recalled his antiwar leadership in the 1970's, praised his skills as a politician and quite favorably compared Mr. Kerry to Vice President Al Gore.
Hmm, maybe Nader really just needed someone to stroke his ego.
It doesn't sound like Nader will be dropping out, but he apparently said that he would be focusing his fire in this election on Bush and not on Kerry.
Of course, Nader went back on his promise in 2000 not to campaign in battleground states. But maybe that's because Gore never stroked Nader the way Kerry has.
...Norm Schreiber provides an interesting post-analysis of the meeting and what it tells us about Nader and Kerry: namely that Nader is an ego-maniac who can be appeased in large part by simply stroking that ego and that Kerry, unlike Gore, is more comfortable doing just that. Why? Because Kerry may just be more self-confident than Gore:
This brings us to a third point: I think the deeper difference between Kerry and Gore is that, on some level, Kerry is much more self-confident, or at least much less plagued with self-doubt, than Gore ever was. Whereas Gore's formative political experience was the crushing defeat of his father, then a Tennessee senator, in his 1970 reelection campaign, it just never occurs to Kerry that he's going to lose (even though he actually came up short in his first run for office). It didn't occur to him when his back was against the wall in his 1996 race against Bill Weld. It didn't occur to him when he was getting throttled by Howard Dean this winter. And it certainly didn't occur to him when the Bush campaign unleashed several weeks worth of negative ads this spring. As I've suggested before, this can be an exceedingly grating quality--if for no other reason than it betrays a general obliviousness to how close he's come to actually losing, and how lucky he's been not to. (It can be very satisfying when a person with this quality actually does lose.) But I also happen to think this imperviousness to self-doubt is what separates successful politicians--and athletes and battlefield commanders and explorers (anyone ever see the documentary "Shackleton"?)--from, well, hyper-self-conscious bloggers.
There is something to be said for the political appeal of someone who refuses to acknowledge that they might lose. I suspect that it is that quality that accounts for why George W. Bush has remained as "popular" as he has in spite of his obvious failures. Schreiber makes the point that Kerry's history demonstrates that he has a similar pig-headedness.
At least in Kerry's case, it is a confidence that is backed up with a modicum of skill.
What it takes to win
Look to see Nancy Pelosi get raked over the coals by the usual suspects for calling Bush incompetent and lacking in judgment. Look to see her labeled unpatriotic and more interested in winning the White House for John Kerry then she is in winning the war for the United States. Look to see her decried for demoralizing the troops in a time of war.
What the usual suspects don't understand is that, when leadership in a time of war is failing, it would be unpatriotic not to criticize that leadership.
George W. Bush is the single greatest roadblock to winning the war on terror. Defeating him this Fall has to be the #1 priority of all those who want to achieve victory for the United States.
Andy Kaufman returns ...
... or maybe not.
Check out his blog and decide for yourself
(The people who get upset about this kind of thing are the very people that Andy poked fun at.)
The essential difference
Atrios puts it as succinctly as possible for those who are wondering why we express more outrage over Abu Ghraib than Nick Berg:
And, for the trolls - I am not responsible for things not done in my name. I am responsible for things that are. Please try to understand the difference.
When the monsters slice off the head of an innocent they harm the innocent and their loved ones. When the monsters flash smiles and thumbs up at the torture of Iraqi prisoners while wearing the uniform of my country and acting under the orders of my leadership then they are representing me in the eyes of the world.
There is no act the terrorists could perform that can cause as much harm to us as we can cause to ourselves.
The thugs who killed Nick Berg only sliced off his head. The people responsible for Abu Ghraib stabbed at the very heart of the American ideal. The former killed a man. The latter killed a dream.
Stop making excuses!
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
Ouch
Every now and then these idiots do something that confirms the fact that they really are just a bunch of whiny little pissants.
Hastert questions McCain's GOP credentials
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a rare public swipe at a fellow Republican, House Speaker Dennis Hastert on Wednesday questioned the GOP credentials of John McCain, a U.S. senator who has often challenged party orthodoxy.
Talking to reporters, Hastert pretended not to know who McCain was when asked about a recent statement by the GOP senator from Arizona. As other House GOP members stood behind him laughing, Hastert, R-Illinois, then expressed doubt that McCain was indeed a Republican.
There's a mature image. American congressman acting like Grover Dill to Hastert's Scut Farkus
The exchange started when a reporter asked: "Can I combine a two issues, Iraq and taxes? I heard a speech from John McCain the other day..."
Hastert: "Who?"
Reporter: "John McCain."
Hastert: "Where's he from?"
Reporter: "He's a Republican from Arizona."
Hastert: "A Republican?"
Amid nervous laughter, the reporter continued with his question: "Anyway, his observation was never before when we've been at war have we been worrying about cutting taxes and his question was, 'Where's the sacrifice?' "
Hastert: "If you want to see the sacrifice, John McCain ought to visit our young men and women at Walter Reed and Bethesda. There's the sacrifice in this country. We're trying to make sure they have the ability to fight this war, that they have the wherewithal to be able to do it. And, at the same time, we have to react to keep this country strong."
Oh yes, I'm sure Dennis Hastert needs to remind John McCain, a man who spent years in a Vietnamese POW camp, what it means to sacrifice for one's country.
Walter Reed Army Medical Center and Bethesda National Naval Medical Center are two military hospitals in the Washington area.
McCain, a prisoner of war during Vietnam, later released a written statement, taking issue with the spending habits of Republican lawmakers.
"The speaker is correct in that nothing we are called upon to do comes close to matching the heroism of our troops," McCain said. "All we are called upon to do is not spend our nation into bankruptcy while our soldiers risk their lives. I fondly remember a time when real Republicans stood for fiscal responsibility. Apparently those days are long gone for some in our party."
Ironically, McCain spent his lunch hour at a Capitol Hill bookstore signing copies of his new book, "Why Courage Matters."
Don't mess with John, Denny. You're not in his league. Your not even playing the same game.
Enlightenment
I think I just figured out one of the reasons why these guys keep fucking up:
Miller said he has moved quickly to change the U.S. detention facilities in Iraq. The 3,600 detainees at Abu Ghraib are being moved into a new tent city dubbed "Camp Redemption."
Miller said he doesn't deny the need for U.S. military authorities to be redeemed in the wake of the scandal.
Public relations is the art of selling people on what you are already doing. It is not a substitute for actual action. But it becomes so when the PR people are the ones in charge (see Karl Rove).
We are being led by people who think that 90% of the solution is to just find the right name.
Turnabout
William Saletan, who has been running a semi-regular Slate column on Bushisms (George W. Bush's tortuous mangling of the English language), has begun applying the same treatment to John Kerry. In the case of Kerry, however, Saletan goes after the Senator's tendency to be long winded and, in the process, provides a useful service: an english translation of what John Kerry is actually saying.
Even a Kerry supporter should find it amusing.
Typical
Why should this be a surprise?
White House Is Trumpeting Programs It Tried to Cut
WASHINGTON, May 18 � Like many of its predecessors, the Bush White House has used the machinery of government to promote the re-election of the president by awarding federal grants to strategically important states. But in a twist this election season, many administration officials are taking credit for spreading largess through programs that President Bush tried to eliminate or to cut sharply.
After all, this administration is led by a man who, during the 2000 campaign, took credit for a Texas Patient's Bill of Rights that he tried to kill..
By the way, while searching for the above link I found this April 5th, 2004 New York Times article describing how the Bush Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to block lawsuits under the very Texas law Bush took credit for.
As I said, why should this be a surprise to anyone?
The dangers ahead
I'd like to add a second to the points Liberal Oasis makes in this post:
The fundamental line that separates the Bushie neocons from everybody else is:
Should Iraq policy be based on desire for US military, political and economic control of the Gulf region (which fosters resentment that harms our national security)?
Or desire for peace, stability and true self-determination for the Iraqi people (which fundamentally enhances our long-term national security)?
The fact is, most everyone in both the Withdraw Now and the Withdraw Later camps also falls into the latter "self-determination" camp, and not the imperialist Pax Americana camp (which uses self-determination rhetoric as a smokescreen).
The debate between Withdraw Now and Withdraw Later is mainly over how to get there with the least amount of bloodshed, and the least risk of long-term security problems.
There is a danger, as things become increasingly heated, that people in both camps will start to smear the other side as being all of a kind ideologically. In my case, I have been (until recently) solidly in the Withdraw Later camp because I thought that just pulling out would be irresponsible, despite the fact that I thought going in was irresponsible to begin with. Of late I am starting to lean more towards the Withdraw Now side because I have come to realize that continued U.S. "control" in Iraq has become part of the problem, not the solution. In either case, my position on this issue has as its fundamental desire the wish to see a stable, self-determining Iraq (and a stable Middle-East) and not the neo-imperialism of the PNAC crowd.
As LO points out, the majority of the people in this debate are on the same page as far as what they desire (peace, stability and true self-determination). The main sticking points are over how to achieve those goals. And, as LO also points out, there is a real danger that those with differing ideas about how to achieve those goals will begin to view those in the other camp as being of a kind with the worst elements of each group ("Pax Americana Neo-Imperalists" and "Peacnik Terrorist Appeasers" to give them stereotypical labels).
We have to be careful not to fall into that trap.
Tuesday, May 18, 2004
Left-wing synergy
If there is one thing the right-wing has been good at it is at creating synergy. A right-wing think tank puts out a set of talking points and right-wing talk radio picks it up and sells it and right-wing TV (aka FOX) reports on the "growing controversy" that has been bubbling up. The result creates the appearance of a spontaneous story arising from a series of "unrelated" media commentary.
Well, today for the first time I witnessed an example of left-wing synergy.
Media Matters for America, David Brock's new media watchdog organization, posted the following item on Friday:
Hannity repeated distortions of Kerry record even after conceding similar attacks on McCain were "not fair"
Even after conceding on the May 12 edition of FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes that attacks on Senator John McCain's (R-AZ) voting record -- which were similar to a claim made by co-host Sean Hannity earlier in the show about Senator John Kerry's record -- were "not fair," Hannity repeated the same distorted claim about Kerry's voting record on the May 13 Hannity & Colmes. Specifically, Hannity repeated that "[Kerry is] a guy that voted against every major weapons system."
[...]
HANNITY: You know, Senator, when Reagan was winning the Cold War, John Kerry wanted a nuclear freeze. When he could have voted for the death penalty for terrorists in '89, he didn't do it, the ones that kill Americans. He voted -- After the first World Trade Center bombing, he had he Kerry Amendment. Ted Kennedy couldn't ever vote for it. It would have cut $6 billion from our intelligence community. He's voted against just about every major weapons system we now have.
He is -- and he's the most liberal senator. He could be your friend, but he's the most liberal senator, according to the "National Journal." He is what he is, and to point this out in his record is a fair thing to do, isn't it?
MCCAIN: He'll have to defend his own record.
I would be accused of voting against numerous weapon systems, because I voted against defense appropriations bills because they're loaded down with pork. And they're obscene today with all of the pork-barrel spending and multi-trillion dollar deficits. I'll probably vote against the defense appropriations bill this year. I was accused of voting against breast cancer research because that was on a defense appropriations bill that I voted against, so...
HANNITY: But on defense issues, the most important issue of our time, that your guy is George W. Bush, right?
MCCAIN: He is my guy. I'm campaigning for him. I'm supporting his re-election. I want him to be re-elected. I believe he has led this nation with moral clarity. But I was also subjected to allegations of being against things like breast cancer research, which was on a defense appropriations bill.
HANNITY: I remember. That's not fair. I understand.
MCCAIN: So he'll have to defend and explain his own record.
Notwithstanding his May 12 exchange with McCain, on the May 13 Hannity & Colmes, Hannity repeated his claim that Kerry "voted against every major weapons system."
This is the kind of crap that Hannity engages in all the time. And Media Matters is not the first one who has called him on it (MM credits Bob Somerby with bringing this incident to their attention). But usually any left-wing criticism of things like this withers on the vine because it never leaps out of its original media frame.
However, this afternoon, as I was driving to have lunch with my wife, I tuned into Al Franken's show. He brought up this very story, including exact clips of the two moments Media Matters highlighted in their report. But Franken didn't mention where he got the story from. He just seemed to "spontaneously" report on the same thing that MM reported on Friday.
Cool.
Now if we only had a left-wing news channel to report on the "growing controversy".
Might defeat in 2004 be the best option available to the Republicans?
I'd like to expand on a point Ezra Klein makes here:
Something to watch is the Senate's reaction in the coming weeks. I'm getting the distinct impression that a fair chunk of Republicans are no longer invested in this President's reelection. It's a combination of worry over the direction of their party, an irritation at being so far out of the loop and a growing realization that Bush's reelection will be bad for the War on Terror and disastrous for Iraq. Contrary to what some think, most politicians want the best for the country, they just have peculiar ideas on how to get there. The unavoidable understanding that appears to be sweeping the halls of power is that the closet is too full of skeletons to pack any more in there -- there's a desire to get it all in the open to see how bad it is before we've got this guy locked in for a second term.
Ezra keys into a dynamic in this scandal that I hadn't considered before: the Republican leadership is starting to ask themselves whether, if a small part of the accusations against the Bushies prove to be true, such a revelation, coming after Bush's re-election, might not bring the party down as a whole.
Consider Nixon and Watergate. The break-in occurred before the 1972 election, but didn't become a full-blown scandal until after Nixon was re-elected. Now imagine if the full revelations of Watergate had come out before the election. How many Republicans would have asked themselves whether it might not be better to go down to electoral defeat in that election then to suffer the indignity of having their party standard-bearer run out of town on a rail?
The Republicans were hurt badly in the 1976 election in large part because of Watergate. Might they have done better if Nixon had never been re-elected?
How many Republicans today are asking themselves whether there is something even nastier that might come out about the Bush crew but that it might not come out until after Dubya is re-elected? And how many of them are making the political calculation that it would be better to get the nasty stuff out now rather than later?
That could go a long way toward explaining why his party's leadership isn't exactly rushing to the mike to defend Bush.
Sign of the times
Adem Mordecai of Change for America brings us this little tidbit from the London Sunday Telegraph:
U.S. athletes told to cool it at Olympics
By Simon Hart
LONDON SUNDAY TELEGRAPHNEW YORK � American athletes have been warned not to wave the U.S. flag during their medal celebrations at this summer's Olympic Games in Athens, for fear of provoking crowd hostility and harming the country's already-battered public image.
The spectacle of victorious athletes grabbing a national flag and parading it around the stadium is a familiar part of international sporting competition, but U.S. Olympic officials have ordered their 550-strong team to exercise restraint and avoid any jingoistic behavior.
The plan is part of a charm offensive aimed at repairing the country's international reputation after the deepening crisis in Iraq and damaging revelations of the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. forces at the Abu Ghraib prison.
"American athletes find themselves in extraordinary circumstances in Athens in relation to the world as we know it right now," said Mike Moran, a veteran former spokesman for the United States Olympic Committee who has been retained as a consultant to advise athletes how to behave.
"Regardless of whether there is anti-American sentiment in Athens or not, the world watches Americans a lot now in terms of how they behave and our culture. What I am trying to do with the athletes and coaches is to suggest to them that they consider how the normal things they do at an event, including the Olympics, might be viewed as confrontational or insulting or cause embarrassment."
Now, I'm not much into flag waving. But I think it is just lousy that our athletes will not be able to share in this time-honored tradition because of concerns about aggravating already tense relations with the rest of the world.
Thanks a lot George.
Swing battah!
Howard Dean has finally brought out the bat for Kerry. They want to raise $500,000 in one day. I've already done my part. Please do yours.
Monday, May 17, 2004
More Marshal
Josh Marshal also discusses his thoughts on how Kerry has run his campaign so far and seems to come down on this issue in much the same way I have: Kerry, whether by design or accident, is playing it just about right.
The most salient fact about the contemporary American political landscape is its profound political polarization. And that is almost the last thing the president has going for him. There are forty-plus percent of the electorate on both sides that will stick with their candidate, and fight for him, simply because he opposes the other side. I think that that's one of the few things keeping the president's approval ratings as high as they are.
Further injecting partisan political sensibilities into this current moment will, I think, steady the president and perhaps even help him in his current state.
I think Josh is on to something important here. It's often said that, when an opponent is going down, don't get in the way of his fall. But there is even more going on here then just letting Bush self-immolate. As Josh points out, the only thing sustaining Dubya right now is the severe partisan split in this country. Bush's approval ratings are approaching the low 40s, which is pretty much his solid base numbers.
Now, as the situation in Iraq continues to fall apart and Bush looks more and more like the flounderer in chief that he is, that base will become more and more demoralized. As Bush falls he will bring some of them down with him, and Bush's approval ratings could plumett into the 30s!
But, if Kerry were to go after Bush hard, his base would come to Dubya's defense, they'd rally around their leader, and become even stronger partisans for their man.
So, by holding off, Kerry is essentially giving Bush supporters time to reconsider their options while they still can.
At this point, barring major changes in the world situation, Kerry is in charge of the pace of the campaign. It his choice to make when to finally make his move. The more he can keep the Bushies sweating about when that will be, the better.
The hearts and minds...of the U.S. soldier
Josh Marshal presents us with a new letter from his "friend in Iraq" about the conditions in country. I found the following segment particularly interesting:
About the Army - Man, it hurts my heart to write this about an institution I dearly love but this army is completely dysfunctional, angry and is near losing its honor. We are back to the Army of 1968. I knew we were finished when I had a soldier point his Squad Automatic Weapons at me and my bodyguard detail for driving down the street when he decided he would cross the street in the middle of rush hour traffic (which was moving at about 70 MPH) ... He made it clear to any and all that he was preparing to shoot drivers who did not stop for his jaunt because speeding cars are "threats."
I also once had a soldier from a squad of Florida National Guard reservists raise weapons and kick the door panel of a clearly marked CPA security vehicle (big American flag in the windshield of a $150,000 armored Land Cruiser) because they wanted us to back away from them so they could change a tire ... as far as they were concerned WE (non-soldiers) were equally the enemy as any Iraqi.
Unlike the wars of the past 20 years where the Army encouraged (needed) soldiers, NGOs, allies and civil organizations to work together to resolve matters and return to normal society, the US Forces only trust themselves here and that means they set their own limits and tolerances. Abu Ghuraib are good examples of that limit. I told a Journalist the other day that these kids here are being told that they are chasing Al Qaeda in the War on Terrorism so they think everyone at Abu Ghuraib had something to do with 9/11. So they were encouraged to make them pay. These kids thought they were going to be honored for hunting terrorists.
This makes me wonder if a tough prosecution of the Abu Ghuraib Seven might not produce a strong backlash against Bush within the military in Iraq.
Kerry/McCain (sigh)
The Kerry/McCain stories are making the rounds of the blogosphere again (Kevin Drum, Matt Yglesias, Atrios and Mark Kleiman all offer their opinions). I've already offered my opinion on this before and I want to repeat it: it is one of the stupidest ideas I have ever heard.
First of all, floating the idea that a Democratic nominee has to go to the Republican party to find an acceptable veep just feeds into the false impression that the Democrats are weak. After all, if the Democrats were strong they wouldn't need to go to the other party to find a partner for their nominee.
Second, it's not going to happen, so speculation about the idea just builds up some people's hopes, only to have them inevitably dashed. This will, in turn, lead to disappointment at whatever choice Kerry does eventually make.
Third, McCain is a great guy, a man of honor, blah blah blah. But he is still a Republican and a strong supporter of George W. Bush! Yearning for him on a ticket with Kerry just feeds into the idea that the only thing the Democrats have to offer the country is George Bush's program, but done right this time.
Sorry, the Democrats need to offer an alternative to Bush, not just a more sensible Bush.
I really really REALLY wish people would just shut up about this idea.
Frankly, the mere discussion just makes me embarrassed to be a Democrat.
Documenting War
This morning on NPR there was a segment talking about soldiers returning from Iraq with tons of photographic images of their time "in country". Digital photography has become cheap enough that many of the grunts are carrying cameras around with them and taking "Kodak moments" as they watch the chaos develop around them. When they come home, they burn CDs and post these pictures on the internet.
Listening to this, I couldn't help thinking back to Vietnam and how the American people's support for the war was worn down, in part, by the continuous stream of battlefield images being piped into their living rooms over the years of that conflict. The military has tried to crack down on this "problem" over the last two decades by severely restricting the access of the news media, especially TV, to the battlefield.
But now they have a new "problem" to worry about: the raw images of warfare being produced by the soldiers themselves. And these images are even worse then what was shown by the news media. TV news rarely shows pictures of body parts and burned corpses. But these soldier photos capture war in all of its worst aspects. And they are coming back home and sharing these photos with their families and friends.
I wonder how long it will be before the DOD bans soldiers from carrying cameras.
