[2004.01.31 - 12:00 P.M.] Not So Fast, Mr. Kay
Josh Marshall fires off his first response salvo in the renewed battle over WMD intelligence:
To the best of my knowledge there is not one single instance we know of in which any portion of the Intelligence Community pressed for a more ominous view of the threat in the face of skepticism from the political appointees at DOD, the Office of the Vice President, the White House or anywhere else in the administration. Not one.
We know of many points of controversy. And, to the best of my knowledge, every last one involved administration politicals pressing for more extreme and ominous interpretations of the Iraqi threat against skeptical members of the Intelligence Community. Every last one.
This is hardly even a controversial point. The hawks themselves made the same argument endlessly. They only stopped when the evidence came in and they were shown to have been wrong in almost every particular.
Marshall also has a response to David Kay's specious conclusion that the CIA was not pressured by the White House: "How would he know?" Indeed, Kay's claim -- a transparently political attempt to do damage control after the release of his own report showing that Iraq had no WMD's whatsoever -- is laughable to anyone who's been paying attention. When, exactly, did he investigate the push-and-pull between the White House and the CIA? While he was on lunch break over in the Iraqi desert? On the plane ride back?
Nevertheless, Kay's substance-free defense has already been picked up by Congressional Republicans and right-wing spinners in the media, and as the fight over where to place the blame for this fiasco kicks into high gear, we're only going to see more of this infuriating inversion of the facts -- what Marshall appropriately calls "up-is-downism".
In the face of this impending tidal wave of lies, faithful readers, I offer you a little life raft called The Truth.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of those soulless bastards made the decision to invade Iraq before Bill Clinton's ass print on the Oval Office chair had cooled and faded. When 9-11 came along, they figured it gave them a pretense, and when it turned out Saddam had nothing to do with the attack, they pressed on anyhow.
They demanded of their intelligence sources:
"Tell us that Iraq is very, very dangerous, and don't dare tell us anything else! And tell us we have to attack RIGHT NOW!"
To which the intelligence community replied:
"Um, well, most of our data doesn't support that conclusion, but here are the few scraps that do. Have a nice day."
And the Bushies turned around and told a scared, distracted, and woefully uninformed country:
"SEE! SEE! WE HAVE TO ATTACK IRAQ. THEY'RE EVIL AND THEY'RE GOING TO NUKE US! AND SADDAM HUSSEIN GASSED HIS OWN PEOPLE!"
So we went to war, killed thousands of them, lost hundreds of our own, pissed off most of the world, toppled a tin-pot dictator, sent him on the run, and then smoked him out of his "spider hole". In the process we smoked out an inconvenient fact: Iraq was never a threat. Not even a little one.
That's what happenned. That's the Truth. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Because now those lying, two-faced maggots want to turn the truth on its head. They want us to believe they were passively duped into war by some faceless, bungling analysts in some cube farm way outside the spotlight. Don't buy it. Yell, scream, resist. Because if they get away with this, it will be the grossest miscarriage of justice in the history of our democracy.
[2004.01.27 - 09:50 P.M.] Dean Beats The Odds
That's right, read the title of this post again: Dean Beats The Odds.
With 70% reporting, Dean has taken 25% of the New Hampshire primary votes to John Kerry's 39%. It's a sound second-place finish -- well ahead of Clark and Edwards who are flip-flopping at the 12-13% level -- but it is definitely a second-place finish. It wasn't close. So why am I claiming Dean's beaten the odds? Because of the absolute beating he's had to overcome from every corner of the media spectrum to finish even this strongly.
By now everyone's seen at least half a dozen hack jobs on the Dean Scream, with headlines like "Dean Implodes" or "Dean Melts Down". Pundits have questioned his sanity. The Washington Press Whores had a field day kicking him around.
If that's not bad enough, even some of the usually saner voices on the left are ready to write him off. Eric Alterman has been politely but insistently questioning the rationale for a continuing Dean campaign for two days. Today he referred to Dean as a "protest candidate". Eric, dude: Dean has $40 million in the bank, a veritable army of volunteers, and a coherent set of policies to run on. And he's also got a substantial portion of Democrats - myself included - who truly believe he is the best man for the job. Howard Dean may be many things, but he is no protest candidate.
So Dean's getting ridiculed by our mainstream "journalists", he's being dismissed in some quarters of the left, and, of course, he's routinely pilloried as a madman by the hacks on the right. What more could he face?
Well check out this story from CJR's Campaign Desk:
Most of the questions asked in the official exit poll for the New Hampshire primary today are routine: Are you liberal or conservative, black or white, male or female, and, by the way, how did you vote?
But then out of nowhere comes this sucker punch:
"Regardless of how you voted today, do you think Howard Dean has the temperament to serve effectively as president?"
No other questions about specific candidates were asked.
How 'bout that? You think the people running this circus are maybe just a little biased against Dean?
I don't know how this is going to turn out, obviously. The polls aren't looking too good for him in the next crop of states, but we've seen how much polls can shift all over the place in the days leading up to these contests. What I will say is this: With every conceivable card in the deck stacked against him (is that a real metaphor?), Howard Dean is hanging pretty tough. Rumors of his demise should be heartily sneered at.
[2004.01.24 - 01:05 P.M.] We've Got The Airwaves
Digby has an interesting take on the sudden tumultuousness of the Democratic race:
It's a wide open race and I think it's a good thing because it's turning into a helluva show. And, a helluva show keeps the media talking to Democrats, showing footage of Democrats, analyzing Democrats and basically giving us lots of free air time and exposure. Our guys are entertaining, unpredictable and they are giving some very good television. Every minute that we are being discussed and examined is a minute they aren't showing another tedious, mind-numbing Dubya fund raising speech in front of "subliminable" backdrops and handpicked cheering crowds. The longer we keep Bush from getting that free and easy oxygen and the longer our story remains suspenseful and exciting, the less he gets to dominate the narrative.
As far as I'm concerned, it's not a big deal even if we take it all the way to a brokered convention. We'd keep Rove on his toes and it would be an exciting show to watch. As we've (re) discovered, many people make up their minds late in the game. If we spend the next 6 months with 4 guys slamming the hell out of Bush day in and day out, it may take its toll.
As long as the polls are in flux, the media will stay focused on the horse-race aspect of the campaign, and Digby's point will hold true. Through the cracks of the wall-to-wall "Who's Beating Who" coverage, the Dems will have a chance to get their substantive message out. Sooner or later, someone is going to win the nomination, at which point the press can go back to their usual favorite game of "Smear The Shit on the Democrat". For now, however, it is gratifying to see the Chimp Administration upstaged while competent, intelligent politicians discuss the issues of the day.
[2004.01.24 - 08:40 A.M.] More on Moore
Did a little more hunting around on this issue. First, here's Moore's response to the Jennings/Clark exchange:
Jennings, referring to me as "the controversial filmmaker," asked if Clark wanted to distance himself from me and my "reckless" remark. Clark would not back down, stating how "delighted" he was with my support, and that I was entitled to say what I wanted to say -- AND that I was not the only one who had made these charges against Bush.
The pundits immediately went berserk after the debate. As well they should. Because they know that they -- and much of the mainstream media -- ignored this Bush AWOL story when it was first revealed by an investigation in the Boston Globe (in 2000). The Globe said it appeared George W. Bush skipped out in the middle of his Texas Air National Guard service -- and no charges were ever brought against him. It was a damning story, and Bush has never provided any documents or evidence to refute the Globe's charges.
George W. Bush was missing for at least a 12 month period. That is an undisputed fact. If you or I did that, we would serve time.
Here is an extensive treatment of the subject by TomPaine.com:
Bush may have finally "made-up" his missed days. But he did so not by attending drills -- in fact he never attended drills again after he enrolled at Harvard. Instead, he had his name added to the roster of a paper unit in Denver, Colorado, a paper unit where he had no responsibility to show up and do a job.
Bush has found military readiness to be a handy campaign issue. Yet even though more than two decades have passed since Bush left the Air National Guard, some military sources still bristle at his service record -- and what effect it had on readiness. "In short, for the several hundred thousand dollars we tax payers spent on getting [Bush] trained as a fighter jock, he repaid us with sixty-eight days of active duty. And God only knows if and when he ever flew on those days," concludes a military source. "I've spent more time cleaning up latrines than he did flying."
And here is a more apologist-minded summary from FactCheck.org:
Websites devoted to criticizing Bush have kept the matter under discussion on the Internet ever since. It surfaced again when Michael Moore, the populist author and movie and TV producer, called Bush a “deserter” at a rally supporting retired Gen. Wesley Clark in New Hampshire. Clark then said during a debate that “I think Michael Moore has the right to say whatever he feels about this.”
The fact is Bush was honorably discharged without ever being officially accused of desertion or being away without official leave.
Much is made by Bush defenders of this last point: No charges were ever filed against Bush. He was never "officially" accused of anything. But what, exactly, does this prove? Does it prove he did nothing wrong? Does it prove he really did fulfill all of his obligations to the guard?
No. What it proves is that he's George W. Bush and you're not.
Bush is a man who's never been held accountable for anything in his entire life. Seriously, if Daddy's friends could get him into the Guard the way they did, would you really expect them to allow Junior to be punished when he blew it off? Of course not. Just like when Bush dumped his Harken stock prior to the company taking a tumble, the mere fact that he did something that was clearly, indisputably wrong doesn't mean he's actually going to get in trouble for it. Please. This is the young, strapping scion of the Bush family we're talking about. President Poppy's SEC Chairman and a friendly investigator were all it took to get that crime "taken care of".
Bottom Line: The media gave Bush a free pass on the Guard story during the campaign. They continue to give him a free pass on it now. Mainstream talking heads like Jennings, tortured by their inner journalist -- a feeble ghost that now lies entombed in an empty corporate shell -- know they dropped the ball on this. They know they would have treated any other candidate (say, Bill Clinton?) differently. So, predictably, when the story comes up they scoff, they dismiss it, and they feign indignation that this small whiff of scandal is still hanging around. Anything they have to say on the matter should be discounted in the extreme.
[2004.01.23 - 06:15 P.M.] It's Called Hyperbole, Pete. Get Over It.
Not much to say about the Dem debate in NH last night, except that I liked the less antagonistic tone, and I think the Legit Four (Dean, Clark, Edwards, and Kerry) all came off pretty well.
I do want to comment, however, on this Peter Jennings exchange with Wesley Clark:
JENNINGS: I get General Clark and Senator Edwards this time.
General Clark, a lot of people say they don't know you well, so this is really a simple question about knowing a man by his friends. The other day you had a rally here, and one of the men who stood up to endorse you is the controversial filmmaker Michael Moore. You said you were delighted with him.
At one point, Mr. Moore said, in front of you, that President Bush -- he's saying he'd like to see you, the general, and President Bush, who he called a "deserter."
Now, that's a reckless charge not supported by the facts. And I was curious to know why you didn't contradict him, and whether or not you think it would've been a better example of ethical behavior to have done so.
CLARK: Well, I think Michael Moore has the right to say whatever he feels about this.
I don't know whether this is supported by the facts or not. I've never looked at it. I've seen this charge bandied about a lot.
General Clark is a busy man right now, so I took the liberty of doing a quick Google search for him. "The Facts" on Bush in this instance are pretty clear. Here's a very good synopsis of them:
In January 1968, with the Vietnam war in full swing, Bush was due to graduate from Yale. Knowing he'd soon be eligible for the draft, he took an air force officers' test hoping to secure a billet with the Texas Air National Guard, which would allow him to do his military service at home. Bush didn't do particularly well on the test--on the pilot aptitude section, he scored in the 25th percentile, the lowest possible passing grade. But Bush's father, George H.W., was then a U.S. congressman from Houston, and strings were pulled. The younger Bush vaulted to the head of a long waiting list--a year and a half long, by some estimates--and in May of '68 he was inducted into the guard.
By all accounts Bush was an excellent pilot, but apparently his enthusiasm cooled. In 1972, four years into his six-year guard commitment, he was asked to work for the campaign of Bush family friend Winton Blount, who was running for the U.S. Senate in Alabama. In May Bush requested a transfer to an Alabama Air National Guard unit with no planes and minimal duties. Bush's immediate superiors approved the transfer, but higher-ups said no. The matter was delayed for months. In August Bush missed his annual flight physical and was grounded. (Some have speculated that he was worried about failing a drug test--the Pentagon had instituted random screening in April.) In September he was ordered to report to a different unit of the Alabama guard, the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group in Montgomery. Bush says he did so, but his nominal superiors say they never saw the guy, there's no documentation he ever showed up, and not one of the six or seven hundred soldiers then in the unit has stepped forward to corroborate Bush's story.
I'm no military legal expert. Maybe "deserter" has some specific meaning beyond simply leaving your post. Maybe you have to leave your post during battle. I don't know. Michael Moore probably doesn't either. But it's damned clear, despite Moore's hyperbolic tendencies, what he meant and what he was referring to. Jennings, however, doesn't mention the basis for Moore's claim. He simply dismisses it as counter-factual and, by inserting it as the basis for the question, cuts off all debate on the subject. That's way out of line.
Here are the "facts", Mr. Jennings: Our commander in chief, who gained entry to a Texas Air National Guard unit that was full at the time by using his family's political connections to jump ahead of over one hundred other young men on the waiting list, never reported for duty at his final assignment. You may not be comfortable with those facts, but that doesn't give you the right to stifle public discussion of the matter.
[2004.01.20 - 07:20 P.M.] Iowa Thoughts
A few quick words on Iowa:
Not happy about the Kerry win. In fact, I'm not happy about the recent Kerry surge in general. I have nothing against the man personally. His policy positions are at least decent, if somewhat milquetoast. My problem is that, as a Washington insider and a successful establishment politician, he has a long paper trail of accommodation and flip flopping. Combined with his less-than-radiant personality, I think that will spell certain doom in the general election. Just a feeling I have, though. The good Senator from my home state is welcome to prove me wrong.
I was happy to see Edwards jump into second rather than, say, Gephardt. I like Edwards. Hell, that seems to be Edwards' campaign theme: "Vote for me! I'm likeable!" With this surprise showing, I'll have to start paying more attention to the substance of his campaign. Still, the gut tells me he'd make a great running mate, but not such a strong top of the ticket.
Dean's third-place finish was quite a disappointment. No way to spin it. Kerry and Edwards didn't sneak up and edge Dean out. They croaked him. I guess, at the very least, this will be a warning to the Doctor that he can't just rely on his organization to turn out votes. He's got to polish his campaign act and start appealing more to the voters who haven't already bought into him. That's right, Howard: You have the power.
Dick Gephardt. Looks like eleven percent is what you get when you spend the entire campaign doing nothing but tearing down your party's front-runner. Hey Dick, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
And now the big wait for New Hampshire. As a political junkie, I can't wait to bask in all the post-Iowa analysis. As fascinating as the process and the commentary may be, however, we all have to remember to take these early events with a grain of salt. What Iowa giveth, New Hampshire can taketh away. Primary season is finally here, and it just got more interesting.
[2004.01.18 - 01:58 P.M.] CJR Campaign Desk
Readers looking for tools to penetrate the relentlessly shitty mainstream media coverage of the presidential campaign can't do much better than the Columbia Journalism Review's new Campaign Desk site. Tools? These guys have got the industrial strength power drill out. Check out this breakdown of ABC News' sleazy attempt to push the Howard Dean state trooper "scandal":
In August 2000, state police opened an investigation into domestic abuse allegations brought by Donna Madore against her ex-husband. The next month, Dennis Madore was removed from the Governor's security detail because of the investigation. Three months later, he was fired for having "engaged in acts of domestic violence during the course of his marriage."
Though Dennis Madore's lawyer was made aware of the abuse allegations in 1997, ABC presented no evidence that Dean knew about them before the state's investigation began. Indeed, Dennis Madore tells ABC that he believes he would have been fired had Dean known.
Am I missing something here? Was there some key piece of even vaguely damaging information that I missed in the story? Nope. That's it. That's the story that ABC put on its primetime news broadcast, with the dramatic, Watergate-referencing sub-title: "What did [Dean] know about abuse allegations; when did he know it?"
People watching television don't always focus. I happened to see this piece while watching the news in the same casual way - tired after a long day at work, distracted, walking back and forth between the couch and the fridge, vaguely wondering whether I would rather be watching "The Simpsons" - that most people watch the news. In that state, I caught just enough to register:
"Howard Dean . . . some guy who worked for him . . . domestic abuse."
Hmmm, I thought. That doesn't sound good. The spot functioned for me in the same subliminal way that advertising operates:
On some level it contributed to a perception of Howard Dean as dishonest. It wasn't until I got into work today and read the transcript that I realized how absurd the story was. Of course few viewers exposed to the piece bothered to look closer at the story (and who can blame them -- I'm paid to do this!)
That's how these stories do their damage.
ABC News ran a potentially destructive story that had no substance as news whatsoever. Which is exactly why people don't trust the news media in the first place.
For the record, these guys are not running a "left-wing" operation. They promise to be non-partisan. If the media pig-piles on Bush unfairly -- something that would be a first should it happen -- I trust they'll be on it with equal vigor. Bookmark this site. Visit it frequently. Get the truth behind the hype. Make an informed decision next year.
[2004.01.01 - 00:00 P.M.] RS Interviews Dean
Dear Iowa Voters (and New Hampshire Voters, and South Carolina Voters), I was going to write you a personal letter urging you to vote for Howard Dean in your upcoming caucus/primary. Alas, I am a slacker. Instead, I urge you to read Rolling Stone's interview with Howard Dean.
Unfortunately for you Undecideds, it is almost impossible right now to get an accurate portrayal of Howard Dean from the insipid, adolescent Washington political pundits that plague our media. Most of the coverage is mired in horse-race commentary.
"HE'S UP!", "HE'S DOWN!", "He's UNDER ATTACK!", "He SURGES BACK!", "He's SPUTTERING!"
Dig behind this worthless crap to find out more about the candidate, and you're left with a small set of rusty old themes that have been kicking around since last Spring.
"Dean's TOO LIBERAL", "Dean's TOO ANGRY", "Dean's an OUTSIDER", "Dean is UNELECTABLE".
And then there's the idle attempts to find a precedent for his candidacy.
"Dean is MCGOVERN", "Dean is MONDALE", "Dean is the ANTI-CHRIST!". (The last one is from a recent DLC blast-fax.)
It's all just so much noise. The media wants to feed you political baby food. How is a voter to build an informed opinion? Well, I recommend letting the man speak for himself.
Here's Dean on backing the Vermont Civil Unions bill:
RS: Didn't you also say at the time [you signed the bill] that the whole idea of legally sanctioned gay relationships made you feel uncomfortable?
HD: Sure. Look, I didn't know anything about the gay community when I signed the civil-unions bill. I grew up in the same homophobic milieu that everybody else did. I was told the same thing about gay people that all heterosexuals were. And most gay people were told the same thing themselves -- by parents, ministers and everybody else. I was uncomfortable, and I said so. And I got a lot of flak for it. But I still thought it was the right thing to do. You don't allocate civil rights by who makes you comfortable and who doesn't.
Dean on the current incarnation of the Republican Party:
RS: What do you think of today's Republican Party?
HD: I think the Republicans are much meaner than the Democrats are. I don't want to absolve the Democrats, but Republicans are just brutal. They do not care what happens to the country as long as they stay in power, and they're willing to do anything they can to stay in power. It's the most unforgivable thing about this administration and the congressional leadership.
I admire George Bush's father. There were some things I strongly disagreed with him on -- but he tried to be a good president. This president is not interested in being a good president. He's interested in some complicated psychological situation that he has with his father. He is obsessed with being re-elected, and his obsession with re-election is hurting the country.
Dean on religion in America:
RS: The Republican Party has become the official party of the religious right.
HD: There's nothing wrong with being religious, and there's nothing wrong with having religious people lobbying the government. What's wrong is to have anyone in this country be able to inflict their religious views on somebody else who doesn't share their religion.
*Dean on "Wal-Mart-ization":
RS: Vermont seems to stand, at least in the public imagination, against the Wal-Mart-ization of America. How do you address the fact that perhaps the most successful business in America is also one that hastens the demise of small towns and communities?
HD: It's a huge problem. I often say to people in Iowa, "If you go down and buy your products made in China in Wal-Mart, then you're going to have a tough time complaining about all the jobs that are leaving." What's happened to us is, we're whipsawed between our desire for the best price and our desire for a strong community. And sometimes a strong community means paying a little more.
Dean on corporate scandals:
RS: When Bush made his one comment about corporate scandals, he said there was no problem with our business culture as a whole.
HD: Our business culture is a disaster in this country. And this president's largely responsible for it, because he hasn't set the kind of example that needs to be set. When the energy industry writes your energy bill, and the pharmaceutical companies write your Medicare prescription benefit, you've got a big corporate-culture problem in this country. And it doesn't surprise me that the president thinks there's no problem with business, because the president is part of the problem. Let's be very blunt about this.
The majority of business leaders in this country are honest, decent people who'd like to do a good job. The reason we have these corporate scandals is because there is no statement from the president of the United States, other than lip service, that immoral, unethical behavior in business is not going to be tolerated. He just winks and nods.
Dean on Bush's guiding philosophy:
RS: What do you think is George Bush's philosophy? What motivates him?
HD: George Bush's philosophy is, "If you're rich, you deserve it, and if you're poor, you deserve it." That's not my philosophy.
There's much more where that came from. As you can see, the man does not mince words and he does not pull punches. Throughout the interview, I was overwhelmed by Dean's authenticity. I just kept thinking "This guy's for real. He's intelligent, he's fearless, and he'd make a hell of a leader." Of course, you'd never get that impression if you listen to career boot-licker Dick Gephardt carping about Dean's "manufactured outrage". You'd never believe it you listened to media whore David Brooks' claim that Dean is "vague about what he's for, but .. venomous toward anyone who disagrees with him." You'll only understand it when you read Dean's words yourself.
Howard Dean, lifting a line from the late, great Paul Wellstone, says on the stump that he's from the "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party". I think I've got a better way to sum the man up:
Howard Dean is from the Not-Full-Of-Shit Wing of American Politics.
[2004.01.06 - 01:55 P.M.] Moore For Clark
I count myself, for the moment, as a Dean supporter. Not a Deaniac, not a Dean-at-all-costs guy, just someone who thinks he's the candidate with the best mix of policy stands and personal traits out of the current offerings. I've donated to him. I've been to meetups. I've had a Dean bumper sticker since early Fall. But ever since Wesley Clark declared, he's been in the back of my mind, casting a shadow of doubt over my Dean support. Clark makes me second-guess myself. And I doubt I'm the only Dean supporter who feels that way.
So, today, along comes a letter from Michael Moore passionately, eloquently, and, god-dammit, convincingly making the case for Clark. The money graf:
This is not about voting for who is more anti-war or who was anti-war first or who the media has already anointed. It is about backing a candidate that shares our values AND can communicate them to Middle America. I am convinced that the surest slam dunk to remove Bush is with a four-star-general-top-of-his-class-at-West-Point-Rhodes-Scholar-Medal-of-Freedom-winning-gun-owner-from-the-South -- who also, by chance, happens to be pro-choice, pro environment, and anti-war. You don't get handed a gift like this very often. I hope the liberal/left is wise enough to accept it. It's hard, when you're so used to losing, to think that this time you can actually win. It is Clark who stands the best chance -- maybe the only chance -- to win those Southern and Midwestern states that we MUST win in order to accomplish Bush Removal. And if what I have just said is true, then we have no choice but to get behind the one who can make this happen.
But... but... but..
But I still think Dean can make it happen. At least I think I think that. Fiscally moderate, socially liberal, and he's a brawler. So what if the press has already decided they hate him and his opponents have given Karl Rove reams of attack lines? Clark, on the other hand, is so smooth, so polished, so made-to-order, so perfect with those four stars on his shoulders. And so recently enamored of Bush's foreign policy team. Makes you wonder.
Oh well. Our primary isn't until March, so I have plenty of time to stew about this. I just wish one of these guys would pack it in and volunteer to be second banana on the other guy's ticket so we could get the real show on the road.
"I think we're at risk with our democracy. I think we're dealing with the most closed, imperialistic, nastiest administration in living memory. They even put Richard Nixon to shame."
"Who Gets It?" Krugman then asks, "It" being the point Clark makes above. As he sees it:
The real division in the race for the Democratic nomination is between those who are willing to question not just the policies but also the honesty and the motives of the people running our country, and those who aren't.
Personally, I think this division applies to much, much more than simply the gaggle of Dems currently applying for Bush' job. I think it applies to the country as a whole. Who Gets It? Good question. Who gets that the Bushies really are more than just bad policy makers and bad leaders, they're bad people? Who understands the callousness it takes to yoke the power of government to the chariots of the rich and powerful in a time when so many in the world are struggling just to get by? Not everyone. In my experience, actually, damn few "get it" and no small percentage of those you run into actively resist "getting it".
Hell, listening to the radio this morning, NPR was doing a piece on pro- versus anti-Bush sentiment. They had a woman on -- a lawyer -- saying that Bush was "a great leader", that he was "the best president in [her] lifetime" and that she couldn't stand "backseat-driving liberals" questioning his decisions. I think we should nominate this woman as the Spokesperson for the Americans Who Don't Get It Association.
I know one guy who gets it. Al Gore. Bob Herbert had Gore skewering the administration in his op-ed essay this morning:
"They devise their policies with as much secrecy as possible, and in close cooperation with the most powerful special interests that have a monetary stake in what happens. In each case, the public interest is not only ignored, but actively undermined. In each case, they devote considerable attention to a clever strategy of deception that appears designed to prevent the American people from discerning what it is they are actually doing. Indeed, they often use Orwellian language to disguise their true purposes. For example, a policy that opens national forests to destructive logging of old-growth trees is labeled Healthy Forest Initiative. A policy that vastly increases the amount of pollution that can be dumped into the air is called the Clear Skies Initiative."
The next ten months will be an exercise in getting people to get it. Forget the Resisters. You know, the ones who come back with "Oh YEAH?! Well look here. Bush is doing great and you guys are lying about him and see this guy here proves that you're wrong and and and..." Leave 'em behind. Kick 'em to the political curb. They're lost to us. Focus your energies on the people who already have doubts about Bush and think he and his cronies are up to something, but haven't found the voice for those ideas yet. Reach out to them. Feed the fire. Make them understand what's going on. Throw a rope to the erstwhile Greenies and fringe progressives who had given up on electoral politics. I have one friend who, in the space of a year, has gone from a jaded, parties-don't-matter lefty to a committed ABB (Anyone But Bush) voter who intends to back anyone the Dems put up. Those are the people we can reach. Now let's get to work.
[2004.01.15 - 07:50 A.M.] Fastow
I've been thinking about the Andrew Fastow news. First, let me say congratulations to all of the prosecutors and investigators handling the Enron case. I thought this case would get buried and quietly forgotten about, what with Enron having the political connections that they do. It still remains to be seen whether Skilling and Bush Pal "Kenny Boy" Lay get theirs, but so far, so good. I'm impressed.
When I initially heard that Fastow would get ten years behind bars, I was somewhat pleased. Why only "somewhat"? Well, for a few years now my views on incarceration have been steadily evolving towards this: Imprisonment should be used almost exclusively for violent offenders. After all, I see the primary justification for a prison system as being not a method of punishment, but a way for society to protect itself from the violent among us. Fastow may be a scumbag, but he doesn't strike me as someone who's going to start mugging people, knocking over 7-11's, or staging home invasions.
I think a good idea for the Andy Fastows of the world would be Wage Prison. First, we take away all their major assets. The homes, cars, jewels, stock portfolio, etc. All of it. Then, for a fixed term (10 years, in this instance) we impose a cap on their earning and spending. And I'm talking a low cap. You know, like $18,000 or so. What your typical retail clerk makes. Well, if they work a little overtime. Part of the Wage Prison program would involve closely monitoring and auditing the convicted offender's income and expenditures. Also, we could have Parole-Officer-like stewards who drop in on them from time to time, just to make sure they're living the Low Life as planned. Yes, the control system would require some outlays by the state, but they would be a fraction of the cost we pay for a typical inmate's care and upkeep in the pen.
The whole idea strikes me as a great case of letting the punishment fit the crime. Fastow didn't kill anybody. He just helped steal their savings and impoverish them. Wage Prison would let him know what that feels like. It's possible that he - and others punished in this fashion - might actually learn a thing or two from experiencing the "other side" of capitalism. And if not, at least we might enjoy the pleasure of hearing the phrase "Would you like that super-sized?" coming from the lips of a fallen corporate raider.
[2004.01.14 - 07:50 A.M.] Kristof in Cambodia
Nick Kristof has invited the Democratic candidates to join him in Cambodia. Why? Because he wants them to see Cambodians picking through dumps for scraps of food and valuables, hoping that this experience will cause them to reconsider the "anti-trade" rhetoric that has been building up in the campaign.
Kristof's column can't help but have the desired effect on readers. Who doesn't feel compassion for the poor of the third-world, most of whom live in conditions that go far beyond what most of us have even seen second-hand, let alone experienced? But Kristof, despite his good intentions, skews the debate and ignores some obvious questions along the way.
He adopts the well-worn, fallacious dichotomy of "pro-trade" versus "anti-trade" (sometimes portrayed by journalists as "pro-free-trade" versus "anti-free-trade"). Will we ever put this bogus distinction to rest? Trade happens. No one in their right mind is "anti" trade. There is no such thing as "free" trade, however. There is only the decision of whose rules we will trade according to, and who it will benefit.
In the piece, Kristof laments how "protectionist" policies will hurt third-world workers (and would-be workers). He also worries about the adverse affect these policies would have on the American consumer. Who doesn't Kristof worry about? Well, he doesn't mention the plight of American business leaders. Of course, that's because they win any which way you slice it. More glaringly, the needs and hopes of American workers don't seem to enter in to his trade calculus anywhere. And somehow, I am not surprised.
What the trade debate needs more than anything is some boldness and creativity. Surely there is a way to help improve the economic chances of workers and the poor abroad that doesn't put the brunt of the economic hardship at home on our middle and lower classes. There has to be. The trick is finding the political will to do it. And finding the strength to stand up to the one group that will have to make a sacrifice in order to bring this off: The wealthy robber barons who run our "free" trading multinational corporations.
[2004.01.03 - 09:30 P.M.] Recant, Heretic! Recant!
Look, we all knew this was coming. At least, those of us who followed the DiIulio case did. Remember two years ago, John DiIulio quit as Bush's head of Faith-Based Initiatives? Well, Ron Suskind - yep, the same Ron Suskind who wrote the tome with O'Neill that's currently making all the fuss - did a piece that featured several quotes from a letter to him by DiIulio. The former admin member famously referred to the Bushies as "the Mayberry Machiavellis" and lamented their absolute lack of interest in policy substance. (Gee, that's two former admin members who have said the exact same thing. You think maybe it's true? Nah...) Anyhow, days later DiIulio recanted, apologizing for being too harsh, saying he lacked judgement when he made the comments. Yadda, yadda, and - oh yeah - yadda.
How do they do it? Horse's head in the bed next to the guy? Hire Jeff Gillooly to tail him for a few days? The old standby - compromising pictures? Or maybe these vicious thugs who, lets not forget, thought nothing of blowing a CIA agent's cover to get back at her husband, took a long look at Suskind's book and said "Paul, if you don't put out this fire, bad things are going to happen to you. You think we can't touch you? Of course we can."
Ooops. Sorry. I must be a paranoid, lefty Bush-Hater or something.
Anyhow, yesterday, Josh Marshall asked:
Will O'Neill go the way of John DiIulio and Nick Smith? Where's the document they want him to sign? And who writes them?
Less than twenty four hours later, we have our answer. O'Neill is backpedaling furiously, particularly on the claim that Bush came into office with a pre-engorged boner for Iraq:
"People are trying to make a case that I said the president was planning war in Iraq early in the administration."
And wherever might we have gotten that idea??? Was it when O'Neill told Suskind:
"From the start, we were building the case against Hussein and looking at how we could take him out and change Iraq into a new country. And, if we did that, it would solve everything. It was about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it -- the president saying, 'Fine. Go find me a way to do this.'"
Yep, I bet that was it. But it was all a misunderstanding, O'Neill now claims. There really wasn't anything Bush did that was different from how the Clinton administration had been handling things.
Really?
(Words fail me...)
(..OK, they're back.)
What bothers me the most, actually, is that the media dust-up around this has settled on the Iraq issue. You ask me, that's a distraction. Pretty much any informed Bush Watcher knows that Junior and his neocon handlers planned the Iraq war well before 9-11. No point covering that ground again.
Instead, I'd like to see the media focus more sharply on the empty-suit aspect of the Bush White House that O'Neill's comments reveal. These self-serving, opportunistic pinheads clearly don't have the faintest clue about how to run a government. No policy agenda, really, just a grab bag of unrelated goals, all of which involve serving their wealthy donors and keeping the Boy King in office.
So far, the insiders who have escaped all tell this same basic story. Maybe some industrious journalists should join Suskind in mining that vein further. With a little perseverance, maybe we can change the stage-managed public perception of Leader Bush. Maybe.
[2004.01.13 - 06:55 A.M.] There's The Rub
Krugman has the obligatory column this morning on Paul O'Neill's weekend revelations. He covers the whole menu - Cheney's "deficits don't matter" comment, the post-inauguration planning to dump Saddam, Bush knowing that his tax cuts were all for the rich. The key lines, however, come when Krugman looks ahead to question the outcome of the O'Neill flap and the building criticism elsewhere of Bush's policies:
There's much more in Mr. Suskind's book. All of it will dismay those who still want to believe that our leaders are wise and good.
The question is whether this book will open the eyes of those who think that anyone who criticizes the tax cuts is a wild-eyed leftist, and that anyone who says the administration hyped the threat from Iraq is a conspiracy theorist.
The point is that the credentials of the critics just keep getting better. How can Howard Dean's assertion that the capture of Saddam hasn't made us safer be dismissed as bizarre, when a report published by the Army War College says that the war in Iraq was a "detour" that undermined the fight against terror? How can charges by Wesley Clark and others that the administration was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq be dismissed as paranoid in the light of Mr. O'Neill's revelations?
Will this open any eyes? Yes, that it is indeed the question. I believe the answer is "No". And here's why, dear professor: It goes back to your own description, "those who still want to believe that our leaders are wise and good."
No amount of evidence can sway these people, because they want to believe -- they need to believe -- that the president is a good man who has their best interests at heart. This belief is so key to their view of the world that they will do whatever is necessary to defend it. They'll ignore facts. They'll overlook evidence. They'll put aside the normal, logical inferences one might draw from the president's pattern of past behavior. They'll run out to the internet to find "counter-arguments" from right-wing smear-meisters who spend their days doing nothing but creating a smoke-screen for the administration and its allies to work behind (you know, professor, guys like Don Luskin). But they will never consider the simple possibility that Bush and company are less-than-pure in their actions, less-than-honest in their explanations. It goes against what they want to believe.
What scares me more than anything about the upcoming election? We can fight Karl Rove. But how do you fight the obstinate power of our fellow citizens who have already decided what they're going to believe?
[2004.01.11 - 10:30 P.M.] Empty
If I could ask Bush supporters to read one article right now, it would be this one. Paul O'Neill, former Treasury Secretary, is making the rounds prior to the release of his new book, The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O'Neill. In it, he paints a picture of a White House that is the antithesis of what most responsible citizens would consider "good government":
According to the book, ideology and electoral politics so dominated the domestic-policy process during [O'Neill's] tenure that it was often impossible to have a rational exchange of ideas. The incurious President was so opaque on some important issues that top Cabinet officials were left guessing his mind even after face-to-face meetings. Cheney is portrayed as an unstoppable force, unbowed by inconvenient facts as he drives Administration policy toward his goals.
Does this sound familiar? It should. When John DiIulio - Bush's former head of faith-based initiatives - quit his position, he said exactly the same thing.
It is ironic that, so often, right-wing scribes complain bitterly about how we "Bush Haters" are driven by emotion, not ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those I know who are most vehemently opposed to Bush feel the way they do because they are filled with ideas. Ideas about how to make our country a better place for more of its citizens. Ideas about how to craft policies for a better world. And in Bush, we see a man who will never listen to those ideas, never hear them, never consider them. We see a man who cannot be engaged on an intellectual level. He is unreachable, living in a universe of poll-driven politics and pre-determined policy.
Bush backers, wake up. Your man is an empty suit, with an empty mind, leading us towards an empty future. You may think you "agree" with him, but he doesn't "agree" with you: George Bush doesn't live in a world of agreement and disagreement. George Bush is a robot. And a poorly programmed one at that.
[2004.01.08 - 07:45 A.M.] Get Your Culture War Heah!
Just finished reading Howard Fineman's relentlessly negative look at the Dean campaign in the current issue of Newsweek. Both Newsweek and Time are pushing their anti-Dean wares this week, offering dreary predictions of a Bush blow-out, full-on (but unsuccessful) attempts to dredge up scandals from Dean's past, hand-wringing from insider Dems who have recently found their spines (to fight someone from their team, of course), and foreboding pics of the Guv's dour visage on the cover. Despite all the fuss ("Cold feet about Dean" is the media meme of the week), there's not a lot to this story. It's "inside baseball" gone wild, and absolutely none of it has any meaning or predictive value at this point. Don't believe me? Check out Jonathan Alter's piece on campaigns past. There's no reason whatsoever that the Democrats can't patch things up after the nomination and run a solid, positive, successful campaign. Well, other than the fact that they're the Democrats, that is...
What really got my blood boiling in the Newsweek issue was one question in the sidebar interview that Fineman conducted with Dean. Fineman was pretty much sticking to questions about the campaign and about some of Dean's comments on the "war" on terror, when suddenly, at the end, he lobs this bizarro query:
Do you see Jesus Christ as the son of God and believe in him as the route to salvation and eternal life?
I was like...
What the fuck?
What the fucking fuck is this all about???
Is this guy insane?
Look, I know that at some point all candidates are going to be asked about their religious beliefs. Sad fact of life in this country is that you have to make some gesture towards the tribe's Sky God to be electable. But this? This isn't some harmless little "What are your thoughts on religion?" or "Do you believe in God?" Fineman was asking Dean to endorse a very specific brand of Christianity. That "route to salvation" crap is ole-time evangelism. What on Earth did Fineman think he was doing? Is he unfamiliar with Article VI of the Constitution:
'No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.'
This is a disgrace. It's a disgrace that we've gone so far backwards as a nation that this level of God Talk is considered OK in a campaign for the highest office in the land. I don't care if 95% of Americans profess to hold some sort of belief in God. Hell, I don't care if I'm the Last American Atheist. The Constitution provides for separation of church and state, and we should honor that both in word and in spirit (ironic word choice intended).
Howard Dean was right in the debate the other night when he said that Northeasterners aren't comfortable talking about their religious beliefs in public. In that trait - as in so many others - we should be a model for the country.
Religious beliefs in political campaigns? Don't ask, don't tell.
[2004.01.05 - 07:45 A.M.] Rumble in Iowa
Yesterday, seven of the nine Democratic candidates debated in Iowa (Clark and Sharpton were not present). On the whole, it was a healthier, more well-run debate than previous affairs. The moderators did not engage in too much Koppelizing (n. "To goad candidates in an election into analyzing each other's chances rather than a discussing issues.") and the pacing seemed fair and even, if somewhat hurried at times. A few thoughts:
The "Let's Gang Up On Howard" vibe was toned down considerably. Yes, there was still a lot of "Well, where I differ from Governon Dean..." but the tone (with one exception, which I'll get to in a moment) was more civil and the "differences" were centered squarely on policy. Also, there seemed to be quite a bit more back-and-forth between candidates not named Howard Dean. In particular, Gephardt and Edwards scrapped several times, mostly on the subject of who was more against corporate-friendly international trade pacts like NAFTA. Kucinich spread his attacks around, mainly hammering his "bring the troops back now" message, which was at odds with everyone else on the stage.
The only candidate to continue mercilessly tearing at Dean was Lieberman. Two attacks in particular stand out. First, he kept up the ludicrous bashing of Dean's statement that Saddam's capture didn't make us safer - a statement which, it has been pointed out time and again, was absolutely accurate, if not (according to some) politically astute. Second, he made a pompous display of moral hand-wringing and disapproval over Dean's failure to unseal all of his gubernatorial records, at one point offering Dean a pen to sign an order asking a judge to do so. This latter attack was the low point of the debate. It was a crass political stunt by Lieberman. To his credit, Dean handled it with aplomb. He pointed out that only portions of his records were sealed, that those records contained, in some cases, sensitive material (mostly relating to individual statements from the civil unions dispute) that it was not his place to expose, and that a judge was currently reviewing all the documents to decide which could safely be released. Further, he pointed out, governors sealing their records is not at all uncommon. From where I was sitting, Lieberman came out looking like a whiny, self-righteous turd. But maybe I'm biased.
Why was the Dean-bashing left largely to the Senator from Connecticut? Some theories. First, it's possible that the other candidates really have finally figured out that wasting their energy ripping their own party's front-runner helps no one but Bush. Doubtful. Second, as both the New York Times and Liberal Oasis point out, it may be that some of the candidates - notably Gephardt and Edwards - have made a tactical decision to start jockeying for second place in the early primaries in order to position themselves should Dean fall. Third - and this is the scenario I think most likely - number two is true, but the campaigns of the still-viable not-Dean candidates have made some sort of off-the-record arrangement with the hopeless Lieberman candidacy to keep him in the race as their proxy anti-Dean bulldog. If last scenario may sound like conspiracy-mongering, keep in mind that Lieberman is the DLC's boy, and those pukes have demonstrated that they would gladly sacrifice the White House to Bush for four more years if it means retaining power at the party level over the Deaniac insurgency.
One final note to the candidates on debating tactics: Please stop making absolutist statements like "I'm the ONLY candidate up here who..." and "My campaign is the ONLY one that has a plan for..." Every time someone does this, the next five minutes are wasted by one or more of your rivals pointing out that they are an exception to your blanket statement. Moderate your claims, keep it positive, and let the debate move on.
[2004.01.03 - 06:30 P.M.] Mad Policy Disease
Smokin' Joe Conason takes a look at the failed anti-regulatory ideology that led to the Mad Cow threat:
Last July, Consumers Union wrote [Agriculture Secretary] Veneman a detailed letter urging her to quickly and rapidly expand testing of animals most at risk. The nonpartisan consumer group protested the government’s feeble enforcement of an existing ban on livestock feed containing rendered animal products, which are suspected of spreading B.S.E. Consumers Union also noted that regulations still don’t prevent central-nervous-system tissues, which are most likely to be contaminated, from entering the food supply.
Investigations by the General Accounting Office have repeatedly revealed these failures to anyone who cared to know. Senator Tom Harkin, the tough Iowa Democrat who demanded the G.A.O. probes, also voiced his concerns about lax enforcement last June.
So the government and the industry can scarcely claim that nobody told them about this danger. Why did they not act?
The underlying causes are depressingly familiar: Agribusiness executives seek to minimize the cost of insuring food safety, even after observing the devastating results of inadequate protection in other countries. They and their lobbyists give millions to politicians and political parties, obtaining undue influence over policy. Those politicians appoint regulators who regard their mission as pleasing rather than policing the corporate sector.
Such stubborn resistance to regulation doesn’t even serve the true interests of the industry—as so many other businesses have discovered after their reputations and profits were ruined by scandal. When the damage has already been done, regulation suddenly seems more attractive. Today the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, which has opposed more stringent testing all along, says it will accept more regulation. But that acceptance is almost certainly too tardy to prevent billions in lost exports, and the persistent loss of confidence in an American product.
The additional costs of these improved regulatory measures? According to Conason, "a few cents per pound" added to the cost of beef. But that's nothing, I suppose, compared with the psychological costs to the meat industry's power brokers of knowing that Big Guvmint is telling them how to run their bidness...
(sigh)
I wonder: Do power and wealth actually make you stupid?
[2004.01.02 - 04:10 P.M.] TAP Special Issue: Low-Wage America
The January issue of The American Prospect has a special report on income inequality and the spread of low-wage jobs in America. Not all of the articles in the report are available online, but those that are certainly bear close reading.
First, Christopher Jencks asks "Why is America generating so many bad jobs—and how can we create more good jobs?" He then takes the reader on a quick tour of the historical, economic, and political antecedents that have led the United States to become "the most unequal rich democracy in the world." Robert Kuttner's contribution takes up where Jencks left off by asking how we can "reclaim a middle-class society". (Hint: His suggestions involve reversing just about every conservative economic initiative of the last thirty years.) Harold Meyerson rounds out the e-offerings in the report by taking an in-depth look at the unionization of hotel workers in Las Vegas, which he sees as a case study of how unions still retain the power to help advance the living standards of the American worker.
Jencks and Kuttner both make a point that I'd like to focus on for a moment: Growing income inequality, reductions in wages and benefits, and the wholesale exporting of middle-class jobs overseas are not the inevitable result of the Great God Market's "Invisible Hand". Each of these trends has been encouraged by a specific set of economic policies which can be changed if enough political will is brought to bear on our representatives. Moreover, behind the raw numbers we see in the business pages lay individual decisions made in boardrooms every day, and those decision-makers, although not directly answerable to the public, are not beyond our reach either. As Jencks reminds:
..Managers are more likely to choose the high road when the national culture treats driving down wages as discreditable behavior -- instead of rewarding such managers by bidding up the value of their stock options.
The thing to remember as we try to reshape our economy in a more just fashion is this: At every turn, the pro-corporate, pro-wealthy, pro-status-quo forces -- not all of whom are on the right -- are going to throw "Market Forces" in our faces. Have to get a second job to make ends meet? "Tough break, but market forces dictate..." Your project got farmed out overseas and your services are no longer needed? "Well, that's a sad story, but market forces dictate..."
Readers, don't buy it.
Market ideologues would have us believe that "market forces" are some universal, immutable truth, like gravity or electromagnetism. They are not. Markets are nothing more than a convenient abstraction used to model human economic interactions, and human interactions - unless I missed something - have an element of choice. We cannot and should not blindly allow the abstraction to define the reality. Our current economic reality may leave a lot of our fellow citizens out in the cold, but there's no magical force out there that can prevent us from choosing to have it otherwise.
