A Record of Recovery
Hmmm -- Reagan's former secretary of state says that the charts show Clinton inherited prosperity and bequeathed recession.
Just as logically, one could say that the charts show the economy tanks during Republican administrations - particularly Bush administrations -- and begins showing signs of life again when the prospect looms of being able to vote them out.
Tuesday, August 03, 2004
Laughing while Rome burns, I guess
Dem pundits plan to lose this race the same way they did in 2000
So it turns out that the republican strategy to make fun of the democratic candidate was also used against Gore in 2000.
I though "everything changed" after 9/11, but I guess not.
And the dems had better react his time, as the Howler points out -- they need their own talking points and they need to get their people to use them.
So it turns out that the republican strategy to make fun of the democratic candidate was also used against Gore in 2000.
I though "everything changed" after 9/11, but I guess not.
And the dems had better react his time, as the Howler points out -- they need their own talking points and they need to get their people to use them.
Monday, August 02, 2004
Window-dressing with a fall-guy
Bush Calls for New Intelligence Director
"President Bush urged creation of a national intelligence director Monday to coordinate the war on terrorism but without the sweeping powers for hiring, firing and spending at the CIA, FBI and other agencies as recommended by the Sept. 11 commission . . . Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, questioned Bush's decision. "The power and authority given to these new entities will determine whether these changes actually fix the problem or make it worse," he said. If the new director cannot control the budgets of intelligence agencies, he said, "this new position will be no more than window dressing."
How can newspaper headlines credit Bush for enacting the 9/11 commission recommendations? This is NOT what they said they wanted. This is just a new fall-guy.
"President Bush urged creation of a national intelligence director Monday to coordinate the war on terrorism but without the sweeping powers for hiring, firing and spending at the CIA, FBI and other agencies as recommended by the Sept. 11 commission . . . Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, questioned Bush's decision. "The power and authority given to these new entities will determine whether these changes actually fix the problem or make it worse," he said. If the new director cannot control the budgets of intelligence agencies, he said, "this new position will be no more than window dressing."
How can newspaper headlines credit Bush for enacting the 9/11 commission recommendations? This is NOT what they said they wanted. This is just a new fall-guy.
Oh, for crying out loud
So I just told my husband we should sell any Prudential stock we owned, then this story comes out: Reports That Led to Terror Alert Were Years Old, Officials Say
Key quote: "What we've uncovered is a collection operation as opposed to the launching of an attack" apparently from 2000 and 2001.
But every nameless official referred to in the article says that things could still be dangerous, no one really knows, be ever on your guard.
Gee, they're acting like everything is still exactly the same as it was before 9/11, that general security practices for large office buildings really haven't improved one bit!
The people I feel sorry for are the poor souls who have to continue to show up at these buildings every day -- going to work shouldn't be a death-defying act (though sometimes. of course, it is.)
And I predict the next real estate bust and boom -- an exodus from the big, signature highrise office buildings right downtown; instead businesses will demand lowrise, unobtrusive office buildings sprinkled around the suburbs -- harder to find and easier to protect.
Key quote: "What we've uncovered is a collection operation as opposed to the launching of an attack" apparently from 2000 and 2001.
But every nameless official referred to in the article says that things could still be dangerous, no one really knows, be ever on your guard.
Gee, they're acting like everything is still exactly the same as it was before 9/11, that general security practices for large office buildings really haven't improved one bit!
The people I feel sorry for are the poor souls who have to continue to show up at these buildings every day -- going to work shouldn't be a death-defying act (though sometimes. of course, it is.)
And I predict the next real estate bust and boom -- an exodus from the big, signature highrise office buildings right downtown; instead businesses will demand lowrise, unobtrusive office buildings sprinkled around the suburbs -- harder to find and easier to protect.
Never underestimate the republican desire to get their clips onto the Daily Show
Bush Planning August Attack Against Kerry
"President Bush's campaign plans to use the normally quiet month of August for a vigorous drive to undercut John Kerry by turning attention away from his record in Vietnam to what the campaign described as an undistinguished and left-leaning record in the Senate. Mr. Bush's advisers plan to cap the month at the Republican convention in New York, which they said would feature Mr. Kerry as an object of humor and calculated derision."
Don't worry -- this will blow up in their faces.
While Kerry and Edwards are running around the country talking about the important stuff like health care and the economy and jobs and Iraq -- they wrote a book obout their platform, for heaven's sake -- there will be Bush and Cheney trying to get anyone to care as they carp about 10- or 20-year-old Senate votes and make fun of how Kerry looks.
Teenage boys may like it -- it sounds like a typical teen movie plot -- the adults vs. the teenagers. John Kerry is not Eugene Levy, however. And teenage boys don't vote.
Now, joking their way through a presidential campaign may make some of their base happy (how intense, among democrats, is the desire to take cheap shots at Bush, too).
But "everything" changed after 9/11, including the public's desire to take politics more seriously.
And by the way, how DOES Kerry's four months in Vietnam contrast with Bush's four or five or six months of partying with secretaries and not even showing up for duty?
How DOES Kerry's 20 years of senate work contast with Bush's 20 years of partying and drinking?
And how DOES Kerry's height contrast with Bush's short stature? Side-by-side, Kerry may look like Herman Munster, but Bush looks like a shrimp with a smirk.
And if any of the Bush-Cheney quips do actually get onto the Daily Show, you can bet that Jon Stewart will be asking these questions as well.
UPDATE: Josh Marshall says the dems should mock Bush, too -- I disagree, this will just make them look cheap and it isn't Kerry's style. They took the high road at the convention and they should keep it.
"President Bush's campaign plans to use the normally quiet month of August for a vigorous drive to undercut John Kerry by turning attention away from his record in Vietnam to what the campaign described as an undistinguished and left-leaning record in the Senate. Mr. Bush's advisers plan to cap the month at the Republican convention in New York, which they said would feature Mr. Kerry as an object of humor and calculated derision."
Don't worry -- this will blow up in their faces.
While Kerry and Edwards are running around the country talking about the important stuff like health care and the economy and jobs and Iraq -- they wrote a book obout their platform, for heaven's sake -- there will be Bush and Cheney trying to get anyone to care as they carp about 10- or 20-year-old Senate votes and make fun of how Kerry looks.
Teenage boys may like it -- it sounds like a typical teen movie plot -- the adults vs. the teenagers. John Kerry is not Eugene Levy, however. And teenage boys don't vote.
Now, joking their way through a presidential campaign may make some of their base happy (how intense, among democrats, is the desire to take cheap shots at Bush, too).
But "everything" changed after 9/11, including the public's desire to take politics more seriously.
And by the way, how DOES Kerry's four months in Vietnam contrast with Bush's four or five or six months of partying with secretaries and not even showing up for duty?
How DOES Kerry's 20 years of senate work contast with Bush's 20 years of partying and drinking?
And how DOES Kerry's height contrast with Bush's short stature? Side-by-side, Kerry may look like Herman Munster, but Bush looks like a shrimp with a smirk.
And if any of the Bush-Cheney quips do actually get onto the Daily Show, you can bet that Jon Stewart will be asking these questions as well.
UPDATE: Josh Marshall says the dems should mock Bush, too -- I disagree, this will just make them look cheap and it isn't Kerry's style. They took the high road at the convention and they should keep it.
The Mary Poppins solution
Iraq confounds, Kerry contorts Shorter John MacArthur (and lots of other columnists): "John Kerry must present a detailed plan for ending the war in Iraq and creating democracy right away, or else he loses credibility to George Bush (who had no plan for Iraq at all)."
I've seen this kind of article all over -- its a republican talking point, nothing more.
First, its ridiculous to expect that someone who is not the president yet to come up with a detailed "answer to Iraq" when the people presently in power are at a complete loss about what to do there.
Second, they're looking for Mary Poppins magic. They cannot accept the fact that there is no "solution" which will enable America to emerge from Iraq, even with "peace with honour" much less with a successful democracy. They will howl derision, however, if a presidential candidate has the temerity to tell them so.
UPDATE: And columnist Richard Reeves agrees with me:
We are going to have to cut and run without appearing to cut and run. We have to execute the most difficult of military maneuvers, retreating under fire, without admitting it, as Richard Nixon did in Vietnam. Certainly Kerry could not admit that last Thursday night; few of us can. The almost criminal incompetence of the occupation cripples us all. But Kerry has to fudge that. For now, on Iraq, he has to mimic Bush. We all do. The final futility is just Vietnamization all over again, turn the country back to the locals, keeping Americans out of harm's way and getting out of there as fast as we can -- or repairing to bases where bullet-proof-vested soldiers, watching videos and eating ice cream, will occasionally venture forth like Romans on punitive missions. But Kerry would be dead politically if he admitted that. So would Bush.
I've seen this kind of article all over -- its a republican talking point, nothing more.
First, its ridiculous to expect that someone who is not the president yet to come up with a detailed "answer to Iraq" when the people presently in power are at a complete loss about what to do there.
Second, they're looking for Mary Poppins magic. They cannot accept the fact that there is no "solution" which will enable America to emerge from Iraq, even with "peace with honour" much less with a successful democracy. They will howl derision, however, if a presidential candidate has the temerity to tell them so.
UPDATE: And columnist Richard Reeves agrees with me:
We are going to have to cut and run without appearing to cut and run. We have to execute the most difficult of military maneuvers, retreating under fire, without admitting it, as Richard Nixon did in Vietnam. Certainly Kerry could not admit that last Thursday night; few of us can. The almost criminal incompetence of the occupation cripples us all. But Kerry has to fudge that. For now, on Iraq, he has to mimic Bush. We all do. The final futility is just Vietnamization all over again, turn the country back to the locals, keeping Americans out of harm's way and getting out of there as fast as we can -- or repairing to bases where bullet-proof-vested soldiers, watching videos and eating ice cream, will occasionally venture forth like Romans on punitive missions. But Kerry would be dead politically if he admitted that. So would Bush.
Saturday, July 31, 2004
Super-sized
Ah, the "liberal" media distorts the benign reality of Abu Gharib yet again!. New England Journal of Medicine -- Doctors and Torture After all, the Journal is published in Boston, you know -- very suspicious! And in the same issue, the very same issue, they also talk about laser eye correction surgery -- obviously, they're not seeing things straight.
But seriously, this article does lead to some thoughts about whether some of the doctors and nurses, not to mention the soldiers, who have had horrible experiences, and been complicit in horrible crimes, will be able to live again as civilized people after they are finally permitted to come home. We know the horrors of Vietnam resulted in PTSD for years afterward in many soldiers -- if Iraq is "Vietnam on crack", will their homecoming be "PTSD super-sized"?
But seriously, this article does lead to some thoughts about whether some of the doctors and nurses, not to mention the soldiers, who have had horrible experiences, and been complicit in horrible crimes, will be able to live again as civilized people after they are finally permitted to come home. We know the horrors of Vietnam resulted in PTSD for years afterward in many soldiers -- if Iraq is "Vietnam on crack", will their homecoming be "PTSD super-sized"?
Keeping it positive
This Newsweek poll of 1,010 adults looks pretty positive to me.
In the Washington Post story describing the trip to Wendy's, there was this tidbit:
Heinz Kerry was told that Newburgh is heavily Republican and a local television reporter asked her how she felt "in the heart of enemy territory." . . . she responded, "It's not enemies. It's Americans. We're all Americans."
In the Washington Post story describing the trip to Wendy's, there was this tidbit:
Heinz Kerry was told that Newburgh is heavily Republican and a local television reporter asked her how she felt "in the heart of enemy territory." . . . she responded, "It's not enemies. It's Americans. We're all Americans."
Ouch!
The networks must be flipping out -- on the Republican Convention website they list their tentative speaker lineup -- Rudy Giuliani and John McCain Monday night, Schwarzeneger and Laura Bush Tuesday night, Cheney Wednesday night, and of course Bush on Thursday night -- 2004 Republican National Convention NYC
So which night are they going to skip?
And if they do cover all four nights, how in the world will they explain why the dems got only three nights?
So which night are they going to skip?
And if they do cover all four nights, how in the world will they explain why the dems got only three nights?
Ahhh, the poor little hamster
Rapid Response Team on Democratic Convention on National Review Online I knew it, I just knew it, that some Republican would fall into the trap of saying mean things about the poor defenseless little hamster -- talk about stooping to low attacks.
"One and one is two, two and two is four, I feel so bad because I'm losing the war" *
Rebels' writ runs large across the troublesome Sunni triangle
What, exactly, are 135,000 US troops doing in Iraq? What is the point?
Whenever they patrol, someone shoots at them. Forget about building schools or repairing hospitals or fixing generators or protecting pipelines -- whenever they leave their fortified bases, someone shoots at them. They have to hide in mosques.
The DOD briefing last week, Gen. Myers said that the US " goal is to make sure that for major supply routes and coalition forces in the area, that these hotbeds don't become centers where they can spin out and create other havoc" -- so its a defensive war now for the Americans, a rearguard action to keep their own supply routes open. They don't appear to be on the offensive anymore.
The quietest and most secure place in Iraq today, apparently, is Fallaujah, after the US military pulled out in April -- there is no violence on their streets anymore -- of course, its now an Islamic dictatorship iin this city -- so much for democracy, I guess. And its now become a bomb factory for the rest of the insurgency, which the US keeps trying to shut down by air raids, which just kill more civilians.
Now it looks like Ramadi is going the same way. The Financial Times reports that "several large Iraqi towns have recently fallen outside the control of US forces and its allies in the Iraqi interim government."
People in the US keep saying that the Americans will be needed in Iraq for five years, or ten years -- nope, its not going to take nearly that long for them to lose this war. They seem to be retreating at the rate of about one city a month now, and its a geometric progression, so give it another year at most. And people keep wanting Kerry to present a detailed plan for what he would do to win in Iraq -- but how could he? It is impossible to come up with a plan to herd cats.
"Winning" is no longer an option in Iraq, and pretty soon America will realize this.
*Riff sung by Dick Shawn, playing Hitler, from The Producers.
What, exactly, are 135,000 US troops doing in Iraq? What is the point?
Whenever they patrol, someone shoots at them. Forget about building schools or repairing hospitals or fixing generators or protecting pipelines -- whenever they leave their fortified bases, someone shoots at them. They have to hide in mosques.
The DOD briefing last week, Gen. Myers said that the US " goal is to make sure that for major supply routes and coalition forces in the area, that these hotbeds don't become centers where they can spin out and create other havoc" -- so its a defensive war now for the Americans, a rearguard action to keep their own supply routes open. They don't appear to be on the offensive anymore.
The quietest and most secure place in Iraq today, apparently, is Fallaujah, after the US military pulled out in April -- there is no violence on their streets anymore -- of course, its now an Islamic dictatorship iin this city -- so much for democracy, I guess. And its now become a bomb factory for the rest of the insurgency, which the US keeps trying to shut down by air raids, which just kill more civilians.
Now it looks like Ramadi is going the same way. The Financial Times reports that "several large Iraqi towns have recently fallen outside the control of US forces and its allies in the Iraqi interim government."
People in the US keep saying that the Americans will be needed in Iraq for five years, or ten years -- nope, its not going to take nearly that long for them to lose this war. They seem to be retreating at the rate of about one city a month now, and its a geometric progression, so give it another year at most. And people keep wanting Kerry to present a detailed plan for what he would do to win in Iraq -- but how could he? It is impossible to come up with a plan to herd cats.
"Winning" is no longer an option in Iraq, and pretty soon America will realize this.
*Riff sung by Dick Shawn, playing Hitler, from The Producers.
Friday, July 30, 2004
Kerry's policies
Substance over Style For those who cannot type www.johnkerry.com, here is a summary of some of his domestic policy proposals.
Not exactly the highest priority
CNEWS - Canada: Premiers to ask the federal government to set up national pharmacare program
And what, exactly, would a pharmacare program do to reduce hospital and specialist waiting lists? The premiers have been bitching for years about how the feds are not transfering enough money to them to run hospitals -- so now they think the public wants the feds to spend all that money on a pharmacare program? I guess I wonder if this is being floated now just so that the premiers themselves can avoid the scrutiny of provincial health budgets which Martin and Romanow demanded.
And what, exactly, would a pharmacare program do to reduce hospital and specialist waiting lists? The premiers have been bitching for years about how the feds are not transfering enough money to them to run hospitals -- so now they think the public wants the feds to spend all that money on a pharmacare program? I guess I wonder if this is being floated now just so that the premiers themselves can avoid the scrutiny of provincial health budgets which Martin and Romanow demanded.
Reactions and reviews
Well, Google News lists more than 2,000 stories so far about The Speech, and many (not all) bloggers were pretty happy about it.
Anyway, one further thought -- given how poorly the TV network pundits handled the little bit of the convention they did cover, maybe everyone should quit complaining about how they did only three hours. Better that people should read about it in the newspapers than watch these guys.
In terms of the cable coverage, overall CNN did OK - some of their panels were strange, and Wolfie and Jeff Greenfield spend the convention reading from the RNC talking points (though I didn't watch everything they did) -- but Aron Brown (Newsnight) and Larry King did thoughtful work covering the substance of what was being said, and King had some terrific panels plus Moe Rocca. MSNBC - specifically Chris Matthews -- was more prone to repeating gossip and, from beginning to end, was absolutely obsessed with the convention management (as if anyone other than the media control booth directors actually cared about the time deadlines for the speeches). But their panelists did occasionally make good points, too.
Best blogger for the convention -- Liberal Oasis. Used the opportunity to talk to people from all over, and post their interviews, plus covered the convention events. I also really liked Buzzflash's thoughtful blog posts, and Pandragon too.
Anyway, one further thought -- given how poorly the TV network pundits handled the little bit of the convention they did cover, maybe everyone should quit complaining about how they did only three hours. Better that people should read about it in the newspapers than watch these guys.
In terms of the cable coverage, overall CNN did OK - some of their panels were strange, and Wolfie and Jeff Greenfield spend the convention reading from the RNC talking points (though I didn't watch everything they did) -- but Aron Brown (Newsnight) and Larry King did thoughtful work covering the substance of what was being said, and King had some terrific panels plus Moe Rocca. MSNBC - specifically Chris Matthews -- was more prone to repeating gossip and, from beginning to end, was absolutely obsessed with the convention management (as if anyone other than the media control booth directors actually cared about the time deadlines for the speeches). But their panelists did occasionally make good points, too.
Best blogger for the convention -- Liberal Oasis. Used the opportunity to talk to people from all over, and post their interviews, plus covered the convention events. I also really liked Buzzflash's thoughtful blog posts, and Pandragon too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)