One of the attributes of a winning politician is his ability to fall on both sides of an issue, to the extent that both sides can think he is supporting their view? This ability, properly used, creates a "teflon" politician -- one to whom bad news does not stick. It drives opponents crazy, because there is nothing they can get a handle on. Reagan had it, and so did Clinton. Bush has tried to develop it, but with the usual clumsy incompetence of his administration has too often revealed the ventriloquist behind the curtain.
Well, it looks like John Kerry has developed this ability as well.
Here is arch-right-winger Glenn Reynolds actually supporting Kerry for his Iraq war stance and his stem cell research stance -- its stunning, amazing, that Reynolds would actually think Kerry supports the Iraq war. But its a tribute to how slippery Kerry has become on this issue, refusing to give his opponents a handle for attacks -- Bush was reduced to the ridiculous posture of "blasting" Kerry for a vote which actually supported Bush's own position!
Keep it up, John.
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
The hand is quicker than the eye
The New York Times nails it in this editorial Sidestepping reform at the CIA By naming a new CIA director now, Bush is trying to pull off a bit of hocus-pocus, whisking the focus of Congress and the country away from the 9.11 commission recommendations. It will be interesting to see whether the commission members and Congress will be bamboozled.
Sunday, August 08, 2004
The Son also rises
Ron Reagan writes The Case Against George W. Bush in September's Esquire magazine.
Politicians will stretch the truth. They'll exaggerate their accomplishments, paper over their gaffes. Spin has long been the lingua franca of the political realm. But George W. Bush and his administration have taken "normal" mendacity to a startling new level far beyond lies of convenience. On top of the usual massaging of public perception, they traffic in big lies, indulge in any number of symptomatic small lies, and, ultimately, have come to embody dishonesty itself. They are a lie. And people, finally, have started catching on.
Reagan is particularly mad about the constant lying:
All administrations will dissemble, distort, or outright lie when their backs are against the wall, when honesty begins to look like political suicide. But this administration seems to lie reflexively, as if it were simply the easiest option for busy folks with a lot on their minds. While the big lies are more damning and of immeasurably greater import to the nation, it is the small, unnecessary prevarications that may be diagnostic. Who lies when they don't have to? When the simple truth, though perhaps embarrassing in the short run, is nevertheless in one's long-term self-interest? Why would a president whose calling card is his alleged rock-solid integrity waste his chief asset for penny-ante stakes? Habit, perhaps. Or an inability to admit even small mistakes.
The article includes what the democrats should be codifying and calling The List: not just Iraq, but also climate change, energy policies, security failures, no child left behind underfunding, medicare bungling -- and Reagan also notes all of the people now against Bush - scientists, diplomats, generals. Its an impressive list.
I wonder whether anyone at the republican convention will dare to mention Reagan's legacy.
Politicians will stretch the truth. They'll exaggerate their accomplishments, paper over their gaffes. Spin has long been the lingua franca of the political realm. But George W. Bush and his administration have taken "normal" mendacity to a startling new level far beyond lies of convenience. On top of the usual massaging of public perception, they traffic in big lies, indulge in any number of symptomatic small lies, and, ultimately, have come to embody dishonesty itself. They are a lie. And people, finally, have started catching on.
Reagan is particularly mad about the constant lying:
All administrations will dissemble, distort, or outright lie when their backs are against the wall, when honesty begins to look like political suicide. But this administration seems to lie reflexively, as if it were simply the easiest option for busy folks with a lot on their minds. While the big lies are more damning and of immeasurably greater import to the nation, it is the small, unnecessary prevarications that may be diagnostic. Who lies when they don't have to? When the simple truth, though perhaps embarrassing in the short run, is nevertheless in one's long-term self-interest? Why would a president whose calling card is his alleged rock-solid integrity waste his chief asset for penny-ante stakes? Habit, perhaps. Or an inability to admit even small mistakes.
The article includes what the democrats should be codifying and calling The List: not just Iraq, but also climate change, energy policies, security failures, no child left behind underfunding, medicare bungling -- and Reagan also notes all of the people now against Bush - scientists, diplomats, generals. Its an impressive list.
I wonder whether anyone at the republican convention will dare to mention Reagan's legacy.
Saturday, August 07, 2004
Kerry-Think about Iraq
One of the primary characteristics of the way Bush thinks about issues is the simplistic black/white comparison - you're either for us or against us. The attraction of this kind of thinking is exactly its simplicity -- its easy to grasp, easy to apply to just about any situation.
The media gets sucked into this, as do the rest of us.
I have seen some media stories recently which conclude, because Kerry is not vocally opposed to the Iraq war, that therefore Kerry's position on the war is the same as Bush and there is no difference between them. Sometimes this comes from right-wing commentators who conclude without any evidence that Kerry would have no more success than Bush would in disentangling America from this mess, and I see it also from left-wingers who themselves are opposed to the war and who want Kerry to state some kind of anti-war position.
But its all Bush-Think -- simplistic, easy, wrong.
The Iraq war is too much of a mess now for any more Bush-Think, either by Bush himself or by the media -- or by me. So I looked into what Kerry actually does plan to do in Iraq.
Sure enough, its complicated. It is also uniquely Kerry. Call it Kerry-Think -- complex, challenging, strategic, and goal-oriented.
Kerry's goal is to extricate America from this mess before they actually lose the war, and simultaneously to make America safer by ensuring that Iraq does not descend into anarchy. Talk about complex -- it could be one of those Mission Impossible scripts -- "Your mission, Mr. Kerry, if you chose to accept it, is to get the American troops safely home while also ensuring that the country they leave behind will not be a danger to America or to its neighbours."
And as I am beginning to appreciate what Kerry wants to do, I am beginning to think that perhaps this actually is possible -- maybe Kerry can actually pull this off.
Here is the key part of Kerry's Plan for America:
Having gone to war, we cannot afford to fail at peace. We must take immediate measures to prevent Iraq
from becoming a failed state that inevitably would become a haven for terrorists and a destabilizing force in
the Middle East. We must now forge a new policy based on what we know and on what will be most effective. We still have an opportunity to prevent Iraq from becoming a failed state and a haven for global terrorists and Islamic
extremists. We can still succeed in promoting stability, democracy, protection of minority and women’s rights,
and peace in the region if we construct and follow a realistic path. To accomplish this, America must do the hard work
to get the world’s major political powers to join in this mission. We must build a real coalition of countries to
work together to achieve our mission in Iraq; the international community shares the stakes—they should
share the political and military burdens. To do that, of course, we must share responsibility with those nations
that answer our call, and treat them with respect. We must lead—and we must listen.
Bush and the people around him are incapable of undertaking such a complex task and so will ridicule anyone who would attempt it -- but basically this approach is America's only hope to achieve any kind of success with this misbegotten war, and I think Kerry has both the leadership skills and the international credibility to do it.
The media gets sucked into this, as do the rest of us.
I have seen some media stories recently which conclude, because Kerry is not vocally opposed to the Iraq war, that therefore Kerry's position on the war is the same as Bush and there is no difference between them. Sometimes this comes from right-wing commentators who conclude without any evidence that Kerry would have no more success than Bush would in disentangling America from this mess, and I see it also from left-wingers who themselves are opposed to the war and who want Kerry to state some kind of anti-war position.
But its all Bush-Think -- simplistic, easy, wrong.
The Iraq war is too much of a mess now for any more Bush-Think, either by Bush himself or by the media -- or by me. So I looked into what Kerry actually does plan to do in Iraq.
Sure enough, its complicated. It is also uniquely Kerry. Call it Kerry-Think -- complex, challenging, strategic, and goal-oriented.
Kerry's goal is to extricate America from this mess before they actually lose the war, and simultaneously to make America safer by ensuring that Iraq does not descend into anarchy. Talk about complex -- it could be one of those Mission Impossible scripts -- "Your mission, Mr. Kerry, if you chose to accept it, is to get the American troops safely home while also ensuring that the country they leave behind will not be a danger to America or to its neighbours."
And as I am beginning to appreciate what Kerry wants to do, I am beginning to think that perhaps this actually is possible -- maybe Kerry can actually pull this off.
Here is the key part of Kerry's Plan for America:
Having gone to war, we cannot afford to fail at peace. We must take immediate measures to prevent Iraq
from becoming a failed state that inevitably would become a haven for terrorists and a destabilizing force in
the Middle East. We must now forge a new policy based on what we know and on what will be most effective. We still have an opportunity to prevent Iraq from becoming a failed state and a haven for global terrorists and Islamic
extremists. We can still succeed in promoting stability, democracy, protection of minority and women’s rights,
and peace in the region if we construct and follow a realistic path. To accomplish this, America must do the hard work
to get the world’s major political powers to join in this mission. We must build a real coalition of countries to
work together to achieve our mission in Iraq; the international community shares the stakes—they should
share the political and military burdens. To do that, of course, we must share responsibility with those nations
that answer our call, and treat them with respect. We must lead—and we must listen.
Bush and the people around him are incapable of undertaking such a complex task and so will ridicule anyone who would attempt it -- but basically this approach is America's only hope to achieve any kind of success with this misbegotten war, and I think Kerry has both the leadership skills and the international credibility to do it.
Clumsy incompetents
So -- the recent terrorist arrests apparently have little to do with protecting the US from terrorism, and a lot to do with protecting terrorist investigations from the ham-handed Bush administration.
See MSNBC's Pakistan: US blew undercover operation story.
When will the media realize how clumsy, incompetent and self-serving this administration is?
Can anyone name ONE THING they have actually handled well in the last four years?
See MSNBC's Pakistan: US blew undercover operation story.
When will the media realize how clumsy, incompetent and self-serving this administration is?
Can anyone name ONE THING they have actually handled well in the last four years?
Bad moon rising
One line I read in some book said there are seven things that can happen when a quarterback drops back to throw a pass, and six of them are bad -- the good one is that the pass is accurately thrown and successfully caught; the bad ones are quarterback sack, interception, quarterback injury, receiver injury, incomplete pass, and fumbled catch.
Anyway, I was reminded of this in relation to the stories I am reading now about Bush's campaign -- Slate's article about the pseudo-religious persona that Bush is using on his campaign stops had an aura of desperation about it in spite of the reporter's own warm fuzzies. Note the description of his audience as "hand-picked Ohioans intended to represent a particular Bush policy". Both Bush and Cheney now seem to prefer to speak only to the previously converted -- and these will become fewer in number as a cascade of bad things happens in the next three months:
- the Afghan election Oct. 9 will likely be a mess.
- the Iraq insurgency will continue to get worse. By the end of October, there will be 1,200 American troops dead.
- US job numbers will continue to tank, the market will continue to fall. The market usually falls anyway from mid-September to the end of October. This year will be worse because of oil prices.
- the Plame inquiry will report and, considering how many of top Bush administration people they have interviewed, its unlikely (though possible, I suppose) that the result will be innocuous.
- chances are that more prisoner abuse photos will emerge.
- and if there is a terrorist attack on US property anywhere in the world, it may not turn out to be a positive for Bush. In fact, it could be a negative, particularly if it concerns some area like chemical plants, about which the Bush administration has been warned but has done nothing to fix (and considering how much has been neglected, the odds are that this will be the case.)
Now, Kerry could blow it somehow, and he will need to present himself well in the debates. We'll have a better idea after the Republican convention how their speaking styles will compare.
But for the most part, the indicators for Bush are pretty bad.
Clinton said in last night's CBC interview that Bush had already lost, and this is certainly the sense I get when I see news coverage of his campaign appearances -- though most of the media are still trying to be "balanced" about it.
Anyway, I was reminded of this in relation to the stories I am reading now about Bush's campaign -- Slate's article about the pseudo-religious persona that Bush is using on his campaign stops had an aura of desperation about it in spite of the reporter's own warm fuzzies. Note the description of his audience as "hand-picked Ohioans intended to represent a particular Bush policy". Both Bush and Cheney now seem to prefer to speak only to the previously converted -- and these will become fewer in number as a cascade of bad things happens in the next three months:
- the Afghan election Oct. 9 will likely be a mess.
- the Iraq insurgency will continue to get worse. By the end of October, there will be 1,200 American troops dead.
- US job numbers will continue to tank, the market will continue to fall. The market usually falls anyway from mid-September to the end of October. This year will be worse because of oil prices.
- the Plame inquiry will report and, considering how many of top Bush administration people they have interviewed, its unlikely (though possible, I suppose) that the result will be innocuous.
- chances are that more prisoner abuse photos will emerge.
- and if there is a terrorist attack on US property anywhere in the world, it may not turn out to be a positive for Bush. In fact, it could be a negative, particularly if it concerns some area like chemical plants, about which the Bush administration has been warned but has done nothing to fix (and considering how much has been neglected, the odds are that this will be the case.)
Now, Kerry could blow it somehow, and he will need to present himself well in the debates. We'll have a better idea after the Republican convention how their speaking styles will compare.
But for the most part, the indicators for Bush are pretty bad.
Clinton said in last night's CBC interview that Bush had already lost, and this is certainly the sense I get when I see news coverage of his campaign appearances -- though most of the media are still trying to be "balanced" about it.
Thursday, August 05, 2004
The choice
Clinton put it simply and clearly in his CBC interview:
The Bush administration has outsourced the war against Al Quaeda to Pakistan while it went to war against Iraq. If Americans agree with those priorities, they will vote for Bush. If they do not agree with those priorities, they will vote for Kerry.
The Bush administration has outsourced the war against Al Quaeda to Pakistan while it went to war against Iraq. If Americans agree with those priorities, they will vote for Bush. If they do not agree with those priorities, they will vote for Kerry.
Sorry, slowdown in posts for a couple of weeks
Hi -- well, my laptop has apparently died, and it will take a while to revive it -- in the meantime, I will try to keep up, using my son's computer -- but unfortunately, he likes to use it sometimes too. So expect fewer posts until I can get it fixed.
Tuesday, August 03, 2004
Alternate realities
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)