St. Louis Inquirer

2010-11-23T14:39:00.000-06:00

2010-09-04T01:58:00.004-05:00

Delicious backstory on Mosbacher and McCain

2008-02-22T12:06:00.002-06:00

Well, well, there appears to be more to that story. Mosbacher seems to have joined and later helped run John McCain's campaign as co-chair, possibly in part to stick it to her husband who was backing W. in 2000 (Robert Mosbacher Sr was the former commerce secretary for Bush the elder). Then, she's on McCain's campaign again as a big fundraiser in 2007. However, just as her ex-husband joins the McCain campaign in 2007, Georgette jumps to Fred Thompson's campaign, Fred Thompson being the person who rebuffed her personal advances via a eloquent letter when he was still in the Senate and dating Jeri, his now wife, the rebuffing occuring shortly before she joined McCain's campaign.

Wow.

Reads like the premise of a bad Fox reality show - sorry, I mean Fox reality show - the bad in that phrase is just too redundant.

McCain's attractive female lobbyist problem

2008-02-22T11:42:00.004-06:00

Seems to me I recall another woman that was potentially inappropriately close to McCain during the 2000 campaign. Her name was Georgette Mosbacher (pictured). Another wealthy, attractive lobbyist, rainmaker, and "informal adviser", who coincidentally happened to get divorced/available shortly before becoming involved with McCain's 2000 campaign. At least we know what his type is.

Fixing the internets - Romney Rapped for a freed killer...

2007-11-27T17:07:00.000-06:00

...then headed off for a swim in the Great Salt Lake to cool off. Knew there had to be more to the story.

(Fixing the internet concept adapted from the geniuses at Sadly, No)

Romney on beatbox, throwin' down da rhymes for a killa

2007-11-27T16:51:00.000-06:00

Talk about unfortunate headlines. Romney rapped for a freed killer makes for an interesting headline suggesting MRom sporting some choice bling laying down rhymes in an East Coast/West Coast beef over territory. Though given his proclivities for canine mistreatment, I could in fact see Romney putting together a free-Michael Vick tribute album.

Word.

(Even the link itself is problematic - to wit its:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071127/ap_po/romney_convicted_killer
It's not every day that you see the implication that Mitt Romney (is a) convicted killer, or that Mitt Romney convicted (a) killer (as a judge or part of a jury), depending on how you read it.)

Source at Swampland claims Joe Klein eats babies

2007-11-27T15:24:00.000-06:00

Joe Klein, thus far, has no comment so currently we'll have to leave it at unconfirmed reports at Time.com suggest that Joe Klein may eat babies.

We have neither the time nor expertise to adjudicate this claim so we'll wait for people to tell us what they want us to write down.

Fixing the internets - Gas prices and Speaker Pelosi

2007-11-17T23:25:00.000-06:00

David Kurtz over at TPM picked up on the latest false meme over at Fox Noise. We thought something looked wrong with his graphic, and set about to correct it.

Given gas prices were hovering around a buck 40 in Jan 01 and are now (Nov. 12, 2007) at a mere 3.11, we thought this graphic might capture reality better. Plus, we're really sick of Fox digitally editing out Neal Cavuto's evil moustache of understanding.

(Fixing the internet concept adapted from the geniuses at Sadly, No)

World calls Cheney an obstacle to peace

2007-10-21T22:55:00.000-05:00

If the world were sane, this article would actually read like this:

By Caren Bohan
Sun Oct 21, 5:46 PM ET
The world on Sunday described Vice President Dick Cheney as an obstacle to peace in the Middle East and said the world could not stand by and allow Dick Cheney to control a nuclear weapon.

The world's comments underscored a ratcheting up of world rhetoric toward Cheney and came just days after the world warned that a nuclear-armed Cheney would lead to World War Three.

"The Cheney regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences," the World told a forum organized by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "The World is sending a clear message: We will not allow Dick Cheney to control a nuclear weapon."

"The entire international community cannot stand by as a terror-supporting ideologue fulfills his most aggressive ambitions," he said.

The World discussed Cheney in a speech in which it emphasized the importance of continued world engagement in the Middle East and said the world seeks stability there but not the kind that "simply keeps a lid on" problems.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has recently returned from the Middle East where she has been trying to lay the groundwork for a conference on Middle East peace expected to take place in Annapolis, Maryland, in late November or early December.

The World spoke in only broad terms about the goals of the peace effort, saying the conference would aim to "provide diplomatic support" to parties seeking a deal on Palestinian statehood and review progress on building Palestinian institutions.

On Iran, the World repeated the World's criticism that Cheney was interfering in Iraq, in addition to citing concern about his access to a nuclear program.

Cheney rejects accusations that he is seeking to control a nuclear bomb, saying he already has full access to all the nuclear bombs that he needs.

The world said progress toward a more stable and peaceful Middle East would depend on responsible conduct by other similarly minded ideologues, such as respect for the rule of law, neighbors' sovereignty and compliance with international agreements.

"If you apply all these measures it becomes immediately clear that Dick Cheney falls far short and is a growing obstacle to peace in the Middle East," the World said.

CRITICISM OF BUSH

The world, who has insisted it wants a diplomatic solution to the Cheney issue, is pushing for a third round of U.N. sanctions against Cheney.

But it faces resistance from the United States, a veto-holding member of the U.N. Security Council which backed two sets of limited U.N. sanctions against Cheney but has been cool to the idea of any tough new measures.

Meanwhile, the pardon of Scooter Libby as Cheney's key aide in lawbreaking, announced earlier his summer, has been viewed by some analysts as a sign that ideologues' tougher line toward ever obeying the law might be gaining influence within Cheney. Libby and his replacement are both expected to continue help Dick Cheney break American and international law Tuesday and every day thereafter.

The world, at a news conference last week, said a nuclear-armed Cheney would pose a "dangerous threat to world peace."

"We've got a leader in Cheney who has announced that he wants to destroy everybody," he said. "So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War Three, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing Dick Cheney from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

The world also had some criticism for Bush, accusing him of interfering in Lebanon's attempts to elect a new president.

"Through bribery and intimidation, George Bush and his agents are attempting to prevent the democratic majority in Lebanon from electing a truly independent president," the World said.

Analysts who attended the think-tank forum where the World spoke were struck by its tough line toward Cheney, especially in light of the World's recent comments.

"The language on Cheney is quite significant," said Dennis Ross, a peace mediator under former Presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton. "That's very strong words and it does have implications," referring to the Worlds's warnings of serious consequences for Cheney.

Surprising success in Iraq! The surge is working!

2007-07-09T23:27:00.000-05:00

Um, not.

Let's see - how about those benchmarks? The headline writer takes care of that with:

Official: Iraq gov't missed all targets

and for good measure, here's the lede:

A progress report on Iraq will conclude that the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad has not met any (emphasis mine)of its targets for political, economic and other reforms, speeding up the Bush administration's reckoning on what to do next, a U.S. official said Monday.

But, are you sure? None? What does a second Bush administration official say?

The second administration official said the report "will present a picture of satisfactory progress on some benchmarks and not on others."

Hmm, I note that that seems like a stronger spin but "satisfactory progress" doesn't mean met. And these guys sure seem to know a thing or two about lowering expectations so that even something as bad as no benchmarks being met might be satisfactory. Let's go live to Tony Snow for that portion of tonight's infotainganda.

"You are not going to expect all the benchmarks to be met at the beginning of something," Snow said. "I'm not sure everyone's going to get an `A' on the first report."

Well, everyone flunking does technically not make any of that a lie, but still.... I can imagine how much worse my punishment might have been if I had said, Mom, Dad, You are not really going to expect me to study and do my homework and meet my teachers expectations at the at the beginning of the school year. I'm not sure I'm going to get an A in everything during the first mark period. I mean, I just got off summer vacation.

Plus, you've got to love "at the beginning of something". For the love of pete, AT THE BEGINNING OF SOMETHING?!?!?!? This war has lasted longer than WWII for Pete's sake (Incidentally -who is this Pete guy and why is HE so important anyway. Ah, here's one explanation.).

All time low approval ratings move Cheney closer to major threat to the universe

2007-07-09T19:37:00.000-05:00

Vice President Cheney has achieved many firsts but one of them might shake the very foundations of the universe.

With a new all time low approval rating of 13% (13%!), he's inching ever closer to the point where the margin of error on the polling would include and go past zero. That is, if he polls for example at 4% approval with a 5 percent margin of error (it would have to be a smallish sample size), that would put the 95% confidence interval/theoretical range of his actual approval ratings (which can only be between 0 and 100%) at -1 to 9%. His approval rating could theoretically be -1% WHICH IS NOT POSSIBLE.

I have a new theory. Cheney is trying to bring about the apocalypse/the end time/the rapture by blowing the universe's mind.

One other thing I would emphasize is that Cheney is stunningly being rejected personally by fully HALF of the crazy people that still somehow approve of the job he's doing (which is itself rapidly approaching the theoretical limit for political craziness (I just can't rave enough about that Kung Fu Monkey post). I mean he's losing more than half of the crazies approval. HALF!

If they are not careful, George Bush and Richard Cheney might hamstring Republican political opportunities for a generation. All I can say is Woo Hoo! (provided of course they don't wreck our economy, our justice system, our health care system, the environment, and get us all blowed up first ... yikes - um, on second thought... IMPEACH CHENEY NOW and his little dog too.

They write headlines

2007-07-09T14:59:00.000-05:00

Great headline from Reuters on subpoena clash: "White House dares Congress to fight in court"

It's so true - the White House is like every pompous, puffed up bully there ever was. And Reuters is calling it correctly. The White House is doing what they've always done, based on past behavior of Congress (including the current Democratic one) to fail to do anything about the sheer criminality of this administration because of a basic failure to know what to do in the face of the utter shamelessness of this administration. That is, they're basically telling Pelosi, Conyers, and Waxman, you don't have the cajones (or huevos in Pelosi's case) to stand up to the sheer unadulterated criminality that we embody. Oh, and by the way, if/when you try to do anything about it, we'll be busy lying our a** off about you. For more on that, see the great post by Dave Johnson at the Huff Post.

For more on this, see perhaps the greatest blog post ever written about the Cheney Administration over at Kung Fu Monkey, though the title will probably be pretty inscrutable for the rest of us less hip folks (yeah, if you had to look up l33t on Wikipedia to remind you what it meant, you're one of us). Here's the killer bits from the end.

As I watched Congressmen and Senators stumble and fumble and thrash, unable to bring to heel men and women who were plainly lying to them under oath, unable to eject from public office toadies of a boot-licking expertise unseen since Versailles, it struck me. The sheer, simple elegance of it. The "exploit".

The exploit is shame.

Our representatives -- and to a great degree we as a culture -- are completely buffaloed by shamelessness. You reveal a man's corrupt, or lying, or incompetent, and what does he do? He resigns. He attempts to escape attention, often to aid in his escape of legal pursuit. Public shame has up to now been the silver bullet of American political life. But people who are willing to just do the wrong thing and wait you out, to be publicly guilty ... dammmnnnn.

We are faced with utterly shameless men. Cheney and the rest are looking our representatives right in the eye and saying "You don't have the balls to take down a government. You don't have the sheer testicular fortitude to call us lying sonuvabitches when we lie, to stop us from kicking the rule of law and the Constitution in the ass. You just don't. What's beyond that abyss -- what that would do to our government and our identity as a nation -- terrifies you too much. So get the fuck out of our way." (totally see Cheney saying that - ed.)

And to a great degree, the White House is right. You peel this back, and you reveal that the greatest country in the world has been run, for the last six and a half years, by men who do not give a shit about the Constitution, or fair play, or honesty. No, not just run by corrupt men, or bribe-takers, or adulterers or whatever, we could handle that --no we'd be admitting It Went Wrong.

There is a sizeable population in America that just does not, cannot wrap their head around the fact that the President may be a Bad Man who does Bad Things. He's President of America. We're Americans. We're the good guys. Remember, the Nixon mythos in America is that the system worked. "See, in America, even the President is not above the law."

These Suited Bastards know the fragile shell of American exceptionalism is all that's keeping a whole lot of people from processing that they're working too many hours for not enough money, and they either believe real reeaaaalll hard that they're living in the Shining City on the Hill or admit their lives are shit and they've been chumped.

Who ya gonna believe, me or your lyin' Congress?

I cannot help but think that as Nixon walked to the chopper, somewhere in the darkened hallways of the White House Dick Cheney shook his head, spit, and whispered: "Pussy." (Brilliant. Effing Brilliant.)

More of the usual from KFM, who also penned perhaps one of my favorite blog posts ever (after Poker with Dick Cheney by the Poor Man Institute, the Zork spoof of the Bush Administration by Defective Yeti, and, well, most of Fafblog) which

Captures the crazification levels of the United States populace (which, as a theoretical bottom, is being rapidly approached by Bush's approval ratings).
Dismantles hilariously an argument by the Bush Administration about a Islamic reign from Spain to Indoesia, with lines like:

Tyrone: From there, if you spot him the Indian Ocean and India, you're in Indonesia.
John: I am not spotting him eight hundred million Hindus. I call shenanigans.
and

John: But he's citing that desire as a basis for our strategy. You can't cite your enemy's delusional hopes as a basis for a rational strategy. Goals don't exist in a vacuum, they're linked to capability. David Koresh was utterly committed to being Jesus Christ. See how far that got him.

Either Bush is making strategy based on a delusional goal of his opponent, which is idiotic; or he's saying he believes his opponent has the capability of achieving this delusional goal, which is idiotic. Neither bodes well for the republic.
and
Tyrone: Being #3 in Al-queda is like being a "creative vice president" at a Hollywood studio. There are dozens of them ... and they are expendable. Listen, don't do this, you're just getting worked up. Have another mozzarella stick.

3) Contains one of my all time favorite exchanges

Tyrone: (shrugs) Probably right, then. Speaking of Obama, I need to get t-shirts printed up to sell.

John: I can do that on the web. What do they say?

Tyrone: Don't You Dare Kill Obama

John: How about Don't You Dare Kill Obama (... and we know you're thinking about it)

Tyrone: Niiiiice.

John: Or You Kill Obama and WE WILL BURN SHIT DOWN

Tyrone: Even better. Nobody wants their shit burned down.

John: Glad to help.

Tyrone: I'm having you taken off the list for when the revolution comes.

John: ... there's really a list --

Tyrone: Oh yeah. Hell yeah.

I keep waiting for the t-shirts to appear online. If I have to wait much longer, I may have to make one myself.

Public service reminder

2007-07-05T06:59:00.000-05:00

Just a reminder to those who know who they are in response to the recent threat to Obama's life,

Don't you dare kill Obama or WE WILL BURN SHIT DOWN.

Seriously.

(and we know you're thinking about it).

Best Darn Bus Tour post didn't allow comments

2007-05-18T15:14:00.000-05:00

That shouldn't really be a problem, but in the one in a billion chance the couple of lurkers that pass through occasionally should want to, you should be able to leave one here.

Best Darn Bus Tour Ever...

2007-05-18T13:00:00.000-05:00

Well, flip. The Romney kids are thinking about a bus tour to support their Dad's campaign for prez. I think this is a great idea - the Mitt Mobile - wow. I am simply whelmed. Couldn't they have tried a little harder - how about E Romnibus Unum. Or the Mitt Romneybus Unum. Or maybe we could find out all about his new omnibus bill to stop terrorism aboard the Bill Romneybus - that would be political poetry baby. Man, I hope this catches on - I can't wait to find out that he's probably Romniscient and hoping to soon be Romnipotent. Certainly, the American electorate would have to be Romnivorous for him to ever be elected as, to paraphrase the Daily Show, a northeastern patrician flip-flopper who once advocated for choice and for equal rights for gays and lesbians. Feel the Momittmum! Or is Momentmitt! Or Mittmentum! Or maybe MoMittRom! It's hard to keep track.

Anyway, you know here in the heartland we are beside ourselves in excitement about the arrival of the Mitt Mobile (incidentally, shouldn't that be one word. I mean really - it's the Batmobile, not the Bat Mobile - I mean, it's not like we're going to have the five brothers hanging from strings above our children's cribs .... wait, yes we are (trademark - see photo) . Seriously, we're all a twitter with the impending arrival and we've got the site smack in the heart of St. Louis all picked out for their big moment, a site where they can be an inspiration to all the young men age 18-42, like themselves.

Hat tip, Tbogg

Advising the President - John Dean hits the nail on the head

2007-03-23T14:58:00.000-05:00

Every once and a while, someone perfectly describes the world in a way that, if even ever so briefly, pulls back the gauze from out eyes that prevents us from seeing the truth. John Dean did recently here. To wit,

To the contrary, you show me a White House aide who does not want his conversations and advice to the president revealed, and I will show you someone who should not be talking with or advising a president.

Precisely.

Failure of the market

2007-01-25T00:34:00.000-06:00

Seriously - the absence of a strong replacement for Fafblog (and, indeed, the fact that they were able to maintain themselves as the "world's only source for Fafblog" - I mean, shouldn't another source for Fafblog, perhaps outsourced to India or to those Warquest mining camps in China and other low-wage labor areas of the world brought us Fafblog, but even more freely?) seriously suggests that the market isn't all-knowing, all-seeing as Thomas Friedman makes it out to be.

I miss Fafblog. Rarely have I laughed harder than at the tragi-comedic stylings there, tackling the absurdities of our current politics dead on. And being able to laugh at them, well, that helped me be able to think about them as less insurmountable, as less formidable, and as something that I could actually do something about offline.

Sitting on my desk chair on a Sunday afternoon.
Listening to the three of them debate.
Laugh about it, shout about it
When you've got to choose
Every way you look at this you lose.

Where have you gone, Medium Lobster,
Our nation turns it's lonely eyes to you.
What's that you say, Mr. Fafnir.
Giblets has left and gone away,
Hey hey hey.

May the road always rise to meet you
May the wind be always at your back
May the sun shine warm upon your face
May the rains fall soft upon your fields
And until your blog again,
May God hold you in the hollow of his hand.

They are and will be missed. Godspeed to the author of Fafblog.

Netroots primary addendum

2007-01-25T00:25:00.000-06:00

And as a bonus, however great he is currently being on Iraq, the results would very likely stick it to Captain Cave-in.

A real national netroots primary

2007-01-24T23:58:00.000-06:00

An offhand post title and an odd claim by Senator Clinton really got me thinking this evening. There really should be an honest to goodness Netroots Primary. Not just a straw poll. Something with a real day. Advertising. Campaigning. An outcome and perhaps some accompanying positive consequences.

I posted my thoughts on this over at DKos and include them here as well. Should ever the odd commenter make their way over here, I'd love to hear what you think about it.

From DKos comment

Perhaps I've missed a diary on this, but seriously, how about a real netroots primary? Something coordinated across many multiple netroots sites. One could set it up so there would be a real consequence to the primary too (perhaps in coordination with ActBlue's new presidential campaign funds). People could cast a tiered vote (where they indicate ranked choices). Each vote costs say a $1 (some/most of which is used to defray costs). The winner of the primary (determined by eliminating sequentially those with the fewest vote totals) gets the remaining proceeds. Or no money but the winner gets two weeks free ads at participating sites. Or a front page write up of their positive qualities. Or a full-page ad in the NYTimes, the Washington Post, Time, and/or Newsweek. Lots of possibilities beyond those. The obvious barrier is the security of the vote. However, there are so many good reasons to at least consider it:

Quality candidates will pay attention to it and respond accordingly - thus we will have an opportunity to help shape and hone their message. Good for us as we get politicians more attuned to what we want and good for them because they'll get potentially useful feedback that won't be coming from a bunch of media consultants telling them to buy lots of commercial time so they can get their fat cut of the buy.
The netroots could have a go at really making a difference pre-New Hampshire - framing the debate, establishing the front-runners. It would be like a preliminary National Primary.
With a little support from technologically-minded members, one could set it up as an early trial run for real internet voting something that will soon be upon us. And anyone who set up a prototype of a real, working, secure system would have a real inside track for big contracts down the road.
The free media aspect of things could potentially help a Democratic candidate get tons and tons of airtime and coverage (and potentially early volunteers and donations as well).
Obviously, the coordination of such a primary would be an incredible challenge so perhaps one might have to think a bit smaller than one would like this time around. But a real national, netroots primary seems like an idea whose time has come.

Thoughts?

Zombie bad public policy

2007-01-23T16:38:00.000-06:00

Really? Do we have to do this again? President Bush couldn't push his incredibly flawed ideas for Social Security destruction through the last Congress which he pretty much controlled and at least had a majority in.

Now, Democrats have control and we're talking about Bush reforming social security? Again?

Let's review.

1) The President and the Republican Party don't want to reform or save social security. They want to hamstring it, reduce its effectiveness, even end it.

2) The state of social security is not really a problem. Of the fiscal problems we have facing this nation, it's way down there. First, there's the annual budget deficit, the size of which is vastly underestimated because of the SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS. That's right: SOCIAL SECURITY RIGHT NOW IS RUNNING $100 BILLION+ IN THE BLACK. THE ANNUAL BUDGET DEFICIT IS RUNNING $400 BILLION+ IN THE RED. Now, pundits and Democrats overly eager to get their name in the paper: which one is a problem now. Which one will be a bigger problem in the future if not fixed? Go ahead... we'll wait....

3) Part of the reason the country turned on President Bush was his attempt to take away their social security. Even before they turned on him because of Katrina and the continuing debacle in Iraq, he was losing people because of his completely dishonest doublespeaking attempt to cut benefits, raise taxes, and siphon off money to Wall Street.

Look, Josh Marshall (and his every increasing legion of loyal readers and staff) have dealt quite well with this. Democrats should stay the hell away unless they can come up with a plan the President would veto and the Republicans would vote against so they could say Republicans hate Social Security. Otherwise, EVERY SINGLE TIME someone brings this up Democrats should say, this isn't really a problem. We're handing out tax cuts to the wealthy and mortgaging our future, we're spending like crazy on a completely unnecessary and extremely poorly executed war. These are our problems. Anyone who works on Social Security Reform before these problems are solved is insane.

Joe (is) Dirt

2007-01-15T21:23:00.000-06:00

Or hopefully his presidential candidacy will be if he keeps selling the consumer down the road - his political instincts certainly aren't any better than the movie referenced above. Seriously, this is what he's spending his time on? Confound it man, as if there's nothing else important going on. Sheesh.

One thing you can say for sure - when big time corporations pay for Joe Biden, they get results. One must wonder what he charges - 30 pieces of silver ... adjusted for inflation ... okay, that blew up my calculator - bet that can buy a lot of 30 second spots. Fat lot of good that's going to do him.

And clearly, when you buy Joe Biden, he stays bought so he's got that going for him.

Anyway, given his repeated craven cavein to big business interests (That's it - he's now officially (cue trumpets) .... CAP-TAIN ... CAVE...IN.) Anyway, given his performance last time he ran for president and plus his little Electric Biden-loo in South Carolina (a pander to the right, a pander to the left, and cling to the spotlight you love best). As I said below, the arc of Captain Cavein's presidential campaign is short and bends toward irrelevancy.

Great Opportunity

2007-01-15T15:45:00.000-06:00

The previous post reminded of perhaps the greatest Daily Show clip of all times. Great opportunity:

So many great lines there. And delivered impeccably to boot.

AASIF MANDVI: Oh, absolutely, Jon. It's not often that an entire region is given this kind of chance. Every day the outdoor markets and cafes explode in anticipation. We're like children on Christmas morning. From what I'm told. It's very exciting.

STEWART: Really? The violence and the instability doesn't color that view?

MANDVI: No, no--not at all. As one gentleman told me while standing in the smouldering remains of what was once his village: "you can't get hummus without mashing some chick peas." (ed. Brilliant)

STEWART: Really? Because when I see the news, Aasif, people are really ... they seem angry; people are screaming angrily.

MANDVI: Well what did you expect? As Secretary Rice said, we're going through some birth pangs here. And you know how people tend to scream and say things they don't mean when they're in labor. Nonsense like, "how could you do this to me?" Or, "Death to America." And then, once the baby arrives, all is forgiven. What we're going through is exactly like that. I mean, we all understand it in exactly those terms. (Ed. This is spit-take funny, especially the delivery of the two birth pang lines.)

STEWART: Aasif I'm--forgive me for asking this, but-- [Sound of bomb exploding] Are--are you okay?

MANDVI: (Shaking head dismissively) Oh yeah, I'm fine. That was just an improvised explosive opportunity. I believe it was filled with what sounded like the flying shards of a better tomorrow. I can't wait to see what will rise from the ashes. (Crosses fingers) I hope it's a parliament. (Ed. brilliantly parodies the talking points).

STEWART: There's no resentment there that these changes that are being brought were perhaps foisted upon the region?

MANDVI: No, no not at all. Over the years, we've grown accustomed to thinking of ourselves as you think of us--tiny abstract drops in an oilfield of possibility. Whether redrawing our borders without regard for ethnicity or religion, or experimenting with unfamiliar forms of governance. We always welcome a chance to test the latest theories of your political scientists.

STEWART: That's an incredible way to look at a terrible situation.

MANDVI: Well, I'm sure it's not different from the way your nation views the events of September 11th: tough day; great opportunity.

STEWART: I don't think we, I don't think we really look at it like that.

MANDVI: Oh? Well. I guess not everyone knows how to respond when opportunity knocks their house down. Jon?

Hilarious as it may be (and it definitely is hilarious), the clip ends, though, incorrectly. There was, in fact, a whole group of people that looked at September 11th as "Tough day, great opportunity." And they've taken that opportunity to play out their vastly foolish middle east war fantasy to the hilt. And they're about to turn the dial to 11.

The writers and stars of the Daily Show truly are the Fools of old: telling the truth through barbed jests in ways that illuminate the vanity and error of the true fools wearing the crowns. Comedy and tragedy inextricably intertwined - to weep or to laugh, not a choice but two sides of the same coin these days.

Oh, sweet Jeebus - teh Stupid, it burns!

2007-01-15T14:42:00.000-06:00

The President's grip on reality grows ever more tenuous, asymptotically approaching zero (or, perhaps his grip on the completely inane and absurd growing ever more tight). Now, he's projecting his completely clueless disappointment about the lack of gratitude from Iraqis (noted as early as last August in the New York Times, original Dowd and linked column behind the select wall) onto the American people as a whole:

"I am proud of the efforts we did. We liberated that country from a tyrant. I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude, and I believe most Iraqis express that. I mean, the people understand that we've endured great sacrifice to help them. That's the problem here in America. They wonder whether or not there is a gratitude level that's significant enough in Iraq."

The Daily Show and their crack senior mideast bureau chief, Aasif Mandvi, hit this one out of the park back then and it holds up remarkably well. My favorite bits:

After all, the United States invaded Iraq to help the Iraqi people, no other reason. In fact, what you called Operation Iraqi Freedom, the people here called Operation Doing Us A Solid.

Well, he just want's a little thoughtfulness, that's all, John. It's not like the President thought that the U.S. would be greeted as liberators or handed flowers. I mean, he's not retarded. (crosstalk) But you know a note. A gesture. My sources in Washington say: the president gets up every day and walks to the mailbox and asks "Any Cards?" But always .... nothing. There's an iraqi word for that kind of ingratitude, John. Chutzpah.

Ladies and Gentlemen, George Bush, the Charlie Brown of the American Presidency. (A little help from the internets to update the graphic for those of us who are, shall we say, Photoshop-impaired?)

Joe-Joe: Who do you want to be today? (Joementum II: Electric Biden-loo

2007-01-15T13:34:00.000-06:00

Seriously, I'm beginning to develop a deep-seated suspicion about guys named Joe. As if Joe Biden has any remaining standing to criticize South Carolina for anything after he intimated that Delaware would have been a slave state if they only had Tom-Tom.

Man, it must take some utter lack of self-awareness, humility, morality, ethics, and sense of right and wrong to speak in front of the NAACP in a ceremony honoring one of the truly great Americans, no human beings, of all time after yucking it up with the Rotary Club.

A real presidential candidate would have taken the Rotary Club opportunity to tell the business community of South Carolina that those who continue to support the symbols of the Confederacy remain on the wrong side of the arc of the moral universe. A craven pol would have pandered to racists and then shown up a few weeks later to pretend that it never happened in front of the historical victims of the people he was pandering to. Is there an word for chutzpah that is totally evil?

Joe Biden for President: The arc of his candidacy is short and bends toward irrelevancy.

2007 is the new 1984.

2007-01-10T21:34:00.000-06:00

Two chestnuts from tonight's speech.

1) Sending more troops (and keeping more troops there) will lead to them coming home sooner.

"If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home."

Or we could just cut out the middle man and bring them home now. That would be sooner, no?

2) Winning won't look like winning.

Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved.

Yep, it's going to look a whole lot of "success that hasn't happened yet".

21500??

2007-01-10T21:09:00.000-06:00

Anyone care to take a shot at why 21500? It's not as if the planners at the Pentagon pulled out their slide rules and their abacuses and in a flurry determined that the reason we were failing in Iraq was because we were precisely 21500 troops short. Why not 22000? Or 21, 137 for pete sake? Maybe it was just George's way of once again saying, "Heh, heh. You thought you knew what I was gonna do. But I decided for an extra 1500 troops, a whopping 1% more. Now who's the stupid one?" (Hint: still you, George).

I didn't think they could make the surge anymore ridiculous than suggesting that 20000 troops was going to help us find the pony amidst the steaming pile of dung that they've turned Iraq into. Yet they did.

I sure hope the magic number of troops wasn't 21542. That would be teh suck.

And the call for sacrifice was a nice touch. How about something more practical - how about a call for increased enlistment in the armed services? That's right, I'm looking at you Jonah Goldberg.

The trouble with Joe Klein

2007-01-10T20:29:00.000-06:00

Isaac Chotiner (among others like Booman and Atrios) nicely captures the problem with Joe Klein (much akin to the similar problem Democrats that spend too much time saying what Democrats should do rather than just doing.)

Namely, the likes of Klein and Zengerle among others is spend far too much time criticizing the style of people they purport to agree with, perhaps out of ego, perhaps out of naïveté, perhaps out of self-interested turf defense (I'll let them decide) rather than using the incredible platform they have to actually do something about the real problems we face and the idiots that are causing them.

Whenever I think of the Joes (Klein, Lieberman, Scarborough, Piscopo), I can't but wonder what has happened to a solid, hardworking name like Joe such that whenever I hear it, it is all to frequently associated with someone that quickly brings the movie Say Anything to mind because of Lili Taylor's oh-so-haunting rendition of Joe Lies.

President Bush's Priorities

2007-01-10T15:04:00.000-06:00

Not exactly in the right place.

Amount of time afforded the casket of a former commander-in-chief, whose staff formed the entire backbone of your administration:

"a brief one-minute visit" (which others have suggested was as short as 7 seconds if you can imagine that).

Amount of time afforded elementary school students reading aloud during the very most important moments of your presidency:

the longest five minutes in American history.

In fact, in honor of these priorities, I propose them as units of time along side the classic Friedman Unit or F.U. (e.g., around 6 months) and the Khalilzad (a couple of months, more commonly two months)

Ford: 1) A brief moment of approximately 7 seconds or less. 2) The amount of time necessary to give the bare minimum of an appearance of caring. Usage: I heard Jonah Goldberg passed away today after his brain exploded when he was drafted to go to Iraq due to the Surge VII: The Tsunami®, new and improved with selective service. I felt sympathy for a Ford but then was overwhelmed by the combined onslaught of irony and schadenfreude.

peegee: (see also p.g., or sometimes as peeg, short for a pet goat): 1) a unit of time approximately five to seven minutes in length. Usage: I'll be there in a peegee - I just have to finish this blog post. 2) the amount of time it takes one to remove one's head from one's a**. Varies widely depending on the size of the a** involved and the depth with which the head has been planted. Usage: I used to spend time worrying about the consequences of withdrawal but after a peeg I realized that they paled in comparison to the vast and wanton destruction that invading and remaining in Iraq has wrought and continues to work upon Iraq, the United States, and the Middle East as a whole. Note: for the Poor Man Institute, this peeg might be on the order of a Ford or shorter. For Jason Zengerle, one suspects it might be on the order of years. For people born on third base with a silver head up their a**, a peeg may well asymptotically approach infinity.

Rick Santorum is the leader of America's Enemies

2007-01-09T20:09:00.000-06:00

Sometime's the posts practically write themselves.

I'm not sure if you caught it but it's official.

Rick Santorum is the leader of America's Enemies.

You knew that, you say. But, now everyone from the most progressive to the most conservative are unified in holding this truth to be self-evident, with the National Review trumpeting it here, announcing that he's the new director of America's Enemies at the Ethics and Public Policy Center

Time to put on my journamalism cap on and take a look at the press announcement

"As a United States Senator, Rick Santorum was a champion of ... radical Islamic fascism, .... religious persecution..." said EPPC President Ed Whelan.

That is a doozy. (Worthy of the MRC's best work, no?).

"In these perilous and uncertain times, I believe it is critical that we ... confront America," said Mr. Santorum. "Without a clear definition and precise understanding ... we cannot fight ... our own citizens .... . It is my hope that the America's Enemies program at EPPC will help .... our ... enemies....""

There you have it. Rick Santorum telling it like it is for once - of course, one must read between the lines of his announcement a bit. But everyone knows that America's Enemies always speak in code to their operatives in their public pronouncements, even perhaps through blinking.

(I think I sense a nearly legitimate Google bomb, no?)

So there you have it: Rick Santorum, leader of America's Enemies. Wait, if he's the leader of America's enemies, doesn't that make Rick Santorum, Public Enemy #1? Just saying.

Incidentally, the best little piece of schadenfreude amidst the disappointment that Senator Santorum was able to find gainful employment was the tagline at the very bottom of Rick Santorum's reprinted article over at EPPC from the November 8th article in Crisis.

Defining the Enemy
By Rick Santorum
Crisis Magazine
Publication Date: November 8, 2006

{snip}
-- Rick Santorum is a United States senator from Pennsylvania and chairman of the Senate Republican Conference

Mmm, schadenenfreudelicious.

Or from another publication there

Knowing Our Enemies
Our leaders shrink from confronting the threat that faces our nation.
By Rick Santorum
National Review Online
Publication Date: December 12, 2006
{snip}
-- Rick Santorum is the outgoing (emphasis added) junior Republican senator from Pennsylvania.

D***, straight baby!

The relationship between the Bush Administration and competence

2007-01-09T20:02:00.000-06:00

It seems that many many many people have at this point noted the complete and utter lack of competence of our current Presidential administration.

Frequently, this has taken the form of challenging people to name one thing, any single instance in which we might trust this administration to demonstrate competence (or tell the truth or be forthcoming with information to name a few).

I thought we could all use a simpler competition. So how about an analogy contest:

The Bush administration is to competence as:

(and here are some to get you started, the first two are from the post below)

a) Black holes are to light (no competence can escape the White House's event horizon)
b) the 1980's Seattle Supersonics were to passing
c) i is to whole numbers (not in overlapping sets)
d) Heat Miser is to Snow Miser (on the same dimension but opposite ends)
e) Dennis Miller is to humor
f) Bush is to Washington (presidentiality in Georges)
g) Astral to Material (not in the same plane of reality)

Knock yeselves out all ye who enter here.

Black holes

2007-01-09T17:34:00.000-06:00

A friend disputed the comparison to the Seattle Supersonics. Some data: (minimum 300 games played taking out point guard Gary Payton and Jack Sikma):

Name	G	MIN	PPG	RPG	APG	A/T Ratio
Michael Cage	490	13597	7.64	8.11	1.00	1.00
Danny Vranes	395	9035	5.95	4.39	1.34	1.13
Shawn Kemp	544	15859	15.87	9.51	1.73	0.64
Derrick Mckey	446	13957	13.85	5.15	2.24	1.10
Tom Chambers	393	13210	20.43	6.56	2.37	0.83
Dale Ellis	324	11886	24.62	4.50	2.39	0.97
Xavier Mcdaniel	408	13786	20.68	6.96	2.47	0.88
Fred Brown	311	6332	11.40	1.52	2.92	2.23

Those guys couldn't pass gas after a bowl of 5-alarm chili.

The Davies' Cup - An Update to Now that I have your attention...

2007-01-09T14:58:00.000-06:00

I see Josh Marshall beat me to the test I proposed to Joe Klein yesterday although Marshall's post was not in response to Mr. Klein's prattlings but to the general reason why we shouldn't trust this administration's judgment. At all. On anything. But especially the "surge" or as both Brad and Josh document today, the underwhelming ripple.

Really, I just wanted to illustrate the ease of accessibility for the innumerable massive catastrophucks compared to the lack of any real ability to quickly produce any evidence of measurable success of any kind on any issue by this administration.

It adds a level of complexity to the well-traveled challenge regularly produced by Brad Delong in his quest to highlight the vast incompetencies of this administration (I was going to say comprehensively catalog, but I'm not sure even Google's servers would be up to the storage capacity required for that) - a competition originally proposed by Daniel Davies.

I find myself with a few spare minutes and make the mistake of reading Thomas Friedman again. His conclusion after a long, dull and witless ramble about the introduction of "democracy" to Iraq (just what the Gulf region needs, more puppet states) reads "If [it is] done right, the Middle East will never be the same. If done wrong, the world will never be the same". There's not much you can say to that except "shut up you silly man". But it does inspire in me the desire for a competition; can anyone, particularly the rather more Bush-friendly recent arrivals to the board, give me one single example of something with the following three characteristics:

It is a policy initiative of the current Bush administration
It was significant enough in scale that I'd have heard of it (at a pinch, that I should have heard of it)
It wasn't in some important way completely fucked up during the execution.

We're nearly to the fourth anniversary of the Davies' Cup and no one has won the competition and stepped forward to claim their prize. Or, perhaps more aptly, we all have lost. Every one of us. Repeatedly. And we continue to do so (exhibit A: the regular reposting of the challenge over at DeLong's place).

As an aside, this really says something about the level of competence of this administration. That is, basic principles of observation, measurement, statistics, and probability suggest that even at extremely low levels of competence, random chance features of the environment should produce an example of competence at some point, especially as the number of opportunities increase. Thus, one must conclude that the Bush administration is completely and utterly incompetent with extreme levels of confidence, p < 1/google.

To put it another way, the mean level of incompetence is so extreme in this administration that there exists no set of chance events that can provide a competent outcome - not even a 1 in a google shot of all the various incompetencies somehow magically canceling themselves out to produce something competent. Indeed, this administration's mean level of performance is to competence as black holes are to light (or perhaps even more extreme .... as Seattle Supersonics players of the 1980's or Kevin McHale for those of you with an East Coast bias, were to basketballs). The crushing forces of the heretofore unknown levels of incompetency are too powerful for any possible example of competence to escape once it crosses the event horizon at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Now that I have your attention: An open letter to Joe Klein

2007-01-08T21:31:00.000-06:00

I've posted this response to Joe Klein's post criticizing liberals (SURPRISE, SURPRISE)for their criticism of his criticism of their criticism of the president (got that?) because the Time Swampland comments are moderated by the author - can't imagine why?)

Mr. Klein. Technically, you're quite incorrect: what liberals (not illiberals) and progressives (not reactionaries) dislike is when you in the most dishonest and intellectually lazy way possible set up straw men identical to those used by Republicans e.g., "the left wing tendency to assume every U.S. military action abroad is criminal" This is somewhere in between an egregious exaggeration and an outright lie. You know this isn't true for any member of the left wing of American politics of any note whatsoever. And to suggest that people on the left don't go to bed every day praying to God almighty for a miracle in Iraq for our country and our troops defending her is nothing short of slander.

So, your challenge is easy, I sincerely hope, wish, and pray that Baghdad and every where else in Iraq finds peace, now, tomorrow, soon, eventually, any time at all in the foreseeable future.

But, while I do wish that, neither am I a fool. I can meet your challenge and also know that every moment we allow Mr. Bush, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Lieberman their way on this war is a moment that makes the problem worse not better. You say it's not so, I'm sure.

So I have a challenge for you. Name one significant and lasting success that this adminstration has had in Iraq - or, I'll make it easy - in any realm whatsoever - that more than one third of Americans would be proud of. Go ahead. Take your time.

Anything. Maybe one or two things that you're stretching to something close to meaningful in the manner of a clueless student increasing the margins, making the font larger, and adding in some adverbs to meet the requirement? Let's assume you've come up with something. Now, just for giggles, , take a moment and think of all the things that this administration and their allies have FUBARed.

See the difference?

And yet, you continue to spend far more of your time attacking the style of this administration's critics (whom you repeatedly claim to agree with amidst all the criticism), however, right they may, rather than attacking the substance of this administration's repeated and colossal blunders that are costing the United States dearly in terms of opportunity, money, status, moral standing, and lives. I ask you, sir, who then is naïve?

If you are truly outraged at the President's behavior and opposed to overpowering arrogance and stupidity that led to this disaster, you might do something about it using your international megaphone.

We use words like liberal, progressive, left. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something, of a life spent fighting for justice, equality, freedom, dignity. You use them as an insult. Luckily, we have both the time and the inclination to defend ourselves from a hack who pretends to ride under the banner of the very values that we defend, deriding and belittling them while simultaneously questioning the manner in which we fight for them. We would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, we suggest you pick up a pen, and take a stand for what's right and good rather than whine about people not doing right. Sheesh.

Failing up: Lest anyone forget, Rep. Boehner was in the thick of things in the Foley scandal

2006-11-17T16:33:00.000-06:00

The new House Minority Leader is a dramatic example of a failure of leadership and yet he was handily elected to the top party spot in the House of Representatives.

He knew about the ethical problems of Congressman Mark Foley and did the absolute least he could do about it, allowing the problem to continue and to metastasize (not to mention to continue to let Foley run loose).
In the #2 leadership position in the party, he presided over a massive electoral failure for his party.
This failure was at least in part due to his doing nothing about number 1 and standing by while corruption ran rampant in his party and its leadership.

#2 and #3 apply to a certain extent to re-elected House Minority Whip, Rep. Blunt. And yet they both get handily promoted/retained.

What is it with Republicans? Corruption, scandal, failure, all on broad, national scales and they get promoted? Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Republicans back racist for leadership post

2006-11-17T16:16:00.000-06:00

Well, the Grand Old Party returned to its roots, backing Mississippi Senator Trent Lott, an unreconstructed Southern Good Old Boy to help lead their party (okay, perhaps he's marginally reconstructed, he did appear on BET). You'd think the Republicans would run screaming from an issue that handed Senate control to the Democrats (see exhibits A & B, soon to be former Senators George Felix Allen and Conrad Burns). The United States is growing as a nation and it's growing away from the culture of racism, albeit much, much too slowly, but growing away nonetheless. Embracing a person as a leader who lauded that culture, who celebrated that culture, who was a fixture of that culture, well one can only hope that mistake comes back to haunt the 25 numbnuts who voted for him, including Presidential candidate, Senator John McCain.

Tommy Thompson criticizes Bush Administration

2006-11-15T20:20:00.000-06:00

Tommy Thompson, former governor of Wisconsin, he who accomplished so little of note when he ran Health and Human Services for President Bush's first term other than revealing to terrorists possible weaknesses in our food supply, announced that he's considering running for President (that's another nice chuckle today -frankly, Stephen Colbert has a better chance of winning the Republican primary much less the Presidency.).

But in so doing, he joins the swelling ranks of Republicans openly critical of the President (Nor does Thompson score many points for political courage, waiting until the President was on the other side of the globe before leveling the criticism.

Now it's true, the criticism is ever so slightly veiled but it's just a thin gauzy transparent veil and the dagger that Thompson is slipping in the back of the President on his way out of town is quite sharp:

"I believe the top issues for the presidential election are going to be energy and health care, and I think I have some of the best ideas in the country on both of them," he said by phone from Iowa, which holds the traditional opening contest in the presidential nominating race.

....

"I'm in an enviable position because I'm an expert [SIC] in most of those fields and can articulate a vision for America that is lacking right now," Thompson said.

Another way, apparently, that 43 is going to come to grips with being like 41: apparently he too lacks "the vision thing". It's sad - he really never is going to escape his father's shadow except in failing so much more dramatically and on a much broader scale.

Things that unintentionally make us laugh - Bush and Cheney are "one mind"

2006-11-15T09:56:00.000-06:00

Every once in while people (including us here at the never-read except for by spam comment machines and email trolling spiders Inquirer) commit things to paper/binary code that miss their intended mark.

Here, from an article referencing the Boston Globe's recent piece wondering whether Cheney's White House influence may wane as a consequence of the Republican electoral debacle and Bush's forthcoming search for a legacy, is one from the noise-o-sphere out on the fringes of the right wing:

And, what is with the "forgetting that the vice president was there to make it a foursome"? Since when has a Vice President been considered a separate political entity, one not directly tied to the President making them, in essence, one mind?

Um (after a merry chuckle or two) since never. The question has always been, whose mind (and presidency) is it really? And, seriously, if there is actually a mind to be shared between them, I think the evidence is in on who doesn't have it.

President Bush finally makes it to Vietnam in service of his country

2006-11-15T09:29:00.000-06:00

Fulfilling a pledge to his nation that he made more than 30 years ago, President Bush flew a mission to and did some ground reconnaissance in Vietnam this week. This man's word is iron, is it not? Okay, perhaps, not so much.

A true servant of the nation and defender of the constitution

2006-11-12T11:50:00.000-06:00

The Honorable Russell Feingold has sadly decided not to run for President of the United States in 2008. Of the people mentioned as possible (or declared) candidates for President, I think it's fairly straightforward to argue that Feingold would have made a much better President for the people of the United States than virtually any other currently declared candidate. However, his ability to win either the primaries or the general election as a little known Senator from Wisconsin, however populist he is. So, I applaud his decision to use his time to advance progressive policy and aggressive governmental oversight as a leading progressive voice in the majority party in the US Senate for the next two years Senator. His voice will be dearly missed in the campaign but his efforts in the Senate will hopefully help guide our nation to better tomorrows.

Hotline has won the 2008 presidential election for the Democrats

2006-11-10T23:53:00.000-06:00

How, you may be asking, did Hotline seal the victory for the Democrats mere days after the 2006 election?

Easy. In writing up ActBlue's forthcoming electoral fundraising tool, they used Stephen Colbert as an example. Although probably already likely, this sealed the likelihood that there will be a Friends of Stephen Colbert or Colbert Nation candidacy.

Then, it will only take one or two mentions by you know who and this candidacy is going to get pushed to the top of the fundraising list. If he's anywhere in the running at any point (most likely early), the media will lap this story up like mother's milk and it will be difficult for Colbert to resist featuring it again. And then, if Colbert doesn't run (which seems likely), boom the DNC gets a huge cash infusion after the 2008 nominating convention. If he does run, there's a good chance he runs in persona as a Republican which would give the Republican party fits in terms of how to deal with him.

Don't think there's anyway this could have any impact on the 2008 elections? No? If you don't believe this, there's a bridge in Hungary I could sell you. Or perhaps a mascot? Or online encyclopedia? Or a baby eagle?

Best. Idea. Ever. Thanks Hotline!

Democrats represent many more Americans than do Republicans

2006-11-10T15:51:00.000-06:00

The inestimable Brad DeLong and other left-wing heavyweights have been busy, busy, busy answering the question I immediately asked on the morning of November 8th - exactly how sweeping a victory had we just witnessed, however obscured it might have been by partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts and constitutionally provided disproportional advantages given to small states in the Senate. We'd already been subjected to weeks of expectations gaming by the execrable of the right-wing as they desperately tried to spin their way out of the coming catastrophe for their party by trying to suggest that anything less then the Democrats winning every single available seat should be interpreted as business as usual and a failure by the Democratic Party. To them we say, thpptht.

But I digress.

Using the results of the recent election as well as information on the population by state, we can calculate the number of people represented by Democratic versus Republican Senators, dividing the population evenly when the state has a mixed party representation in the Senate.

The results using the 2004 state populations are in the table below but here's the executive summary so those of us who are information-phobic.

In sum,
Population of states represented by two Democratic Senators:

121,008,816

Population of states represented by 1 Dem and 1 Repub:

94,138,765

Population of states represented by two Republican Senators:

77,954,300

Thus, Democratic Senators are charged to represent the interests of roughly 43 million more (give or take a million, depending on the year you use for the population figures) Americans.

43,054,516 more Americans - a difference that represents 14.66% of the total population of the U.S. in 2004.

Moreover, one might additionally note that in many of the states with a mixed party representation, particularly the larger ones (including Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado) the Democratic Senator has been the more recent election of the two.

That, ladies and gentleman, is what one calls a majority party.

(For your perusal, here's the table of the results, where R = two Republicans, D = 2 Democrats, and M = 1 of each and the trailing columns are the running tallies as you go down the listfor your perusal).

State	Jul-05	Jul-04	Jul-03	Senators	Running R '04	Running D '04	Running M '04
Alabama	4,557,808	4,530,182	4,500,752	R	4530182	0	0
Alaska	663,661	655,435	648,818	R	5185617	0	0
Arizona	5,939,292	5,743,834	5,580,811	R	10929451	0	0
Arkansas	2,779,154	2,752,629	2,725,714	R	13682080	0	0
California	36,132,147	35,893,799	35,484,453	D	13682080	35893799	0
Colorado	4,665,177	4,601,403	4,550,688	M	13682080	35893799	4601403
Connecticut	3,510,297	3,503,604	3,483,372	D	13682080	39397403	4601403
DC	550,521	553,523	563,384	NA	13682080	39397403	4601403
Delaware	843,524	830,364	817,491	D	13682080	40227767	4601403
Florida	17,789,864	17,397,161	17,019,068	M	13682080	40227767	21998564
Georgia	9,072,576	8,829,383	8,684,715	R	22511463	40227767	21998564
Hawaii	1,275,194	1,262,840	1,257,608	D	22511463	41490607	21998564
Idaho	1,429,096	1,393,262	1,366,332	R	23904725	41490607	21998564
Illinois	12,763,371	12,713,634	12,653,544	D	23904725	54204241	21998564
Indiana	6,271,973	6,237,569	6,195,643	M	23904725	54204241	28236133
Iowa	2,966,334	2,954,451	2,944,062	M	23904725	54204241	31190584
Kansas	2,744,687	2,735,502	2,723,507	R	26640227	54204241	31190584
Kentucky	4,173,405	4,145,922	4,117,827	R	30786149	54204241	31190584
Louisiana	4,523,628	4,515,770	4,496,334	M	30786149	54204241	35706354
Maine	1,321,505	1,317,253	1,305,728	R	32103402	54204241	35706354
Maryland	5,600,388	5,558,058	5,508,909	D	32103402	59762299	35706354
Massachusetts	6,398,743	6,416,505	6,433,422	D	32103402	66178804	35706354
Michigan	10,120,860	10,112,620	10,079,985	D	32103402	76291424	35706354
Minnesota	5,132,799	5,100,958	5,059,375	M	32103402	76291424	40807312
Mississippi	2,921,088	2,902,966	2,881,281	R	35006368	76291424	40807312
Missouri	5,800,310	5,754,618	5,704,484	M	35006368	76291424	46561930
Montana	935,670	926,865	917,621	D	35006368	77218289	46561930
Nebraska	1,758,787	1,747,214	1,739,291	M	35006368	77218289	48309144
Nevada	2,414,807	2,334,771	2,241,154	M	35006368	77218289	50643915
New Hampshire	1,309,940	1,299,500	1,287,687	R	36305868	77218289	50643915
New Jersey	8,717,925	8,698,879	8,638,396	D	36305868	85917168	50643915
New Mexico	1,928,384	1,903,289	1,874,614	M	36305868	85917168	52547204
New York	19,254,630	19,227,088	19,190,115	D	36305868	105144256	52547204
North Carolina	8,683,242	8,541,221	8,407,248	R	44847089	105144256	52547204
North Dakota	636,677	634,366	633,837	D	44847089	105778622	52547204
Ohio	11,464,042	11,459,011	11,435,798	M	44847089	105778622	64006215
Oklahoma	3,547,884	3,523,553	3,511,532	R	48370642	105778622	64006215
Oregon	3,641,056	3,594,586	3,559,596	M	48370642	105778622	67600801
Pennsylvania	12,429,616	12,406,292	12,365,455	M	48370642	105778622	80007093
Rhode Island	1,076,189	1,080,632	1,076,164	D	48370642	106859254	80007093
South Carolina	4,255,083	4,198,068	4,147,152	R	52568710	106859254	80007093
South Dakota	775,933	770,883	764,309	M	52568710	106859254	80777976
Tennessee	5,962,959	5,900,962	5,841,748	M	52568710	106859254	86678938
Texas	22,859,968	22,490,022	22,118,509	R	75058732	106859254	86678938
Utah	2,469,585	2,389,039	2,351,467	R	77447771	106859254	86678938
Vermont	623,050	621,394	619,107	D	77447771	107480648	86678938
Virginia	7,567,465	7,459,827	7,386,330	M	77447771	107480648	94138765
Washington	6,287,759	6,203,788	6,131,445	D	77447771	113684436	94138765
West Virginia	1,816,856	1,815,354	1,810,354	D	77447771	115499790	94138765
Wisconsin	5,536,201	5,509,026	5,472,299	D	77447771	121008816	94138765
Wyoming	509,294	506,529	501,242	R	77954300	121008816	94138765
Total U.S.	296,410,404	293,655,404	290,809,777	Total	77954300	121008816	94138765
				Total	125023682.5	168078198.5	(splitting M)
					Difference	43054516
					Percentage	14.66%

And while we're on the topic of desperation....

2006-11-10T12:05:00.000-06:00

The president, the administration, and the associated Republican cronies are a still very powerful but badly wounded vicious beast. I think Victor Hugo best captured what we're in for from this gang:

There exists, at the bottom of all abasement and misfortune, a last extreme which rebels and joins battle with the forces of law and respectability in a desperate struggle, waged partly by cunning and partly by violence, at once sick and ferocious, in which it attacks the prevailing social order with the pin-pricks of vice and the hammer-blows of crime.

We know what's coming, most likely accompanied by a deluge of pre-emptive pardons to boot. God help us all.

Bush demonstrating his commitment to bipartisanship

2006-11-10T11:40:00.000-06:00

True to his word, Bush is ushering in a new era of bipartisanship in Washington.

He pledged to see if bipartisanship can be marshalled to meet the challenges facing our nation. And, by nominating Mr. Bolton yet again, he has demonstrated, with the able assistance of the Honorable Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, that bipartisanship can in fact bring Washington together to solve our nation's biggest challenges, such as our intransigent President's neoconservative agenda and the President's inability to change his beliefs or behavior one iota based on information, facts, or what the normal among us like to call "reality".

Seriously, though. Isn't this both the definition of insanity (doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results) and an act of desperation (recklessness arising from despair).

And, also seriously, props to Senator Chafee. He's late to the party of course - but he's standing up and doing right by our nation when he could just coast in to the sunset and collect his last few paychecks. He's also substantially helping the progressive cause (as he should given his positions on the issues) by, as a Republican, framing the election in the way he has. So kudos to him. We're _all_ better off with Whitehouse in the Senate because of what it means to the nation (something that Senator Chafee and his constituents agree with) but he remains an honorable Senator trying to do right by actually heeding the will of his constituents and the nation as a whole.

Fancy that.

Fantastic new republican bamboozle - Please re-elect us so we can stop harassing you

2006-11-07T10:57:00.000-06:00

I think at this point it's crystal clear to most people that are paying attention that the Republican party is at the center of massive, deceptive, harassing, and in some cases illegal robocall election eve blitzkrieg.

But they're taking it a step further. The last, brilliant piece of this puzzle first appeared to my knowledge in a news item on the race between Heath Shuler and Charles Taylor(the Republican incumbent) in NC-11. Shuler has been one of the targets of these robocalls (though it’s not clear to me if they were of the unrelenting variety). Taylor executes a pretty breathtaking Triple Lindy of a bamboozle, while exuding “confidence” no less.

The money quote:

Both candidates in the state's most-watched race _ the 11th District matchup between Rep. Charles Taylor and Democratic challenger Heath Shuler _ took Sunday off from public events. Democrats hope that Shuler, a former college and NFL quarterback, can knock off Taylor as part of the party's efforts to win control of the House.

A confident Taylor issued a press release Sunday afternoon saying that if re-elected, he will seek legislation to prohibit the use of automated political phone calls. He co-sponsored a similar bill in 2005.

The so-called "robocalls" have been one tool used in a campaign that has featured weeks of nasty political ads on television.

Wow. There you have it. He's confident, in large part because he's got the NRCC robocalling against Shuler. Remember these are the robocalls that are win-win - either they turn off the voter to the attacked candidate because their name gets linked to an unrelenting torrent of calls or because the person at the other end listens to the entire hit job. Then, Taylor executes the third element and argues that he should be re-elected because he'll stop the calls. Don't forget - Taylor even used Direct Strategies to the tune of other 100 grand in the last election cycle. Quite a scam he's got going there - re-elect me and I promise I'll make it illegal for me to repeatedly harass you over the phone. Lather, rinse, and repeat every two years.

This was quite a site, and despite a largely complacent press, still took some chutzpah to try and pull off. But it turns out - it wasn't anything special - it turns out it's all part of the plan. Republicans now appear to be using the barrage of robocalls that they are responsible for as a last minute campaign issue - TPM Muckraker has another example from New York today.

Is it too much to ask that reporters connect the extra dot here? Could they actually maybe point out that Taylor and/or the Republican party has been behind these calls and benefiting tremendously from them. And simply and straightforwardly ask, how can we expect you to correct this problem when you are in large part complicit if not directly responsible for the problem. In fact, an enterprising reporter might go to a couple of extra dots and show how this is pretty much the way Republicans are playing this game everywhere. Deluge and harass their constituents with robocalls. Tsk-tsk or even emit strongly worded press releases condemning the calls, while both clearly disowning them and, sadly throwing up one’s rhetorical hands at being unable to do anything other than saying the equivalent of “Well, gollllllee, I wish there was something I could do to halp you Aunt Bea”. And then promise to if re-elected (notice they already could have done something about it - how about a question on that), fix the problem. Right - that will happen. Maybe if Olbermann follows up on the robocalls.

Of course, if the press (or the law) ever catches up with any of these crooks and their shenanigans, it’s really only a matter of time before we start seeing press releases saying that it was the alcohol that made them bombard us all with their robocalls, right?

An absurd backfire or an incredibly clever variant on the robocall?

2006-11-07T10:23:00.000-06:00

After the robocalls got shut down in Indiana because of their violations of state law, the firm changed their strategy.

Instead, they had live callers with extremely heavy accents calling Indiana voters to attack Hayhurst as "bad on immigration". This got covered in the Fort Wayne Press. Later, it got picked up by the team over at Talking Points Memo in the midst of their outstanding work unraveling what is going on with the robocalls. Later this got covered by UPI, and then picked up by Will Bunch over at Attytood.

Both TPM (or at least guest poster DK) and Attytood noted the irony of these calls. Namely that the calls attacking Hayhurst as bad on immigration were using either immigrants or outsourced calls.

I think they missed something. The clue is in both pieces - according to the Republican incumbent in the District, only one thing could be easily understood - the name of the Democratic challenger in the district, Tom Hayhurst. Except of course, that's not quite right. Two things could be understood, the other one being that the caller was not "local"

So was that call ironic or "too rich"? I'd guess not - especially given the content of the calls - it's simply too coincidental - it's the real person equivalent of the other robocalls. For the average recipient, they managed to link Tom Hayhurst to 1) either outsourcing or illegal immigration 2) an annoying political call.

It's just too much of a coincidence to believe that somehow the call clearly mentions the Democratic candidate but the rest of the call won't be understood because of, dare I say, (dare, dare) exaggerated accents (Okay, let's be honest, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they have people literally faking the accents).- leading people to hang up or not know ultimately who is responsible for the call. Boom - it's the same double whammy as with the robocalls. If they don't understand the message, it strongly links the Democrat with support for illegal immigration and/or outsourcing of American jobs overseas since it seems like he is responsible for the call, not to mention with being annoyed with a call you can't understand. If people manage to understand the message, it's still a standard hit job on the Democrat.

In fact, the M.O. is so similar that it can't be a coincidence. That is, once the information comes out - the actual Republican candidate then suddenly comes forward and decries the tactic but, alas, (with much consternation and wringing of hands) can do nothing about it. It's only missing Mehlman prevaricating on Meet the Press about independent expenditures and how he's so helpless to do anything about it. (As an aside, I can't believe that Republicans are willing to vote for a bunch of folks that so often portray themselves as a bunch of weepy, ineffectual wilting violets in the face of wrong doing, immorality, and unethical behavior, and not just on this issue of course. Aren't these guys supposed to be the tough love, hard on crime, stand-up moral values crowd?)

Anyway, people have been looking at this as absurd or ironic or just desserts for the Republicans. I think it's more likely to be another piece of the master plan for Republicans this cycle and in this case, they just had to fall back on a slightly more expensive version.
--

Ballot order in St. Louis County could effect Missouri Senate race

2006-11-07T09:36:00.000-06:00

The ballot order for every single race in St. Louis County, Missouri, including the lead race for Senate start with the Republican candidate. The effects on voting patterns of being first isn't huge, but it's also not zero and in as close a race as this one, it could be enough. (If you don't think it matters, ask why Joe Lieberman is making such a big deal in his ads of letting people know to remember to look all the way to the bottom).

The question of course is whether someone dropped the ball or whether someone fixed this ballot. As best as I could ascertain, people who file first in MO end up first on the ballot but all those who file on the same day are randomly assigned their position. So the question is did every single Democratic candidate drop the ball and fail to file right away or did someone fix the county ballot for the Republicans (perhaps inadvertently). (A third possibility could be that the order of the party is randomized once for the entire ballot but I couldn't find any thing to support that).

Keith Olbermann comes through on the Robocalls

2006-11-06T23:07:00.000-06:00

I was hoping he might - he seemed like the best bet to do so on cable, and he came through as always - now if only some of the morning talking heads pick this up. The details are over at Crooks and Liars

Okay - one really last thought on Poole and McKinley and Direct Strategies

2006-11-06T23:02:00.000-06:00

McKinley and Poole are super involved players in the Republican party, and thus heavily linked to they party structure there. The folks down there are pretty P.O.ed about robocalls already - how do you think they would react if they found out that it was the leadership of their statewide party that was not only making the calls but making a profit from doing so. Not too happy, I'd imagine.

One last thought on Direct Strategies

2006-11-06T22:45:00.000-06:00

I just had a thought - I wonder whether Dutko Worldwide is going to be very happy when they find out there local reps down in Tallahassee have been out aggravating Democratic voters all over the country for chump change and how poorly that might reflect on/impact their multimillion dollar lobbying of the soon to be Democratic Congress. I hope some people start asking them right away. Perhaps some of the new leaders of the Democratic Congress might start asking Dutko what's going on and see if we can't get Will and Van some walking papers.

Dare to dream.

Making headway on Direct Strategies

2006-11-06T21:12:00.000-06:00

I was able to find one piece of information on Direct Strategies at Manta.com (which according to their website is either the premium source for business information or your business intelligence authority, both claims somewaht dubious as they misspelled the address of Direct Strategies). But they yielded up an important clue - the President of Direct Strategies, William McKinley.

No, not that William McKinley.

So if not that William McKinley, than who?

For starters, a somewhat regular, though not big money Republican donor (via FEC.gov)

Let's see there's:
$500 to the detestable 2004 Mel Martinez Senate campaign.
$1000 in 2001 to Charles Bass (R, NH-02)
$1000 in 2000 to Clay Shaw (R, FL-22)
$750 in 1997 to Charles Crist (then a Republican candidate for Senate)
$1000 in 1999 to Bush's Presidential Campaign
$1000 in 1999 to Tom Gallagher (a Republican Senate Candidate)
$2000 in 2003 to Daniel Webster (!), another Republican Senate Candidate
(Incidentally, how does a guy named Daniel Webster not win a Senate seat-sheesh)

But the important information in the FEC database is not the link but the employer identified repeatedly as either Poole and McKinley or Poole, McKinley, & Blosser.

Ding, ding, ding - we have a winner folks. Who are these guys, you might be wondering?

Poole, McKinley, and Blosser was a very lucrative lobbying firm in Florida. Van. B Poole: failed U.S. Senate bid in 1982, Florida Republican Party chairman, 1989-1993, minor posts in campaigns and administrations of Ford, Reagan, and Bush I. Poole's wife was appointed to head Florida's PERC by Jeb Bush. More importantly, Poole was one of Bush's Rangers in 2004. James Blosser, the third player, raised over $100K for Bush in 2000 and was a Pioneer in 2004. (Incidentally, another player there, Justin Sayfie was also a Pioneer and does link these guys back to Greenberg Traurer, the other uber-lobbying firm right next door - see below).

When they split up in 2004, that left Poole and McKinley linking up with the Dutko group, forming Dutko, Poole, & McKinley, leading to a nice photo of McKinley. And now the information is rolling: McKinley is the former chief of staff of the Martinez administration, a former Executive Director of the Republican Party of Florida, and wait for it, a consultant to both the Republican Party of Florida and the National Republican Congressional Committee. Back to Van Poole, we also find a former Florida House and Senate member, and chairman of the Republican Party of Florida.

So we've got some probable principles now - where are the offices of Dutko, Poole, and Mckinley? How about that - they just so happen to be located in the exact same exact building as Direct Strategies.

Small world.

Interesting Direct Strategies 2004 cycle convergence with beneficiary of 2006 Conquest robocalls, Charles Taylor (R-NC)

2006-11-06T19:14:00.000-06:00

Charles Taylor (R-NC), one of the people benefiting from the Conquest robocalls against Heath Shuler in NC, spent $111,386 on "phone banking" with Direct Strategies in the 2004 election cycle. Looks like they've been around the robocall block.

Robocalls and Election Theft II - Six degrees of Jack Abramoff

2006-11-06T16:52:00.000-06:00

I'm working on collecting more information on the second robocalling firm mentioned below, Direct Strategies.

Best information so far suggests that they are located at 106 E College Ave # 1100 , Tallahassee , FL 32301. Their website is, of course, down.

Let's see what else we can find out. I'd say the first clue would be their neighbors - who happens to be coincidentally be right next door? It's the

Guess who's right next door - it's the Tallahassee office of Greenberg Traurig.

Ah, now that's intriguing. Yep - it's that Greenberg Traurig. The Greenberg Traurig:

That represented Bush in the 2000 Florida Recount
That hired Scalia's son on election day in 2000
That has defended Diebold Systems
That employed Jack Abramoff during the height of his Indian Casino scams.

Yes, they just coincidentally happen to right next door to one of the Robocall outfits trying to steal the election.

Robocalls and Election Theft

2006-11-06T16:07:00.000-06:00

A lot of people, particularly those folks over at Talking Points Memo have done a great job documenting the atrocities. A lot of the effort has focused on the robocalls by Conquest Communications which have clearly been a problem.

However, problematic robocalls predate the ones by Conquest that are currently getting all the attention. Indeed, one of the first clear pieces on repeated, unrelenting robocalls appearing to come from a Democratic candidate came in a piece on the Congressional race in Idaho on October 13th.

Excerpts from that piece by Jill Kuraitis of New West Boise

A torrent of complaints is pouring into the Grant for Congress campaign about harassing, annoying, computer-generated telephone calls.

“It’s not us! We, too, have been getting them and find them just as annoying as everyone else,” said campaign spokesman Don Rosebrock.

The computer-generated calls (robocalls, in political parlance) began Thursday, Oct. 12, and are continuing, apparently, across the First District.

The Grant campaign believes two versions are being used, one that begins “When you go to the polls on Nov. 7 you’ll see the name ‘Larry Grant’ on the ballot. Let me tell you a little about Larry Grant….”

snip

Rosebrock said, “One person, who identified himself as a true blue Republican, complained to the campaign about receiving four of these annoying calls within an hour on Thursday evening."

It's clearly a very similar MO as the Conquest Communications robocalls. But FEC filings indicate that Conquest isn't involved in NRCC robocalling in Idaho - a different firm is: Direct Strategies.

Below is the information from the NRCC independent expenditure filings at the FEC for the period between October 1 and October 13th (the date of the article). The IE's aginst Grant in ID-01 are there, but the people at Direct Strategies were busy, busy, busy, also apparently hitting Arcuri in NY-24, Cranley in OH-01, Space in OH-18, Murphy in PA-08, Carney in PA-10, and Burner in WA-08.

To my knowledge, no one has commented on robocalls in these districts (other than ID-01) but given the timing of the independent expenditures (they perfectly overlap with the Conquest Communications surge in IE's) and the information from ID-01, one would have to bet that there are a whole lot more disaffected, robocalled voters in these districts.

I would also note that the pattern here is suggestive - this was the NRCC's defensive strategy in places where normally they'd win but they could get swamped in a massive Democratic wave. So, they set out to attack voters who might potentially go Democratic in what normally would be relatively red district, i.e., weak Democratic voters. It wouldn't take much to turn off new/weak Democratic voters, and with the deceptive robocalls they could do it for less than 10 cents a voter. This was their floodwall against the Democratic storm surge. We'll see tomorrow whether or not they were any better at protecting against political storms than they were against natural ones.

Anyway, here are the IE's

NRCC 10/13
23. Opposes Candidate: GRANT FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Idaho District 01
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/13/2006 Amount Expended = $5592.36
Purpose: Phone Banks

24. Opposes Candidate: GRANT FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Idaho District 01
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/13/2006 Amount Expended = $709.86
Purpose: Phone Banks

25. Opposes Candidate: ARCURI FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, New York District 24
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/13/2006 Amount Expended = $1354.74
Purpose: Phone Banks

26. Opposes Candidate: ARCURI FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, New York District 24
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/13/2006 Amount Expended = $5476.20
Purpose: Phone Banks

27. Opposes Candidate: CRANLEY FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Ohio District 01
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/13/2006 Amount Expended = $2410.38
Purpose: Phone Banks

28. Opposes Candidate: CRANLEY FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Ohio District 01
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/13/2006 Amount Expended = $1004.58
Purpose: Phone Banks

29. Opposes Candidate: CRANLEY FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Ohio District 01
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/13/2006 Amount Expended = $4587.96
Purpose: Phone Banks

30. Opposes Candidate: ZACK SPACE FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Ohio District 18
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/13/2006 Amount Expended = $1428.00
Purpose: Phone Banks

31. Opposes Candidate: ZACK SPACE FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Ohio District 18
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/13/2006 Amount Expended = $4086.42
Purpose: Phone Banks

32. Opposes Candidate: PATRICK MURPHY FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Pennsylvania District 08
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/13/2006 Amount Expended = $4659.36
Purpose: Phone Banks

33. Opposes Candidate: CARNEY FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Pennsylvania District 10
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/13/2006 Amount Expended = $1281.72
Purpose: Phone Banks

34. Opposes Candidate: CARNEY FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Pennsylvania District 10
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/13/2006 Amount Expended = $3976.02
Purpose: Phone Banks

NRCC 10/12

21. Opposes Candidate: CRANLEY FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Ohio District 01
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/12/2006 Amount Expended = $4446.60
Purpose: Phone Banks

22. Opposes Candidate: ZACK SPACE FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Ohio District 18
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/12/2006 Amount Expended = $2341.32
Purpose: Phone Banks

23. Opposes Candidate: PATRICK MURPHY FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Pennsylvania District 08
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/12/2006 Amount Expended = $2469.72
Purpose: Phone Banks

24. Opposes Candidate: CARNEY FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Pennsylvania District 10
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/12/2006 Amount Expended = $2629.98
Purpose: Phone Banks

25. Opposes Candidate: DARCY BURNER FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Washington District 08
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/12/2006 Amount Expended = $2419.20
Purpose: Phone Banks

NRCC 10/11
12. Opposes Candidate: CRANLEY FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Ohio District 01
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/11/2006 Amount Expended = $4683.00
Purpose: Phone Banks

13. Opposes Candidate: CRANLEY FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Ohio District 01
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/11/2006 Amount Expended = $1105.68
Purpose: Phone Banks

NRCC 10/10
12. Opposes Candidate: ZACK SPACE FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Ohio District 18
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/10/2006 Amount Expended = $4013.64
Purpose: Phone Banks

NRCC 10/9
19. Opposes Candidate: ZACK SPACE FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Ohio District 18
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/09/2006 Amount Expended = $1381.62
Purpose: Phone Banks

20. Opposes Candidate: ZACK SPACE FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Ohio District 18
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/09/2006 Amount Expended = $4096.14
Purpose: Phone Banks

21. Opposes Candidate: ZACK SPACE FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Ohio District 18
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/09/2006 Amount Expended = $4207.20
Purpose: Phone Banks

22. Opposes Candidate: ZACK SPACE FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Ohio District 18
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/09/2006 Amount Expended = $1389.54
Purpose: Phone Banks

23. Opposes Candidate: PATRICK MURPHY FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Pennsylvania District 08
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/09/2006 Amount Expended = $995.10
Purpose: Phone Banks

24. Opposes Candidate: CARNEY FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Pennsylvania District 10
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/09/2006 Amount Expended = $1232.28
Purpose: Phone Banks

25. Opposes Candidate: CARNEY FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Pennsylvania District 10
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/09/2006 Amount Expended = $3966.60
Purpose: Phone Banks

26. Opposes Candidate: CARNEY FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Pennsylvania District 10
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/09/2006 Amount Expended = $1309.56
Purpose: Phone Banks

27. Opposes Candidate: DARCY BURNER FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Washington District 08
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/09/2006 Amount Expended = $6025.92
Purpose: Phone Banks

NRCC 10/6
15. Opposes Candidate: CRANLEY FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Ohio District 01
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/06/2006 Amount Expended = $2412.66
Purpose: Phone Banks

16. Opposes Candidate: ZACK SPACE FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Ohio District 18
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/06/2006 Amount Expended = $2328.12
Purpose: Phone Banks

17. Opposes Candidate: CARNEY FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Pennsylvania District 10
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/06/2006 Amount Expended = $2584.56
Purpose: Phone Banks

NRCC 10/5
2. Opposes Candidate: CRANLEY FOR CONGRESS
Office Sought: House of Representatives, Ohio District 01
Payee: DIRECT STRATEGIES
Date Expended = 10/05/2006 Amount Expended = $4694.46
Purpose: Phone Banks

Flip, Flip, Flop - Bush criticizes his policy on Strategic Petroleum Reserve policy - "Bad public policy", "risk to national security"

2006-04-25T10:20:00.000-05:00

Whenever I read a news story about our current president changing his position (and it's so often your head spins), I'm always struck by the completely unprincipled positions he takes. He's going to do what he decides to do, on who knows what basis, to be honest, and then makes something up to justify it.

Just to document the latest atrocity, here's Bush on "deferring deposits" to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve today:

Bush said the nation's strategic petroleum reserve had enough fuel to guard against any major supply disruption over the next few months.

"So, by deferring deposits until the fall, we'll leave a little more oil on the market. Every little bit helps," he said.

Here's Bush in 2000, (behind the Times Select wall) critizing Clinton/Gore for using the SPR for "short-term political gain" - as opposed to just using it until the critical fall 2006 election to desperately clutch to power to avoid the beginning of the cascade of investigations, indictments, convictions, impeachments, and in all likelihood in either case, pardons. Here's a link to evote on the same topic in 2000. You'll note that Bush notable calls the behavior he's now engaging in as "bad public policy" and a risk to national security.

I think the Bush admininstration will be remembered as the Froggy Presidency. Who's Froggy? A character in a set of children's books whose movement is frequently onomotopeized (hmm - never used that as a verb - expressed using onomotopeia) as "Flop, flop, flop."

Bush, similarly, moves politically with Flip, Flip, and with every boneheaded policy he's ever implemented and ultimately his presidency, Flop.

President Bush reverses policy on providing commanders what they request

2006-04-14T13:06:00.000-05:00

Today, in a public statement President Bush apparently finally put to rest a policy of providing military commanders with everything they requested to win the Global War on Terror and the War in Iraq.

Responding to the increasing calls by the upper echelons of the US Military arguing for the resignation and/or firing of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield as an ongoing obstacle to progress in the war in Iraq , President Bush flatly refused, backing Rumsfield strongly.

Senior administration officials quickly denied that this reflected any substantive change in the longstanding administration policy with respect to supporting our military and satisfying all the requests of the leaders of our brave men and women on the front lines.

To which most astute Americans said, "Duh."

The Great Mistake (and the Curse of Paris)

2006-04-12T14:15:00.000-05:00

This was a post I started in April regarding a feature on the San Francisco Earthquake that, well isn't quite topical anymore, but given the Curse of Paris and the catastrophe that is still unfolding in the Paris of the Ninth Century and the lingering aftermath in the Paris of the South is certainly still relevant.

.....
The promos running on Salon for “The Great Quake” make the series look quite compelling and I'd watch it had I the appropriate channel. However, it was the copy that goes with the show that, well, gave me pause.

Key excerpts:

One hundred years ago, San Francisco suddenly awoke to the destructive power of a 7.9-magnitude earthquake. It was the beginning of 74 hours that would see 26 aftershocks, one of the worst urban fires in American history and drastic measures to save the largest city on the Pacific coast. What's worse, the stunned people of San Francisco put their faith and trust in a corrupt mayor who had been more interested in lining his pockets than preparing the city for a disaster of this scale.

The Great Quake brings to life in high definition this epic story of heroic survival, the terror of catastrophe and political manipulation. Based on personal testimonies of survivors and drawing on present-day experts, The Great Quake depicts the calamity that tore San Francisco apart at the seams. This world premiere event transports viewers back 100 years to what was the largest and most influential city on the Pacific coast, often referred to as "The Paris of the West."

1) First, “Paris of the …” That phrase sounds familiar. That's right, the “ Paris of the South". Corrupt politicians? Check and check. Lining their pockets - hmm, check. Unprepared for catastrophe. Double, dog check. What's that about those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

2) Incidentally, it's, um, apparently not so great to be “the Paris of” someplace. See also, “Paris of the Antilles”, the “Paris of the East”, the “Paris of the Middle East”, the “Paris of the Orient” or the “Paris of the Midwest”. Most telling however is what has happened to “ Paris of the Ninth Century”. Seriously, I’d be packing up the moving trucks if I were Buenos Aires, Tromso, Kansas City, Shanghai, Bucharest, Asheville or Carrboro in North Carolina, or even Deep River, ONT (though I think there alternative nickname might provide some protection)

But back to the synopsis:

The Great Quake also details how the city was betrayed by its inept and corrupt mayor, Eugene Schmitz. Rushing to rebuild San Francisco and his tarnished image, Mayor Schmitz was seemingly driven by the fear that money and business would desert a withering city proven vulnerable to earthquakes.

A massive campaign of deceit was orchestrated to conceal the true nature of the tragedy. The Great Quake reveals how photographs were retouched to downplay the destruction caused by the quake. City officials referred to the event as the "Great Fire" rather than the "great earthquake." The official death toll was underestimated at less than 500, even though experts now state that the number of dead reached well into the thousands. And the deception continued even further. The lessons of that tragic April day in 1906 were deliberately and successfully buried.

Unfortunately, the lessons from the Great Quake of 1906 have not been fully learned. A significantly weaker earthquake struck the city in 1989, and many buildings fell as a result of some of the same construction flaws that were a factor in the 1906 devastation.

The Great Quake takes a close look at the lessons learned from these and other great catastrophes brought on by natural disasters. Is our government prepared to take an active role in preparing our cities for emergencies, or will the burden of survival again lie with the common person?

Betrayal by a public figure, campaign of deceit to conceal the full nature of the tragedy, rebuilding a tarnished image, failing to learn from and even concealing the lessons of the tragedy…. Plus ça change, plus la méme chose. The answers, tragically, to the final questions would probably depend on the current leadership. Let's see, who is president again? Ah, then the answers would be, "Sadly, No", and then almost certainly yes.

In stunning news, President Bush fires, emprisons himself, Vice President

2006-04-06T14:42:00.000-05:00

(from a future Onion, I'm sure) In an unprecedented and, by all accounts, stunning turn of events, President George W. Bush fired himself, Vice President Dick Cheney for their roles in outing covert CIA operative as multiple sources began to reveal the roles that the President and Vice President played in revealing the identity of Valerie Plame in their attempts to discredit and retaliate against her spouse, Joseph Wilson, for his role in questioning information presented in the President's 2003 State of the Union address. The transcript of the press conference follows:

My fellow Americans, as the President, it is my personal responsibility to protect the safety of the people of the United States. Moreover, I have the unfettered authority to do whatever I think is necessary to ensure that safety (link). As recent news have increasingly suggested, high ranking members of this administration played a pivotal role in revealing the identity of a covert operative working on preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction program related activities. These individuals have struck a blow against the security and safety of every American. Normally I avoid commenting on ongoing investigations, except, of course, when I do. However, the facts as they have presented themselves leaves me with no doubt as to what has happened.

Consequently, I have no choice but to protect the American people from these breaches in National Security by firing those responsible, as I have previously pledged to do so. Consequently, in keeping with my responsibilities as President and unfettered power to act in the interests of National Security, effective immediately, I have fired both myself and Vice President Richard Cheney and ordered them held, without bail or hearing as enemy combatants.

At this point the press conference broke into pandemonium - unable to regain control of the press conference, former President Bush motioned to someone and Capitol Hill Police entered the room, took something from the President which appeared to be his keys to the Oval Office (unconfirmed), and the President was escorted from the building.

A senior administration official, whose identity is being protected so that he is not taken hunting with the Vice President, indicated that former Vice President Richard Cheney remained at large. The release indicated that Capitol Hill Police had called in the FBI for assistance in apprehending the former Vice President but apparently they were unable to determine his whereabouts because, as usual, he was in an undisclosed location. However, he did issue a brief statement through a spokseman arguing that since President Bush fired himself first, he no longer had the authority to fire the Vice President, effectively making Cheney the President.

The whereabouts of who to most observers was now the 44th President, former Speaker of the House now President Hastert was unknown but many in Washington were eagerly anticipating a rematch of his infamous slumpoffs with Vice President Cheney during President Bush's State of the Union Addresses.

The new Grand Old Party- the corrupt leading the corrupt

2006-02-08T21:52:00.000-06:00

The current situation reminds of an old campground song - Bluejay - the content isn't important here but the transition between verses is. Basically, after each verse, the person leading the song would shout, louder each time,

"Next verse, same as the first, a little bit louder and a little bit worse"

And I think that that's the situation with our new GOP - same as the old GOP but perhaps a little bit worse. And if Mehlman and McCain are any indication, they're certainly planning on getting louder.

To recap: amidst a far-reaching set of ethical scandals besetting the Grand Old Party, Republicans take a bold new direction and appoint a new majority leader who:
1) was the most connected to lobbyists of any of the contenders
2) is living in an apartment that he rents from a lobbyist when he's in DC. Sure, it's not a yacht, but I seem to remember that the last time we heard this "market rate" stuff, it turned out to be a load of hooey covering a whole lot of underhandedness.
3) immediately kills what was already a totally miniscule attempt by the GOP to combat the ethical and legal cloud surrounding the party.
4) is so far in the pocket of Big Tobacco that he's practically a human sock garter.

And at the same time, they replace felon Duke Cunningham on the Appropriations Committee, one of if not the most powerful committees in the House with .... wait for it ... Tom Delay!, the guy who was ousted as Majority Leader because he's been indicted and has been dogged with a variety of ethical and legal questions surrounding his handling of, you guessed it, money.

Is the Republican well of leadership so dry that the best they can do is replaced a confessed felon with someone who is simply holding on to an increasingly slim chance that he won't soon be meeting his former colleague in the pokey. And the best they can do in replaceing someone covered in the stink of lobbyists is just to change the flavor of the stink? Sheesh.

Illegal fund-raising activity prior to the Republican National Convention?

2004-08-30T10:04:00.000-05:00

One of the the ways that Republicans are raising money in the time preceding the Republican convention is holding fundraisers at sporting events, an increasing trend.

One in particular is:

"Illinois Rep. Jerry Weller (news, bio, voting record) was holding a fund-raiser Tuesday at a Cleveland Indians-New York Yankees game. The asking price was $1,500 per person or $2,500 for a pair of tickets."

Now, it's possible that AP writer just got a bit casual with the language describing the way the fundraiser works but there appears to be a double violation of New York law by having a 1) non-licensed reseller scalping tickets at 2) more than 10% above face value. And, though it's not clear, it's not obvious that the exemption/exception clause doesn't seem to apply to political campaigns (though would apply to 501c organizations, the shadowy version of 527s).

What are the penalties?

"S 25.25. Violations; penalties. 1. Every person, firm or corporation
who resells any such ticket or other evidence of right of entry or
engages in the business of reselling any such ticket or other evidence
of the right of entry, without first having procured the license
prescribed and filing of a bond required by this article shall be guilty
of a misdemeanor. Every person, firm or corporation who violates any
provision of this article shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. A conviction
for any violation hereof shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed two
hundred fifty dollars for the first violation, five hundred dollars for
the second violation and one thousand dollars for any subsequent
violation or by imprisonment for a period not to exceed one year, or
both such fine and imprisonment as herein provided."

It's not clear whether the many tickets sold this way would be multiple or a single violation but it would be interesting to find out.

Greenspan is a tool

2004-08-27T12:22:00.000-05:00

... for the politically conservative movement to cripple the federal government. How else can one possibly reconcile Greenspan's support for the current President's massive tax shift from the wealthy elites to future citizens when he then turns around and says that we must quickly start trimming retirement and health benefits (Social Security and Medicare) to baby boomers or risk bankrupty and we must do so so they can plan for those resources not being there.

This is the epitome of bait and switch. Politicians have been promising that these resources will be there for generations. People have planned their retirements around these resources, as have private companies in the way they have designed their retirement benefit packages. To abandon our citizens now, when they have scant time left to prepare would be callous AT BEST.

Moreover, the payroll taxes (which falls much more heavily on the poor and middle class that depend on these resources) were raised as was the eligible retirement age, with the strong support of and largely at the suggestion of Greenspan to head this crisis off. Then, the surplus this tax hike created (with the help of some fiscal restraint during a Democratic presidency) helped hide the MASSIVE deficit spending of the Reagan and GHW Bush administrations and then was given to the uber-wealthy, not once, not twice, but thrice in three years under the current President.

So with the help of Greenspan, Reagan, Bush, and Bush have DRAMATICALLY RAISED taxes on the poor and middle class and used it to line the pockets of defense contractors and the oil industry, helped shift the tax burden from the truly wealthy onto the poor, the working class, and the middle class, have dramatically increased the tax burden of future generations, have shifted the tax burden more disproportionately onto money earned through work rather than money earned through sitting on your daddy's trust fund while planning to SLASH THE BENEFITS THAT THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS DEPEND ON FOR THEIR HEALTH AND WELL-BEING, EVEN FOR THEIR VERY LIVES as they age.

There really is only one word for such rob the poor to give to the filthy rich policy.

Evil.

Election memes - Stubborn, cowardly bully

2004-08-27T01:11:00.000-05:00

John Kerry's Daily Show appearance, while leaving me a bit whelmed (vaguely satisfied but disappointed at the same time), at least put the word to what any kindergarten teacher could see when they looked at the President's decision-making style. He's stubborn. He makes up his mind on virtually no information (well-documented) and then "sticks to his guns" - this is not character, this is foolishness.

More importantly, I'd like Kerry to stand up and call Bush a coward. First, expose him for the coward (or moral coward if you prefer Josh Marshall's excellent exposition of this point) he was 35 years ago when it came to Vietnam. And ridicule him for the coward he is now - call him out on the debates again and again. He won't meet me in the debates because he's afraid - he knows his record and that he can't possibly run on it or speak intelligently or honestly about it. Press the debates issue - HARD. If he agrees, great. If he doesn't agree, even better.

But I'd like to see these memes get a bit more traction because coupled with the president's disdain both for thinking and for people who more than occasionally try to engage in the same, I think it reveals the truth about this President. Namely that:

He's a bully, a brilliantly Machiavellian bully (thought the first two words may be due largely to his friendship with Karl Rove), but a bully nonetheless.

And no American has ever liked a bully.

Deadlines for Dictators

2004-08-27T00:53:00.000-05:00

I was off to sleep when my eye caught the breaking news story via Reuters covering an article in tomorrow's New York Times.

In it, he admits "miscalcuations in Iraq" due to the too swift victory. So, if only things had gone worse in Iraq, they would have gone better? Brilliant.

But that's not what caught my eye. According to the coverage of the article:

"The president also discussed the issue of North Korea (news - web sites) and Iran's nuclear ambitions, saying that he would not be rushed to set deadlines."

"The newspaper said 'Bush displayed none of the alarm about North Korea's growing arsenal that he once voiced regularly about Iraq.'"

Wow. A country with a real doozy of a dictator holding nuclear weapons - no alarm. A country with a real doozy of a dictator holding, um, nothing and it's "The sky is falling, the sky if falling, it's falling, the sky." I wonder whether it exhibits a combination of casual prejudice coupled with opportunistic hegemonic desire to say "Hey, we can finally invade Iraq - Americans won't be able to distinguish between Iraqis and Al Qaeda" but leaving real dangers to fester and erupt.

But even better, some of you (all zero of you reading this) may remember the run-up to war, many of you might recall that the Bush administration arranged for all kinds of deadlines and timelines, including most notably the one for the Hussein family to leave Iraq. How does the President feel about such things?

"It quoted him as saying about the leaders of North Korea and Iran: 'I don't think you give timelines to dictators.'"

...

"I'm confident that over time this will work -- I certainly hope it does," the newspaper quoted Bush as saying of the diplomatic approach." in which the President asserts

Aside from the mind-numbingly foolish, flip-flopping hypocrisy, let's examine what lesson this might offer dictators. Dictators with nukes get diplomacy. Dictators without nukes get bombed. Hmm, I wonder what most dictators will try to do.

Hypocrisy written in large headlines but the press doesn't notice

2004-08-18T13:15:00.000-05:00

This post is getting a bit stale because I started it and then set it aside for a while. I'm going to quickly wrap it up and then come back to it later as time allows...

Every once and a while, I get really discouraged by the state of our press and their willingness to simple repeat without analysis what politicians say rather than report on whether or not what they say makes sense.

There was the absolute debacle starting yesterday of headlines talking about bring troops 70000-80000 troops home which during a time when we have between 120-140,000 people in Iraq seems directly designed to suggest to the casual newspaper reader (the one's that skip to the weather, the comics, and/or the sports section) that hey that Iraq war is going pretty well and generally that the president is helping bring our men and women in uniform home. Indeed, the headline on the Washington Post article seemed like it was written by the Bush Administration. "Bush realignment brings 70,000 troops back home"

Well, of course, 1) It's not happening now as suggested by brings. 2) It wasn't going to happen anytime soon - it's over a 10 year period. 3) Of course, the odds are good that they're not actually coming home but are instead going to be deployed elsewhere and given the state of things, it's probably going to be MUCH more difficult duty - nothing like coming home and, best of all, 4) the President, Vice President, and any Republican flack that could throw themselves within earshot of a microphone had just spent a couple of weeks criticizing Kerry's plan to ACTUALLY bring troops HOME from COMBAT by getting the international community to chip in a bit more (that is, to bring some of our boys home without reducing troop presence).

Today [August 18], I saw an AP headline which read to wit Bush Vows Push for More Military Benefits.

I think a nearly blew a gasket - first, the benefits were meager - we should be rolling out major benefit packages and pay increases (not to mention better equipping our guard and reserves) because what they've been asked to do for all of us has multiplied dramatically. They've lost income - some have lost homes - they're children have lost years of time with their parents - and we're going to offer more education benefits. That should be the icing on the cake - it's not the cake. I'm talking pay increases, combat pay increases, pay differential benefits, 0% interest loans while on active duty (it could be patterned after student loans almost seamlessly), comprehensive health benefits for self and dependents, full reimbursal for any equipment purchased out of pocket, etc., etc., etc. To use a conservative term, this is an unfunded mandate of the worst kind because the mandate falls on our most noble men and women and their families and communities rather than on states or broadly on us all.

But the word that really struck me was "more". More? More?!?! ^&$%*^&($ More?

This administration has been incredibly unkind to the military and veterans's of all stripes. They've tried to reduce pay and benefits, freeze increases, have stiffed the guard and reserves on funding and supplies while transferring millions to corpororations to provide services (e.g., guarding bases) at much higher rates of compensation then we paid the good men and women who were serving in those roles before being called to serve.

The life and livelihood of a very good friend of mine is on the line because of a decade's worth of wet dreams of a few chickenhawks view of Iraq which has turned out to be completely false. That very few Republicans have had the courage to confront this is to their everlasting shame.

Country to President Bush - You're going the wrong way

2004-08-12T11:34:00.000-05:00

Mulling over my opening posts yesterday brought to mind two relevant road movie scenes that are analagous to the way the Bush Administration is leading the country (and much funnier than the one I imagined). One is a classic in its genre and I'm disappointed that I didn't remember it sooner.

In Planes, Trains, and Automobiles, a truly underappreciated film blending slapstick comedy perfectly with genuine human moments - I had forgotten how much I loved this film until the scene below got me thinking about it again. ... (I've tried to find some clips - I couldn't find one of the whole scene but here's it is cobbled together - I HIGHLY recommend renting the video to see the whole sequence in it's entirety)

The scene starts after Neal (Steve Martin) and Del (John Candy) finally get a rental car. They're driving at night and Del attempts to take off his jacket while driving, swerving off the road and nearly killing them. They recover to get back on the road with no idea that they are now driving on the wrong side of the road. As they're driving, a couple driving on the correct side of the road try to warn them.

(Real Video Clip)

After they start driving, they see a couple driving trying to signal to them.

Here's the audio clip:

(RealPlayer) (Wav format)

NEAL: "He wants something."
DEL: "Oh, he's probably drunk."
DRIVER: [shouting] "You're going the wrong way."
NEAL: "What."
DRIVER: [shouting] "You're going the wrong way."
NEAL: "He says were going the wrong way."
DEL: "Oh, he's drunk. How would he know where we're going?"
NEAL: "Yeah, how would he know? Thank you. Thanks a lot. Terrific."
DEL: "Thank you. [honks car horn] [laughs, motioning that other driver has been drinking] What a moron."

The clip continues with the couple trying again to warn them. Realization suddenly dawns for Neal and he turns to face two semis bearing down on them.

RealVideo clip

The analogy to the current state of affairs works reasonably well if you place President Bush in the role of the affable but somewhat daft Del, pragmatic adult or grownup Republicans (as Brad DeLong has taken to calling them) as the buttoned-down Neal, the car as the country, and the people in the other car has progressives/liberals/other critics of this administration's agenda and their execution of that agenda, both of which have been sorely lacking.

To wit, the President starting from an initial ill-advised action (or two or three) created some pretty substantial fiscal and international chaos and ended up leading the country in the wrong direction. People pointing this out have been ridiculed (called much worse things than drunk) and marginalized as outside the car (in reality, in the back seat right along with the characters). The car has continued forward with Neal largely oblivious about the stage that has been set. I think we're at the point were the grown-up conservatives have turned to see where we are actually headed and noticed the semis coming for our car. The hope, of course, is that the President manages to negotiate us between the two semis as well as Del did, only ripping off the doors and the rear-view mirrors (apt parallel there) rather than driving us into one or both of them head-on before we can get back on the right track.

The problem with the analogy of course is that we need a couple of additional characters - one to emphatically reassure Del/the President and Neal/the people that this is the right way, the way everyone really wants to go and to argue to ignore the upcoming semis. And another one to strongly second the first characters opinion and bad mouth the people in the other car/back seat before the crash and then, after the car has been trashed in the near semi-crash, to explain that this is what we were hoping for all along and that if we had listened to the people in the other car/back seat, we would have blown the car to smithereens.

I think at this point, the polls (e.g., see Q7 of this recent poll) are coming around to the backseat position and maybe, just maybe, Neal might realize what's going on in time so that we might actually get the car on to one of those no-authorized vehicles u-turns.

Let's hope.

"artificial timelines"

2004-08-11T16:46:00.000-05:00

President Bush has been hammering at Senator Kerry recently, not always in the most forthright or even wise ways.

First, came "We're turning the corner." which seems to have disappeared when 1) we were reminded who led us down that original street/blind alley in the first place; and 2) that the new street (on either the Iraq or the economy issues) does not look all that better, much less different than the last one. In fact, did anyone actually notice us turn? It seemed more akin to one of those phantom turns mapping websites sometimes provide, indicating a turn when all that happened was a change in the name of the road with even the slightest change of direction. I have to imagine the administration probably felt the same confusion and panic as most of us do when that happens - it's like a bad road comedy.

President Bush, driving the bus of state: "Okay, the road map says there is a turn coming up."
The nation:"I don't see anything"
President Bush: "Nope, it's definitely coming - just a few tenths of a mile right after the repeated and massive tax cuts to the wealthy and declaration that Iraq is sovereign."
The nation: "I think that map may be a bit out of date or misguided - there doesn't appear to be any turn ahead."
President Bush: "No, we're coming up on the turn right now. It's right here according to the directions. And it'll be an easy Sunday drive compared with this rough road we've been on. Sorry about that right turn back there in Albuquerque.
The nation (with increased agitation): "But there doesn't appear to be anywhere to turn!?!"
President Bush (calmly doing nothing): "Here it is. Hold on to your hats, everyone - this is going to be quite a turnaround."
The nation: "What? There's no road! Don't turn!! (bracing itself and averting its eyes). Wait - what happened? We didn't turn."
President Bush (as if nothing is wrong): "Whew. That was close, we almost missed that corner. Well, I hope you're all happy that we're now back on track and we haven't even lost much time now that we've turned that corner."
The nation: Sigh. Okay, remind us who helped book us on this trip. Oh, that's right, Ralph get up here, right now. (Travel Agent approaches). I thought you said this outfit was the same as the other one?
Ralph the Travel Agent: Yep. Just the same. No difference. Even after this incredible detour with all the sudden and inexplicable right turns, the rough ride, the noxious bus fumes, all the extra charges, and the passengers we've lost and the pedestrians we've hit, I stand by that - in fact, I'm negotiating right now to plan our next trip and this time, the driver and his friends are actually helping me to do my job for me since, well, as it turns out, I was not asked back by my previous employer.
The nation: (Throwing up hands in exasperation).

Of course, that effort was closely followed by, "Results matter." I have to think someone was fired over that one. I think most would agree that results should actually matter. Given that there is not a great deal that the President can unequivocally point to as an accomplishment either as President or as Governor (or the Vice-President as VP or Congressman, though perhaps as Defense Secretary), and that the President is still very nip and tuck with Senator Kerry among American voters, one might argue the President is wrong on that count, quite luckily for him.

Now, we have "artificial timelines" not six weeks after perhaps one of the most artificial, arbitrary, and politically motivated of timelines for "handing over" "control" of Iraq, in spite of continued widespread unrest, largely unmet reconstruction goals and unspent (or "unaccounted for") reconstruction funds, and, to top it off, not knowing exactly who we would be handing over Iraq to mere weeks before the deadline (not to mention the fact that we did a rush job to hand it over a few days early to defuse the incredible danger created by the artificially imposed deadline).

(From AP via Yahoo, emphasis added)

'"Kerry said this week that he hoped to begin reducing U.S. troop strength in Iraq within six months of taking office, if elected, but that it would depend on broader international assistance, better stability in Iraq and other factors.

Bush dismissed the plan as a politically driven one that would cut short the mission and aid the enemy.

"The key is not to set artificial timelines," Bush said while campaigning for re-election in Niceville, Fla. He said the Massachusetts senator's plan would signal the enemy that, "Gosh, all we've got to do is wait them out."'

Wow. Now _that_ is unmitigated audacity, to have the President criticize Senator Kerry for suggesting a plan to bring some of our troops home a year from now barely moments after the mother of all artificial deadlines. It's not like Senator Kerry said, "We're bringing the troops home six months after I'm elected, come hell or high water" so that the opposition in Iraq could just wait it out, as the President suggested. I believe the plan was to be able to start bringing troops home in six months by arranging additional support from other nations, allowing our overextended and overburdened servicemen and servicewomen a welcome and well-deserved respite from their efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan without actually reducing troop strength in either location.

I have to say, at this point, I'm a bit perplexed. The President's political team used to be brilliant, scintillating even - they continually were able to turn factual and ideological sows' ears into political silk purses. But now, they seem to be stepping in their own messes at every turn.

Perhaps all the previous successes at saying whatever they wanted and having it picked up and parroted by the press as facts may have led to some untimely overconfidence? Or is it a sign of desperation, having bet everything on an ill-advised war and a tax-cut for every season (albeit, if not for every person) economic policy, they now find their talking points cupboard is bare?

Or, worst of all, is it possibly another cunning political tactic? With little ammunition left, they've attempted to inoculate the public by exposing us all to weak versions of real criticisms, thereby diluting the effect of very real and very serious criticisms of the President's performance and policies. It makes it a lot harder to correctly question the President for a lack of results or artificial timelines or, in the turning the corner case, for Senator Kerry to say that things will get better in the future when the President and his team have already said all of those things, however cynically or disingenuously. It takes a lot more work and ends up making the opposition look long-winded in having to explain away what the President has already claimed in making the counterclaim that is actually the real one (opening doors for shallow criticism from the likes of Saletan or Kaus) or, worse, to sound like preschoolers - "But vooootersss, the President used artificial timelines fi-rst" or, in the separate question of flip-flopping, "I know you are, but what am I."

Here's hoping that Senators Kerry and Edwards can somehow sidestep the President's schoolyard bully tactics, dismissing them with humor and panache, while appropriately redirecting the attention of the American people to the tremendous challenges that the President has created for us. We might just be able to face those challenges honestly and together.

(Edited to add the link to Kevin Drum's nice catch of Saletan's latest folly in Political Animal)

Pro(b)logue - Development of principles

2004-08-11T16:33:00.000-05:00

I recently watched Citizen Kane through the magic that is TiVo - it remains an incredible movie that is remarkable in new and different ways each time one sees it. Given our current state of the world, the scene where Kane buys the New York Inquirer stood out in sharp relief from the rest of the film (appropriately, given the incredible use of light and shadow in the scene). Indeed, in many ways, that scene was one of the sources of inspiration that led to this blog.

In that scene, Kane takes over the flagging NY Inquirer and sets out a Declaration of Principles for the paper. Of course, by no measure do I hope to make this Inquirer as important as Kane hoped to make his. But, his two key principles are excellent guides on this particular journey.

1) "I'll provide the people of this city with a daily paper that will tell all the news honestly."

It is to dream to believe that there might again be some paper that might reflect or at least attempt to achieve this principle. Indeed, I think much of the blogosphere, at least that part of it devoted to politics, exists because too many of us have come to feel like there is no such paper and has not been for some time or truly, perhaps, ever. Still, whatever they once were, newspapers increasingly appear to have been replaced by typographical megaphones for a combination of public relations flacks, communication directors, and advertising-synergistic articles. Or what some might call news-related program activities.

Kane continues after being interrupted.

2) "I will also provide them with a fighting and tireless champion of their rights as citizens and as human beings."

Putting it together sounds like a good campaign soundbite actually, something Gore might have said in 2000 when his progressive populist groove was working (contrary to the pundits who panned it, not surprisingly – see the archives (e.g., here) of Bob Somerby's The Daily Howler for all the gory - bad pun, unfortunately, intended - details).

Imagine a president that could look us in the eye and say "I will provide the people of this country with a president that will speak to them honestly. I will also provide them with a fighting and tireless champion of their rights as citizens and as human beings." In some ways, I think this comes close to capturing the ethos of Edwards primary speeches.

But I digress. The point was the inspiration for the blog and what I hope will be it’s guiding principles.

Principle 1 - Comment honestly.

I'd like to say, "Report honestly" but that principle would immediately be self-contradictory because I can't honestly claim to be a reporter in any sense of the profession.

Principle 2 - In commenting, seek to advance the fulfillment of basic rights of human beings - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (broadly construed).

Some of the other parts of that scene are also relevant to the birth of this blog.

First, Kane clearly seeks to make the Inquirer important

"I've got to make the New York Inquirer as important to New York as the gas in that light."

A laudable but, frankly, unrealistic goal in this context – the blogosphere is already heavily populated with both meaningful (and meaningless) discourse. Though Margaret Mead’s words, that one should, “Never doubt that a small group of concerned citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has,” resonate strongly here, leading me to hope that I might contribute to/be a part of such groups, leading me to Principle 3.

Principle 3 - Work in concert with others in fulfillment of Principles 1 & 2.

In espousing his principles, Kane is interrupted which leads him to elaborate further on his first principle.

“Now they're gonna get the truth in the Inquirer, quickly and simply and entertainingly and no special interests are gonna be allowed to interfere with that truth.” (I always find the use of “special interests” there illuminating – it reminds us that the idea of “special interests” does not represent a recent phenomenon and, as a result, that they are really anything but special.)

Principle 4 – Where it does not conflict with Principles 1 through 3, communicate briefly and entertainingly.

(Although you can probably already tell that the first part is really going to be a struggle).

The scene continues with Kane’s “friend” Leland asking to save the original hand-written principles.

“I'd like to keep that particular piece of paper myself. I have a hunch it might turn out to be something pretty important, a document...like the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, and my first report card at school.”

My suspicion is that these principles will likely end up closer in their import to my child’s first report card at school (recently received) – of value primarily to myself and others close to me. Perhaps if I and all of you mutually keep our expectations appropriate, this blog might contribute in some small way to our ongoing national conversation.

One parting note on the scene in Citizen Kane – we see the initial meager circulation of the paper as the scene concludes. I suspect that there will be stronger parallels with the implication of that part (miniscule impact) than the actual circulation (26,000) for some time but welcome all of you to enjoy whatever meager knowledge and merriment I am able to provide.

Whew - glad that's over with. On with the show.