Rep. Pete Stark goes after GOP on SCHIP and Iraq

(Cross posted at SCCDems.ning.com)

The right wing is all upset about Rep. Pete Stark's remarks the other day, watch for yourself what our local congressman had to say:

The GOP and far right are demanding that Stark apologize for his remarks, because the words are "over the top." Personally I think Rep. Stark nailed the whole issue, and the right hates the fact that Rep. Stark is correct. How is it that we can continue to fund a war with no end and deny children the access to health care?

Billions of dollars have been wasted in Iraq, $9 billion disappeared, and the GOP wants to continue to fully fund a war with no accountability, no progress, at the expense of our children. Since the GOP has no leg to stand on they have to attack Rep. Stark for telling it like it is, and personally I hope more of our congress members start to show the backbone and courage of Rep. Pete Stark.

GOP "tells lies and I got proof"

Watch this video then send it to everyone you know.

SOTU: Will you watch?

Tonight George Bush will give his second to last SOTU speech. Sitting behind Bush will be our own Nancy Pelosi, the first time in history a woman will sit in the Speakers Chair, next to her will be Cheney and in front of her will be a Democratic Congress. If you are interested in watching the SOTU speech with other democrats, click here for a list of "watch parties" near you.

Yes, I am going to watch the speech, yes, I will yell at the TV, yes I will have some wine while I watch (the only way to watch Bush is to have some sort of numbing substance in ones hand). Already there have been "leaks" regarding Bush's speech, for instance Bush is going to propose tax deductions for those who buy their own health insurance, and he will also propose a tax INCREASE for those who are provided health insurance by their employer.

The SOTU speech starts at 6:00 pm (PST), and immediately following Senator Jim Webb will give the Democratic response. Personally I am looking forward to hearing both Webb and commentary by Keith Olbermann (who will be paired with Chris Matthews on MSNBC).

Given that Bush's approval numbers are now in the "cellar," one has to wonder if tonight's speech will further erode his "approval" numbers. 60 percent of Americans now disapprove of Bush, and only 35 percent think he is doing a "good job."

Watch, listen and learn tonight, and remember that we only have to endure ONE more SOTU from Bush.

Debunking the right-wing's newest Pelosi lie

The right-wing attack machine is in meltdown after their latest attempt to discredit Pelosi. The newest salvo fired against Pelosi is that she has not hired union workers on her vineyard in Napa Valley. Sounds pretty bad doesn't it? A very quick look at the truth and the law reveal that there is a 1975 law which prohibits employers from seeking union contracts, as

Marc Grossman of the United Farm Workers Union explains: "It is patently illegal for any grower to even discuss a union contract, which is the only way you can supply union workers, without the workers first having voted in a state conducted secret ballot election."

Pelosi would be in violation of the law if she were to actively seek to initiate a union contract with those who tend her vineyard, yet the right-wing claims she is a hypocrite for NOT hiring union workers. Maybe, just maybe, the right-wing "experts" would be taken more seriously if they did any research at all, but then again, doing "research" would most likely debunk their attacks, so one can figure out why "research" isn't a job requirement for those right-wingers who are affiliated with the Hoover Institute.

Watch this report from ABC 7, and then ask yourself why it is that the person making these claims won't respond to the truth. Ask yourself why it was so easy for Channel 7 to investigate and find the truth, and why it seems to be so hard for the right-wing to even come close to the truth.

Once again the right-wing has shown that they are incapable of telling the truth as the truth does not fit their agenda. Shame on the right-wing and kudos to Channel 7 for doing their job as journalists.

Bush II; Day 555: Another so-called Moderate Republican shows his true colors.

Rudy Giuliani was a great leader in the days after 9/11. I was in NYC at the time, so I can tell you from firsthand experience that he calmed and cheered the city.

So, I'm no Rudy-hater, but it sure doesn't change his political stripes on a larger scale.

People talk about Rudy like he's some moderate bridge kind of guy that could appeal to, obviously, Republicans and Democrats.

Not this Democrat.

not when he's appearing at fundraisers to help get Ralph Reed elected as Georgia Lt. Governor. Georgia Lt. Governor? Seriously, you have to go out of your way to butt into that one, don't you?

So, Rudy, who is supposedly pro-choice, and pro-gay rights and pro-gun control (all theoretically making him palatable to Democrats) will show up for the guy who is among the most virulently anti-choice radical religious right-wingers there is?

Like I said: Giuliani doesn't fool this Democrat. He will be a slave to the "evangelical base" just like any other Republican these days. Including that other supposed moderate, John McCain.

Bush II; Day 552: I think we've finally found it

The issue that Dubya tried to "triangulate", that is...and it's called immigration.

Everyone likes to talk about how President Clinton was a master of triangulation. Of course, this is sort of a made-up definition for the word "triangulate", as you can see when you actually look it up. All it really means is that Clinton was a master of reasonable compromise and had the negotiating and diplomacy skills to pull it off!

Dubya has typically gone for a less nuanced, more ham-fisted approach...you know, trusting his gut, believing God talks to him and ignoring the Constitution when it suits him.

But he's got himself all twisted in knots when it comes to immigration. He is trying to make everyone happy, and consequently isn't making anyone happy. He gave a major speech a couple of weeks ago, and it did nothing to appease or gladden anyone.

Those on the left, like Marc Cooper, actually saw much of the speech as reasonable, but can't get behind the overall message because of the draconian deployment of the already stretched-thin National Guard to the border. They see it as the wrong approach tactically, but even more decisively, it's a sign that Dubya is still pandering shamelessly to the radical right-wing who would like nothing more than to build a wall between the US and Mexico and ship out all 11 million illegals tomorrow.

Those on the right, like LaShawn Barber, are very inflamed over this issue, and this speech did nothing to calm them down. Thy're not even buying the "sending the Guard ot the border" bone they were thrown. (She has lots of great links to other conservatives on the topic too.)

Even those who don't love Dubya have been known to say "at least I know where he stands." You can poke holes in that all you want, and I have, but people believe he says what he believes. But this immigration issue is the one he can't seem to pull that act off with.

Why? Probably because in his gut his position is probably pretty close to the general Democratic position. And he's afraid to say so. Frankly, with his approval rating so low, even amongst conservatives, I don't know why he doesn't just go for it. Could it get worse for him?

Bush II; Day 546: Wondering how Bush has managed to avoid the veto?

A scathing NY Times editorial takes a look at the same Boston Globe story we blogged here about how many laws Dubya has decided he doesn't need to follow.

The conclusion: why veto when you can simply selectively follow the law?

Will this imperial presidency come back to haunt the Republicans in general? Only 2006 and 2008 will tell. Just remember, Republicans were a key partof ousting Nixon.

We culd be cynical and say they were only trying to save their own asses, but I believe some of them were honestly appalled by what their leader had resorted to and thought that, whatever party he belonged to, accountability was necessary.

Bush II; Day 539: The National Anthem in Spanish

OK, this is the kind of thing that just makes my head want to explode.

Yes, I'm sure of all the things to be debated about immigration the most important item is whether or not the National Anthem should be sung in Spanish. Apparently Dubya (and all his buddies in the right wing) believe it should not.

Which is so funny, because Bush was perfectly willing to sing the Anthem in Spanish when campaigning in Hispanic neighborhoods.

ARRRGH.

Seriously, there are so many important issues to be discussed. I can't believe this one bubbles to the top.

Here's the immigration question I continue to have: as the child of immigrants who dealt with quotas and long, slow processes to bring family members over one by one, aren't we talking about setting up a system that provides an unfair advantage to those who live closest? Are refugees from the Sudan or other chaotic global situations less deserving of a rapid and unlimited path to citizenship? Yet, they will not be able to so easily (easy being a completely relative term of course) establish themselves across our borders.

Do I sound like a Republican? I am sure I'm missing something.

Who out there has a great link to a clear, simple explanation of the proposed immigration solutions? I need to read up!

Bush II; Day 513: Bye-bye DeLay

So, is it just me, or if DeLay had even a shred of innocence to clutch to his weaselly self don't you think he would have not just sought re-election, but also not announced he was going to resign?

I'm just saying.

Bush II; Day 510: How do you solve a problem like Scalia?

Musical theatre fans get 5 extra points for chucking at my post title.

It's clear that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia doesn't think silly little rules apply to him. This NY Times editorial makes the case that he ought to recuse himself from a current case involving the rights of Gitmo detainees. But having an apparent conflict of interest has never stopped Scalia before. Remember the infamous duck-hunting incident?

Look I don't really care whether or not Scalia made a rude hand gesture. And I guess I don't even care if the guy has personal opinions on cases even before he's heard all the arguments. But somehow I naively thought that judges weren't supposed to go around calling one side of a case "crazy" before the case was even brought before them. It looks bad, Scalia, really bad...could you show us all a little respect and not do that please?

That's what lifetime appointments get you I guess. Although I totally understand the point of having such lifetime appointments, when you're stuck with a lifetime of this guy it's hard to see their benefit.

Bush II; Day 503: Take action? Us?

You know with this so-called-liberal-media parroting eveyrthng the Republican hacks say, it's no wonder the Democrats can't win for losing.

When we talk specific positions they say we have no vision. When we talk vision they ask "where's the beef?"

When we talk they ask for action. But God forbid we want to take action...that's proof that the apocalypse is on its way.

Case in point, the proposed censure of Dubya by Feingold. Judiciary Committee Chariman Arlen Specter is being so kind as to let the censure actually be discussed in committee.

Interesting excerpt:

Some Republicans have seized on the issue to rally their supporters by arguing that the censure plan is evidence that Democrats would try to take some action against Mr. Bush should they gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections.

A lot of fence-sitters and centrists and the pissed off of all political persuasions won't be put off by the concept of folks taking action. They'll ask, "what are you waiting for?"

Bush II; Day 462: Continuing to investigate Katrina's aftermath

And big surprise, there's finger-pointing and revelations of ass-covering.

I think we can safely assume that "Brownie" will get the handsome character-smearing from the Bush Administration and their flunkies that we've come to know and love.

Bush II; Day 457: Who's angry now?

I don't know sometimes who to be more angry with: the Republicans or the lily-livered media.

Let's start with the Republicans: yes, any woman who dares to criticize the Bush Administration must be "angry", especially that Hillary Clinton. She's obviously so "angry." (According to Ken Mehlman that is.)

To which I respond, "Yeah? So?"

First of all, there are a lot of people who are angry about what's going on with the Bush Administration. So when you point out Hillary as "angry", and say people won't elect an "angry" candidate, aren't you really just pulling out that whole JAHW (Just Another Hysterical Woman) argument? (Don't worry, the Repugs like to smear Democrat men too...usually by calling them "crazy" or unhinged"...think Dean and Gore as two examples)

But what gets me is that Dubya and this generation's tricky Dick (Cheney) and Karl Rove run around talking about heads on platters and lack of patriotism and hurting America, but they're not angry...they're stalwart or determined or whatever euphemism from a Western movie gets trotted out...and no one notices this discrepancy.

So, call me angry, baby, I don't mind! Just so long as you call them extremists. And liars.

Bush II; Day 456: A culture of lying

Eric Alterman has a fascinating column in the Nation, which will do nothing to alleviate any cynicism you may be feeling...either toward the President or the press.

There is a culture of lying in Washington, and a culture of deciding which lies are more important, and then sticking to that no matter what, in the press corps.

Hence, lies about blow jobs? Earth-shattering and impeachable. Lies about the justification to go to war? Irrelevant and worth "moving on" from.

It would seem, by popularity polls, that the actual populace never has agreed on this count, as Clinton's approval rating has soared above Dubya's, even when Clinton was in the midst of his impeachment trial.

Meanwhile, new information continues to come out over the CIA leak case, and it just smells of that culture of innuendo, lying, looking the other way and "faulty recollections" that just don't ring true.

Where are the folks who will just call a lie a lie? It will take some of them to come along for our cynicism to dissipate.

Bush II; Day 447: Oh, no you didn't!

Dubya just said in a press conference that he doesn't know Jack Abramoff: "I don't know the guy!"

This has Chalabi written all over it.

You know, the pictures of Chalabi siting with Laura Bush at one of the State of the Union speeches? That surfaced after Dubya said he didn't remember the guy.

Well, plenty of pictures exist of Dubya and Abramoff, and they are being withheld.

Utter arrogance and a strong conviction that one is above the law...that's the only explanation for such brazen behavior.

That, or being a sociopath.

Bush II; Day 441: There IS a difference, people

OK, there IS a difference between taking money form Abramoff, and taking money from some of the same sources that gave Abramoff money too.

Let Guest Blogger Zachary Roth over at the Washington Monthly explain why the angle the GOP is taking is just plain wrong.

Abramoff never gave a cent to Democrats. That some Indian tribes, for example, like many companies, gave money to both sides, hedging their bets, is simply not the same. And saying it is won't make it so.

Here's a little message from the national level about it.

Here's a compilation of the many corruption scandals dogging the Republicans right now from the State site.

And here is more on the Abramoff/Republican Party link from NPR.

Bush II; Day 429: Yeah, what he says!

How come every time a Republican hack manages to acknowledge that something another Republican might have done ain't quite kosher the world falls at their feet saying "thank you!"?

Well John from SeeingTheForest is not falling for uber-hack David Brooks' latest bid for such fawning, and neither am I.

But more than a rip on David Brooks, John points out something that should be blindingly clear to conservatives everywhere, but somehow still isn't:

There's really nothing left of conservativism any more but militarism and low taxes. Fiscal responsibility and limited government are utterly gone. The Bill of Rights is almost gone. Even the militarism hasn't been very successful.

The time is now for conservatives to realize that they are not Republicans any more...

Bush II; Day 424: You're investigating what?

So, the Bush Administration has finally started an investigation into the domestic spying program...namely how it got leaked to the Times. As the Times rightly points out:

"Leak investigations are often designed to distract the public from the real issues by blaming the messenger. Take the third leak inquiry, into a Washington Post report on secret overseas C.I.A. camps where prisoners are tortured or shipped to other countries for torture. The administration said the reporting had damaged America's image. Actually, the secret detentions and torture did that.

Illegal spying and torture need to be investigated, not whistle-blowers and newspapers."

Seriously, I feel so tired of the lack of standards and lack of honorable behavior. This Administration is lowering the bar day after day. I can only hope we, the people raise it again, starting this year.

Bush II; Day 410: DeLay's got DeLife!

Wow. Read about Tom DeLay's lavish lifestyle.

Apparently a lot of high-powered politicians get a taste of this kind of stuff, but DeLay is DeKing!

But he's such a victim. Uh huh.

Bush II; Day 386: Who's cutting and running now?

The Moderate Voice has an excellent exploration of an LA Times article that reveals that the Bush Administration has been quietly planning troop reductions and withdrawal from Iraq, in response to mounting pressure. Rather than cheer this development, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth simply because these plans were being made all while the vicious rhetoric about "cowards" who would "cut and run" and "bow to leftist extremists like Michael Moore" was flying out of the mouths of Administration tools everywhere.

It's the hypocrisy, as always, that really gets to me.

Bush II; Day 356: More on the other shoe we're waiting on...

In case you've been hearing the Republican talking points, parroted by repulsive pundits like Christopher Hitchens, that the whole Plame affair is a tempest in a teapot, or uttered with a straight face by Republican officials like Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson that perjury isn't really a real criminal charge, here are some posts you should read.

You know, while you're sitting at home by the fire with visions of an indicted Dick Cheney dancing in your head.

From the Huffington Post...rising above all the skeptics to become a major credible source on all things Plame-oriented:

Here: Why Valerie Plame was a covert operative, and why outing her hurt not only her career, but risked the lives and work of other CIA operatives and even real-life energy consultants.

And also: a thorough recap of the entire messy affair and all its little fingers into exposing a corrupt and incompetent government: The Most Important Criminal Case in American History.

Excellent writing, and outrageous reminders.

Bush II; Day 340: We don't need no stinking rules

The Republicans are at it again, bending the rules of the House to allow them extra time to arm-twist Representatives into voting their way. When 5 minute votes somehow stretch to hour-long votes, it ain't right.

This time it was the latest energy bill that delivers a windfall to oil companies.

I don't know who should be more ashamed the House Republican leaders who willfully flout the rules, or the Republican Representatives who allowed themselves to be so manipulated.

Bush II; Day 335: RoveGate heating up again

Karl Rove is heading back in front of the grand jury. And according to Laurence O'Donnell that means one thing: Rove's lawyer is convinced that Rove will be indicted for something.

Does O'Donnell make the case for you?

Bush II; Day 326: Oh, I guess now it's time for finger-pointing?

Now that the Republican Congress shot down a request for an independent commission to investigate governmental failures after Hurricane Katrina, now that it's the Republican-controlled government investigating the mess, now I guess it has finally become time to finger point and play the blame game.

Brownie is doing a "heckuva job" blaming local and state officials (at least in Louisiana, where they are Democrats, that is.) And surprise surprise: the so-called liberal media didn't find outright lies, outright perjury, no ThinkProgress found it.

I will give credit to some of the Congresspeople, too, who grilled Brown pretty hard and pointed out, um, inconsistencies in his story.

Dis. Gus. Ting.

Bush II; Day 324: Here we go again - this time it's Katrina profiteering

It was already disgusting enough the way money was mismanaged in Iraq...and the way there seems to be exactly no accountability for that.

Now Hurricane Katrina hit a scant three weeks ago, and already the Bush Administration cannot seem to detail who got how much money and what they're doing with it.

Tyco execs recently got long sentences and staggering fines for bilking their company and shareholders. It was stealing, plain and simple. And let me tell you, if it's discovered that there has been Katrina profiteering and fraud, it will feel just about the same to me, no, worse.

Hat tip: Left Coaster

Bush II; Day 323: Why go independent when you can hire a buddy?

Hasn't Dubya learned yet that it doesn't pay to hire your buddies?

So, he's appointed one of his close aides to investigate what went wrong with the response to Hurricane Katrina.

That's almost like an independent commission, right?

Bush II; Day 320: We need an independent Katrina commission

The failures after Katrina were at many levels and crossed party, local, state, federal and every other kind of line.

Why would we expect anybody to investigate themselves?

But it seems to be only the Democrats who realize and acknowledge this.

The linked NY Times story may give a hint as to why (hint: rampant cronyism and corruption to start.)

If we're serious about making sure we're ready for the next disaster, natural or man-made, then we need to be serious about finding out everything that went wrong and exposing it.

How about writing a letter to the Editor today and saying so?

Bush II; Day 314: Brown takes the fall for Chertoff?

Knight Ridder has released an investigative report [reg. req'd.] that indicates that perhaps former FEMA guy Brown is simply this incident's fall guy. Not that he wasn't also a bumbling boob, but he was stuck waiting for a higher-up bumbling boob (namely DHS head Chertoff) to follow process before he could do his bumbling boob thing.

And let's not forget the ultimate bumbling boob, Dubya, who put these people and policies in place.

I wouldn't want to carry the burden these guys must be carrying.

Bush II; Day 288: Yeah, like he said...

Thanks to MoxieGrrrl for summarizing some quotes that are really worth reading.

Gosh, it's so weird to find myself agreeing with Dubya, DeLay and even Rick Santorum...albeit things they said years ago.

Really, read it and glory in the deep, deep hypocrisy.

Oh, P.S.: can you imagine...

What the media would have done with it if a liberal, a Democrat, or a progressive of any kind had mowed down a row of crosses memorializing our fallen troops...right in front of some of their mothers?

Neither can I. Neither can I.

Bush II; Day 276 Redux: Are NOvak's days finally numbered?

I let Arianna do my job for me and point you to 5 excellent posts on the latest developments with RoveGate.

And here's more on Novak's hissy-fit.

Bush II; Day 266: How Bolton lied

Just in case you wanted a link for my reference to Bolton lying in my previous post, journalist friend told me yesterday that yes, I do qualify as a "citizen journalist."

Sigh. The pressure.

Bush II; Day 265: Bush to sidestep with Bolton nom?

When you can't get what you want by making a compelling case for it, then follow the Nike slogan and "Just Do It."

Don't worry if you have to even lie a bit to make it happen.

Apparently the American people are very forgiving on that kind of stuff.

You may think I'm talking about the Iraq War, but this time around I'm talking about the nomination of John Bolton to be Ambassador to the UN.

Apparently Bush may appoint him while Congress is in recess. This amid allegations that Bolton lied about whether he was involved with RoveGate.

I've never bought that with Dubya "at least you know where he stands." That's a load of crap.

But he's consistent. I'll give him that. He'll consistently abuse power to further his agenda. Or sometimes the agenda of those to whom he is indebted.

Bush II; Day 253: Credibility Gap? In my little world we call that lying!

Sometimes it's hard to know whether to hurl now or later. About this whole Rove situation, I mean.

But I think Arianna per usual gets it right on the Huffington post.

And can I ask why Jon Stewart is the only "newsman" going back and comparing former statements from the Administration with their current weaseling...and calls it like he sees it? It's lying. It's equivocating. It's lawyering. It's weasel-wording. It's the hypocrisy!!!

And now suddenly Bush won't comment on or endorse Rove because of the "ongoing investigation"...an investigation I believe was equally ongoing before when they were commenting ad infinitum.

Hard to believe Rove, the master strategist, would mess this up. But then again, I just think they're power mad and are amazed that they're finally encountering a media that's challenging them and a public that doubting them.

How could it happen? Once again, it's their hypocrisy! Don't brag about your morals, when you have none. Don't champion ethics, and then cross the ethical line over and over. That pisses people off, you know?

Bush II; Day 252: Don't you worry your pretty little heads about it...we 'll look into it!

Does anyone else remember the Republicans howling with outrage that Janet Reno, then Attorney General, was making the decision about whether to investigate situations that arose in the White House of her boss?

Well the Republican certainly don't remember. As they investigate Rove and other messy little problems.

And certainly I see no outrage about the Pentagon investigating accusations of prisoner abuse against, well the military.

Except from Body & Soul perhaps. Hat tip to her.

Bush II; Day 246: Can someone explain one more time...

How the hell is it that the NY Times Judith Miller, who never wrote a word about Valerie Plame, is the only one going to jail over Plame's outing as a CIA operative. Especially while Douchebag of Liberty Robert Novak has never so much as been brought in by the prosecutor?

It's the hypocrisy!

Bush II; Day 234: Take note Democrats!

The White House and Republicans stand behind Karl Rove.

Take note of their arguments:

-He stated a strong belief
-He stands by his belief
-It's backed up by particular specific spinning of the information
-He will not apologize or back down

Democrats: take note. This is what we need to do. It's ridiculous to quibble over this little thing or that little thing that Howard Dean says. Yes, Biden I'm talkin' to you.

Any of those statements above could have applied to Dean's controversial statements from a few weeks back.

But we're all dithering about, making excuses, distancing ourselves. Doing the Republicans work for them!

Quit it.

IMHO.

Bush II; Day 233: Durbin apologizes while Rove slanders

Well, apparently it's a horrible offense to still want America to have some semblance of the global moral standing we used to have.

But it's only an offense for Democrats to want that. (oh, well, wait a minute, Republicans don't actually care abut that, so we'll never see if it's offensive for Republicans to feel that way.)

Does anyone else find it terribly ironic that Republicans want to go in your bedroom and your church and your science classroom and get in between your doctor/patient relationship, and they want to tell us all what our morals ought to be. But they dismiss the feeling of not only the rest of the world but nearly 50% of Americans that we are headed down the wrong moral path...not because of gay marriage or abortion or evolution, but because of war and torture and corruption?

I know that was the longest sentence ever, but you can pack a lot in when discussing the hypocrisy of Republicans lecturing us on morals.

Now Karl Rove is basically saying that Democrats cared more for the perpetrators of 9/11 then for our own. And you don't see him apologizing. How exactly are his statements different than Durbin's? How exactly is he not accusing half of the American population of being terrible people with that one?

Yeah, I don't know either. But the Republican react to our outrage by saying Rove's comments must have struck a chord. You can read here about what I think when someone uses that time-honored deflecting phrase.

It's the Hypocrisy!

Bush II; Day 219: A break for tobacco companies

OK, so the Justice Department decided to alter the punishment they wanted levied against tobacco companies. The money was going to be used to fund smoking cessation programs among other things, and they decided to change their request.

From $130 billion to $10 billion.

Wouldn't you say that qualifies as one of those things that make you go hmmm.....

Bush II; Day 213: Orwellian Republicanism

You know Democrats make a lot out of the Orwellian language the Bushies have learned to use to get their programs across: Healthy Skies and Healthy Forests for programs that gut environmental protections; No Child Left Behind for a program that actually encourages school to urge lower-performing students to drop out of school to protect their federal budgets. Stuff like that is pretty infuriating.

But it goes way beyond the names of Bills and Programs. It goes to people themselves.

Like having Alberto Gonzales...a guy who tried to say that international law didn't really have to apply to us...as our head lawyer.

Like having someone who worked for industries from which the environment needs to be protected acting as our Secretary of the Interior.

Like having the most undiplomatic guy around proposed for our chief #1 diplomat.

Like having a guy who has clear biases against objective and legal health care decisions for women in charge of the FDA.

And now, on a smaller scale we have this: Kansas State Senator Kay Thomas, a woman who disapproves of the 19th Amendment that gave women the vote, wants to be Kansas' Secretary of State, and thereby the state's top elections official.

Especially in these last two instances, how can you not interpret these folks as wanting to be "activist"? They could go for any number of prestigious positions, but here are the ones they go for. How can you possibly assume they're in a position to uphold the laws of the land when they're on record as disagreeing with them?

Scary. Truly.

Bush II; Day 205: We need our reservists...let's screw our reservists!

You would think that in this time of war...when army recruiting is going, well, really badly, and when reservists are being shipped off and re-upped and basically being far more than reservists, you would think the Republicans who proclaim their patriotism and profess their undying support for our troops wouldn't mind letting reservists have access to the military health care system.

You would think wrong.

Hypocrites. Feh.

Bush II; Day 204: Faint-hearted Bolton take-down

OK, sorry...I'm just not going to give Senator Voinovich a big, wet kiss for being all anti-Bolton now...when it's probably a lost cause. The vote is on, and the lock-stepping Republicans are going to let this guy through, regardless of what Voinovich said in his little letter.

Meanwhile Voinovich, if he felt all that strongly, could have kept this guy from ever being voted on...killed his nomination in committee. But my, wouldn't that have looked bad while they were arguing that every judge deserves an up/down vote?

And wouldn't they have made Voinovich pay? Oh yes, I think they would.

So his conscience was conveniently and pragmatically set aside for the two minutes it took for him to vote on letting Bolton's nomination go to the floor...where he knows it will pass. And I hope he will feel full personal responsibility for the instatement of a man he thinks is completely incompetent for the role of Ambassador to the UN...in the role.

Remember: Advise and Consent has become Blind Consent.

No matter what the American people think of that concept.

Bush II; Day 201: There goes the Sunday Times, imitating my blog again

Didn't I just write a post musing about the hypocrisy of the White House's outrage over the Newsweek Koran item? Why, yes I did.

I will admit, certainly, that Frank Rich has a definite flair for writing. I've cited him many-a-time here. I'm just saying, his fantastic article here is a few days behind me in skewering the White House for the same hypocrisy.

Bush II; Day 200: Santorum has no sense of Decorum

Ah, this is nice.

Comparing Democrats who don't want to just roll over and give up to Hitler.

Le's just quote Santorum himself, who just 10 weeks ago didn't like it too much when a Senator invoked Hitler's name:

He felt such comments "lessen the credibility of the senator and the decorum of the Senate."

Um, yeah, OK. If you say so Rick.

Bush II; Day 196: Journalistic standards

Yes, the question may well be...where did those standards go?

The revelations about Newsweek's "mistaken" story about a desecration of the Koran by US interrogators are distressing and merely one more example of such shoddy work. You'd think all news organizations would have learned a teeny little lesson from the CBS Bush National Guard Memo debacle.

But I gotta say I'm kinda tickled by the White House's indignation and demands for Newsweek to be drawn and quartered.

See, they were rather remarkably silent back when the NY Times and Washington Post were falling over themselves apologizing for blindly publishing stories about WMDs in Iraq and other contentions by the White House that were false.

And they didn't utter a peep when it turned out that the Swift Boat Veterans could be discredited without breaking a sweat.

And I could go on.

My point is that statements from the White House expressing outrage or indignation over media misdeeds is just a teeny tiny case of pot calling the kettle black IMHO.

Bush II; Day 192: Bolton BS

More negative information about Bolton comes out every day. Now, it turns out that his bosses at the State Dept. didn't want him speaking in public in any format without prior approval. (Source New York Times.)

Sounds like someone who can't be trusted, and certainly can't be called diplomatic. I don't care if you think the UN needs reform or not, it's still a diplomatic body.

So now Republican Senator Voinovich has lent his voice to the Democrats in committee to refuse to endorse Bolton, BUT he still wants to send the vote to the Senate floor.

Why? Because the Republicans can't very well be whining that every judicial nomination deserves a full vote, while they let another nomination die in committee.

So why have the committees at all? If now the Republicans are going to feel like everything must go to full vote...I guess the next step is just to have full Senate debate on everything. Pretty soon our government will grind to a lovely halt!

Oh, but for that matter, why bother voting if we know they're just going to vote on party lines, no matter how much they might personally dislike what they're voting for?

It's just a few short steps to a puppet government at this point.

So sorry, Voinovich, you don't get mad props from me. If you were a real stand-up guy you'd kill the damn nomination in committee, like I know you want to.

Bush II; Day 186: It's multi-level hypocrisy

Thanks to Kicking Ass, the DNC blog, for posting a couple of succinct, pithy posts this week highlighting how impossible it is for Republicans to avoid hypocrisy.

First, how two recusals from the committee investigating DeLay simply aren't enough.

Second, a topic I've ranted about before: how either US Treasury Bonds can be counted on, or they can't, but you can't use them as a carrot to support the private accounts idea from your Social Security Elimination plan on one hand, and then say they're illusory and won't be there to support the current Social Security program on the other hand. Well, unless you're Dubya, in which case you think you can do exactly that.

It's the hypocrisy that drives me nuts.

Bush II; Day 182: Disgusting right-wing rhetoric

Just imagine for a second if a Democrat...or even Whoopi Goldberg...said the following:

Federal judges are the single greatest threat America has ever faced...a bigger threat than Al Qaeda, more dangerous that Nazi Germany, and more divisive than the Civil War.

Imagining the outrage, the uproar, the rush of everyone to denounce? Imagining calls for resignations? And mass rallies to declare that Democrats are not only against people of faith, but against America?

Yeah, well, Pat Robertson actually said it, and I haven't heard a peep about it in the mainstream media, have you?

More info here. Read it and take action.

Alternate Source: NY Daily News

Bush II; Day 181: It's a Two-Fer Day

OK, too many good articles today to post just one. Here they are:

1. Paul Krugman continues his crusade to expose the hypocrisy of just about every Dubya policy proposal. This time he's making sure we understand that when Dubya finally dropped the Social Security Benefits Cut Bomb, he wasn't really targeting only the wealthy. Isn't it ironic how the Republicans try to pretend the Estate Tax affects the middle class, when it doesn't, while they try to pretend the proposed cuts won'taffect the middle class, and it will? Oh, right. It's not ironic...it's dishonest and deceitful.

2. OK, if you don't understand the term "chilling effects" after reading this NY Times article about the Republican Chairman of the Public Broadcasting System, then...well read it again, I tell you. Government-controlled media starts here.

I'd say "Enjoy" if both stories weren't SO annoying!

Bush II; Day 179: Well, what did we expect?

I don't think we have much room to complain about rising gas prices while oil companies profits soar beyond reason. David Sirota does a great service pulling all the data into one place.

But come on people. We knew, didn't we? We knew:

1. Bush is an oil man
and
2. The Bush family is close with the Saudis

Now maybe we didn't really know, know in 2000, but thanks to Michael Moore we all certainly knew in 2004.

So, quit your whining. If you're surprised that the energy companies are in clover, while my personal pocketbook is pinched every time I fill my gas tank...then you weren't paying attention.

Bush II; Day 168: Bolton...what a piece of work!

Man, the more you know about Bolton the creepier he seems. And it's not just the freaky moustache!

He's not just anti-UN, he's abusive and demoralizing. Just the kind of guy who should be working to bring nations together to achieve great things.

Hey, I knew that the Bush Administration had a "Starve the Beast" strategy...create huge deficits so they can starting eliminating social programs...but I guess that just goes double for the UN!

Atrios pointed me toward a site that has focused a lot of energy compiling information about Bolton in the last few weeks. Check out The Washington Note.

Bush II; Day 163: OMG, the utter hypocrisy is killing me!

Just check out f'ing Ton DeLay on reviewing judges

Seriously I could puke that this corrupt jerk has the nerve!

Bush II; Day 162 Redux: The Republican Pattern of Deceipt

Wow, this is an interesting story.

Now I'm sure we're all aware of various "awards" and "honors" bestowed within a particular industry that are really little more than paid advertisements. Nothing honorable about it, that's for sure.

BUt now it seems that for a donation to the National Republican Congressional Committee a doctor can acquire a nice little 'Physician of the Year' certificate.

What? Now that Bill Frist is majority leader, the Republican Party is suddenly doling out medical awards?

Oh dear.

Bush II; Day 153: Republicans excusing violence against judges

OK, if you haven't already read the outrageous statements made by Senator john Cornyn, read them (and some commentary) here.

And before you start making apologies and excuses for Cornyn, think about how it would sound if he was using the same language to talk about the 9/11 terrorists. Remember how people were skewered for trying to understand why the terrorists might have done what they did.

Now read his statements again.

It's the hypocrisy!

Bush II; Day 151: Pharmacists who only want to do the parts of their job that they like

This recent spate of pharmacists who refuse to issue birth control or morning after pill prescriptions, some of them just referring the women to other pharmacies, but some of them hanging on to the prescription and giving moral lectures, leaves me a bit speechless.

I'm glad Illinois' Governor has taken a strong step to counter this irresponsible behavior.

Shouldn't a pharmacist who tells their patient that a taking birth control pills is like having an abortion have his or her license revoked? I mean, isn't a mis-statement like that either a sign of gross incompetence or dishonesty?

I'm just asking.

So, just remember: anyone who goes all moral about the unborn, don't believe that is what they really care about unless they:

-Support family planning access to prevent unwanted pregnancies...here and abroad.
-Support programs to provide pre-natal care to needy women.
-Support programs to help children after they're born...or provide private assistance if they so prefer.

If you run into someone mouthing off about a culture of life who only cares about the life before it's born, and then only in the abstract, then you've got yourself someone whose real agenda is either controlling women, or keeping the gulf between rich and poor plenty wide, or some other underlying oppressive motivation.

So say I.

UPDATED: Bush II; Day 149: Why do Republican leaders hate America?

Republicans are losing their grip...especially on their branding as the party that has a trademark on patriotism and love of America.

See, it's hard to retain that image when you want to chip away at the very foundations of how our Government works. All of a sudden our form of government is worthy of being changed at will when they don't get exactly what they want. And these guys have so much arrogance they can't imagine a time when they won't be in the majority, and their very own rule changes will come back and bite them in the ass. [See: filibuster and other rule changes.]

And all of a sudden judges are wrong and deserve to be overruled by a congressional act or even threatened if they rule in a way they don't like. [See De Lay on Schiavo judges.]

Checks and balances? For the birds apparently.

And all of a sudden a guy whose corruption is so rampant and rank is worthy of benefits and support from leading conservative organizations. They feel the attacks on him are attacks on the entire conservative movement. Don't you think they're going to be sorry some day that they chose this corrupt, hypocritical villain as the representative of their movement? [See, oh what a surprise!, DeLay again.]

And let's remember how Ah-nold wants to cut death benefits for widows/orphans of public safety officers killed in the line of duty.

And how the Pentagon won't let military widows take pictures of their own husbands' caskets.

Why do some Republican leaders and this Administration hate America so?

UPDATED: One more good one on DeLay from the DNC's Kicking Ass blog

Bush II; Day 112: Going after the AARP

Apparently, the AARP agenda is to hurt the military and promote gay marriage. Who'd a thunk?

Well, apparently that's what the right wing thunk now that the AARP is pushing back on Bush's Social Security Phase-Out Plan. Thanks to Daily Kos.

But there's lot of great commentary out in blog land on this ridiculous advertisement (brought to you by the same folks who brought you the Swift Boat Liars, if you can believe it!) Here's more on the folks behind the ad.

From Matthew Yglesias
From Oliver Willis Twice.

UPDATE: Apparently the ad has been pulled. But Talking Points Memo saved caches of the pages before the ad was pulled.

The fun never stops. Those wascally wepublicans.

Bush II; Day 105: Dubya isn't a "compassionate conservative????Duh!!!!

Big news today: a Bush aide goes public with his contention that Bush never really pursued getting funding for faith-based initiatives designed to help the poor and needy.

You're kidding, really? That's shocking?

And what is also not shocking is how ex-aide David Kuo wants to have it both ways. Like completely cowardly Christie Whitman he tries to criticize something he feels strongly about, without actually calling the President, you know the guy in charge, on it.

So that's how we get this incongruous set of quotes from him:

This:
"Capitol Hill gridlock could have been smashed by minimal West Wing effort. No administration since [Lyndon B. Johnson's] has had a more successful legislative record than this one. From tax cuts to Medicare, the White House gets what the White House really wants. It never really wanted the 'poor people stuff.'"

And this:
Kuo said that he continues to have "deep respect, appreciation and affection for the president." Kuo added: "No one who knows him even a tiny bit doubts the sincerity and compassion of his heart."

Except Dubya is the White House, and the White House never really wanted that 'poor people stuff', right?

Feh.

Bush II; Day Ninety-Nine: This is reaching out?

Oh, the uniter is at work again. The olive branch firmly in hand. (It's just that the fingers of his other hand are crossed behind his back!)

But sometimes one should really align schedules with one's attack dogs to avoid awkward social moments.

Like this week. The RNC sends out a nasty 13-page(!) letter to 1 million activists attacking Harry Reid.

A few hours later Reid had to show up at a White House dinner intended at a gesture of conciliation, per the WaPo.

Awwww-kward.

Here's where you can sign a DSCC petition, asking Bush to honor his commitment to bipartisanship and renounce ugly, personal attacks, even if they are perpetrated by his former campaign chairman!

But you know as well as I...he could get 50 million signatures and would ignore it, huh?

Bush II; Day Ninety-Four: Buried in the Shuffle: Republican Ethics

Remember when everyone was screaming about Republicans changing ethics rules to protect DeLay? Remember when they dropped the effort...only after DeLay seemed safe from indictment, and used that good will to instead push through some other changes that still end up protecting their own from ethics investigations?

Well, the other shoe finally dropped, and the Republican Congressman who dared to investigate ethics charges against one of his own, DeLay, was formally booted from his position as Chair of the Ethics Committee.

The Republicans even replaced two other of their committee members with Congressmen who had donated money to DeLay's legal defense fund.

Nice, huh?

Bush II; Day Ninety-Three: More Pa. The. Tic. Moves in Ohio

Wow. Once again accountability is not something expected from those actually in power. What was I thinking?

Amazing how Ohio's Secretary of State can preside over the most poorly run election in the nation, but he's mad at the lawyers who pointed it out...wants them sanctioned.

Like I said: Pa. The. Tic.

Hey Whitman: the time for cojones was BEFORE the election!

Just watch Christine Todd Whitman on The Daily Show pimping her new book about the battle for the soul of the GOP.

Worthy sentiments about the need for a big tent blah blah blah.

What's my issue: Christine was on The Daily Show before. Before the election and after she left her job as head of the EPA. And at that time, when her criticisms of Bush and the party might have actually made a difference she was all "more time with the family" blah blah blah. She wouldn't rise to any of Stewart's bait about why she was really leaving. She wouldn't utter a single word in criticism.

Now she's selling a book. Now she's developed cojones.

Coincidence? Hypocrisy? You be the judge.

Bush II; Day Sixty-Two: House ethics mask bad with good

So, if you only read the headlines, you would think that all the House Republicans had done was reverse the rule change they made late last year that would allow their leader Tom DeLay to stay in his leadership position, even if indicted for a felony.

Seriously, every single headline in the So-Called Liberal Media focuses on that (which I happen to agree was a good move on the part of the Republicans.)

I had to go read some the articles completely to understand that the Republicans simultaneously did move forward another highly controversial ethics rule change that would make it harder to investigate a member of Congress without the cooperation of his or her own Party.

So, all they've done is effectively mask the continued push to weaken House ethics. Meanwhile I think the likelihood that DeLay gets indicted has dwindled down to a reasonable risk for them to take.

Smart Republicans. Let's hope the Democratic Party leadership develops some guts and exposes the whole story loudly. I really don't want to be made sick by a bunch of bi-partisan praise on "doing the right thing."

Bush II; Day Fifty-Nine: Don't Vote Your Conscience or the Constitution

Just vote so that you don't piss off one very pissed off evangelical leader. [reg. required.]

Evangelist James Dobson is threatening Democratic Senators...telling them how to vote if they don't want to be targeted by his followers, to be "put in the bull's eye" to be precise.

This is just what I want, don't you?

People talk about the left, like Michael Moore, being strident etc. I've never seen a lefty that can hold a candle to guys like Dobson, or Zell Miller for that matter.

Meanwhile those who question the inordinate number of valuable gifts Clarence Thomas has received as a Supreme Court Justice are accused of trying to "over-ethicize" [sic] life!

Just remember, when the religious right talks about values, their definition can be narrowed down to two things, and only two things:

1. Abolishing a woman's right to choose would exhibit good values.

Caring abut what happens to that baby later...its hunger, poverty, health care or ability to get an education? Optional.

2. Writing the marginalization of a large minority group into our Nation's constitution would exhibit good values. Preventing that group from having even the barest protection under the law...from both bodily harm or

Everything else: caring about going, ill-prepared, to war for the wrong reasons; caring that the death penalty is applied inequitably, caring about any other morally upright concept? Again, completely optional.

This cherrypicking from the Values tree is so hypocritical.

Bush II; Day Fifty-Seven: Let me get this straight...

When the initial counts showed Republican Dino Rossi with a slim lead in the Washington Governor race, they paid for billboards saying, "Christine, Concede".

But now, now that every valid vote actually has been counted and Democrat Christine Gregoire took the lead, Rossi wants a mulligan?

Oh my. I don't have to say more about this, do I?

Bush II; Day Fifty-Two: More Dubya as Scrooge

David Sirota has this concise run-down of the holiday hypocrisy of the Bush Administration.

It is fashionable in some circles to denigrate Kerry as someone unable to talk in sound bites, but I think he gave us a pretty good one when he said Bush should stop "talking about family values and start valuing families."

Even the less wealthy ones.

Bush II; Day Thirty-Nine: Nanny Problems Again

Kerik withdraws name as Homeland Security Chief. Seems he hired an illegal immigrant as a nanny and neglected to pay proper taxes.

I believe he is the first man to lose out on a gig for this reason.

So, actually, is this a sign of progress...when men are held equally accountable for "household" issues?

Bush II; Day Twenty: He Don't Need NO Stinkin' Press Conferences

So, I guess we can all stop taking it personally. Bush II doesn't just dislike the American press and being open with the American people.

Of course, I already suspected as much after his reaction when the BBC interviewed him earlier this year, but now he's offending the South Americans too.

That's Bush II: spreading disdain and disaffection worldwide.

Check it out.

Bush II; Day Nineteen: I Simply Can't Cite Only One!

OK, yesterday was a bad day...there are simply more than one things to talk about:

1. New Budget Screws College Students [Reg. reqd.]

2. Ashcroft's Justice Dept. Ignores Civil Rights complaints [Reg. reqd.]

3. Republicans Derail Post-9/11 Intelligence Reform

It's enough to make you weep.

Weep for less fortunate teenagers who want to advance themselves.

Weep for those who are still oppressed due their race, religion or whatever...and don't even tell me you think it still doesn't happen.

Weep for us all that these Congresspeople are willing to politicize our security after wrapping themselves in the flag to get elected.

Bush II; Day Sixteen: Arlen Specter on his knees

Arlen Specter has saved his opportunity to be the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee...by sacrificing his integrity and legacy. Maybe he's an early candidate for the Colin Powell of the reign of Bush II.

Here's a CNN news story on the subject:

But here's some great commentary on it from Slate.

Bush II; Day Fourteen: OMG! The HYPOCRISY

I cannot even stand to say much about the incredibly hypocritical move of republican lawmakers to get rid of a rule THEY created to force a House leader to step down if indicted.

THEY created this rule in 1993 to get a Democrat, of course, and THEY said they held themselves to higher standards than those values-less Democrats.

Just kidding everyone. When it's one of our own, like skeevy Tom DeLay, well then...oh never mind. There's no excuse or reason. It's just pure 'because-we-can' politics.

Source: WaPo article

Bush II; Day Ten: Ashcroft's Disdain for the Judicial System

I find it more than a little ironic that the nation's highest ranking justice office has such a problem with the justice system doing its thing.

Ashcroft once again equates challenging the President with aiding the terrorists.

I think it's shameful, personally.

Source: 11/13 Washington Post

60 Minutes: Our Governator

Am I the only one who found Ah-nold insufferably arrogant and sophomoric in his 60 Minutes interview?

And was Morley Safer in LOVE with the guy or what? He had this star-struck, slack-jawed admiring expression on his face the whole time. One more softball question, come on Morley, you can do it!

Yes, please, show Ah-nold talking about girly-men one more time, won't you?

And I just ADORE the joke about his WIFE screaming at him for not making money! What is this the 1950s, when such comments went unremarked upon? Give me such a very big break. First of all, his wife has plenty of money on her own I would imagine...not to mention Ah-nold's MILLIONS.

And gloating so much over Gray Davis. Classy, Ah-nold. Really.

And yet, and this trips me out: my S.O. was saying he came across as charming and honest.

My head is going to explode! Is it just me? Am I the only one who finds him adolescent and arrogant?

Halliburton/Cheney/Favoritism...no, no link at all

OK, I'm ruining my weekend by reading the new this morning.

I may have to stop before I come down with the "stomach flu" and throw up.

Let's see how they savage this whistleblower's reputation.

Yes, I know I said I didn't want to call Bushies "Stupid"

But it's pretty hard when you see this list of what Bush supporters believe.

The whole report is just a sad statement about the lack of real information getting through to a great number of voters.

Wanna bet they watch Fox News?

The Osama Gaffe

The big buzz this morning is about Bush following Cheney's lead and telling an easily disproved lie: that he never said that he didn't know where OBL was and wasn't that concerned about it.

I personally have seen that clip on multiple occasions, so I knew it was a bald-faced lie the moment he said it.

Most people focus solely on the fact that it was a lie, a real gotcha moment.

But over at Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall points out that this comment matters more than as evidence of a lie, but as evidence of an entire mindset. He also provides the entire context of the "not concerned" comment.

Check out his commentary here.

TODAY'S MUST-READ POST: The Lies Bush WILL Tell in the Last Debate

Paul Krugman brilliantly picks apart George Bush's rote stump statements, not only his lies about Kerry's economic plans, but his lies about his own economic record.

These are the messages Bush will try to fool the public with tomorrow. Arm yourself with the ammunition to knock down each lie by reading Krugman's column.

Full text in extended entry:

Checking the Facts, in Advance
By PAUL KRUGMAN
NY Times
Published: October 12, 2004

It's not hard to predict what President Bush, who sounds increasingly desperate, will say tomorrow. Here are eight lies or distortions you'll hear, and the truth about each:

Jobs

Mr. Bush will talk about the 1.7 million jobs created since the summer of 2003, and will say that the economy is "strong and getting stronger." That's like boasting about getting a D on your final exam, when you flunked the midterm and needed at least a C to pass the course.

Mr. Bush is the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a decline in payroll employment. That's worse than it sounds because the economy needs around 1.6 million new jobs each year just to keep up with population growth. The past year's job gains, while better news than earlier job losses, barely met this requirement, and they did little to close the huge gap between the number of jobs the country needs and the number actually available.

Unemployment

Mr. Bush will boast about the decline in the unemployment rate from its June 2003 peak. But the employed fraction of the population didn't rise at all; unemployment declined only because some of those without jobs stopped actively looking for work, and therefore dropped out of the unemployment statistics. The labor force participation rate - the fraction of the population either working or actively looking for work - has fallen sharply under Mr. Bush; if it had stayed at its January 2001 level, the official unemployment rate would be 7.4 percent.

The deficit

Mr. Bush will claim that the recession and 9/11 caused record budget deficits. Congressional Budget Office estimates show that tax cuts caused about two-thirds of the 2004 deficit.

The tax cuts

Mr. Bush will claim that Senator John Kerry opposed "middle class" tax cuts. But budget office numbers show that most of Mr. Bush's tax cuts went to the best-off 10 percent of families, and more than a third went to the top 1 percent, whose average income is more than $1 million.

The Kerry tax plan

Mr. Bush will claim, once again, that Mr. Kerry plans to raise taxes on many small businesses. In fact, only a tiny percentage would be affected. Moreover, as Mr. Kerry correctly pointed out last week, the administration's definition of a small-business owner is so broad that in 2001 it included Mr. Bush, who does indeed have a stake in a timber company - a business he's so little involved with that he apparently forgot about it.

Fiscal responsibility

Mr. Bush will claim that Mr. Kerry proposes $2 trillion in new spending. That's a partisan number and is much higher than independent estimates. Meanwhile, as The Washington Post pointed out after the Republican convention, the administration's own numbers show that the cost of the agenda Mr. Bush laid out "is likely to be well in excess of $3 trillion" and "far eclipses that of the Kerry plan."

Spending

On Friday, Mr. Bush claimed that he had increased nondefense discretionary spending by only 1 percent per year. The actual number is 8 percent, even after adjusting for inflation. Mr. Bush seems to have confused his budget promises - which he keeps on breaking - with reality.

Health care

Mr. Bush will claim that Mr. Kerry wants to take medical decisions away from individuals. The Kerry plan would expand Medicaid (which works like Medicare), ensuring that children, in particular, have health insurance. It would protect everyone against catastrophic medical expenses, a particular help to the chronically ill. It would do nothing to restrict patients' choices.

By singling out Mr. Bush's lies and misrepresentations, am I saying that Mr. Kerry isn't equally at fault? Yes.

Mr. Kerry sometimes uses verbal shorthand that offers nitpickers things to complain about. He talks of 1.6 million lost jobs; that's the private-sector loss, partly offset by increased government employment. But the job record is indeed awful. He talks of the $200 billion cost of the Iraq war; actual spending is only $120 billion so far. But nobody doubts that the war will cost at least another $80 billion. The point is that Mr. Kerry can, at most, be accused of using loose language; the thrust of his statements is correct.

Mr. Bush's statements, on the other hand, are fundamentally dishonest. He is insisting that black is white, and that failure is success. Journalists who play it safe by spending equal time exposing his lies and parsing Mr. Kerry's choice of words are betraying their readers.

E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com

Another Stupid, Debunkable Cheney Lie!

Again, why lie about something so easy to disprove?

While Cheney is daring to lie that Edwards' "hometown paper calls him Senator Gone" (LIE!!!!!)

And touting his own position as President of the Senate who presides there most Tuesdays (LIE!!!!)

The reality turns out to be that Edwards and Cheney have presided over the Senate exactly the same number of times in the last 4 years: twice.

Sounds equal, except of course Cheney is the one who is supposed to be doing the presiding. when he's absent...which was about 160 times, other Senators get to step in.

Why?

Why lie about such things?

Wouldn't this be called a flip-flop?

I'm just so aggravated.

President Allawi comes here, speaks to our government and press, and paints George Bush's rosy picture of Iraq.

A couple of weeks later, he's home speaking to his own Assemble, and all the roses have withered and died. Things are tough and getting tougher.

Feh.

Source: NY Times [registration required]

Such a Pointless Lie!!!

Why?

Why, oh why?

Why would Dick Cheney say that last night was the first time he had met john Edwards?

I completely do not get the point of such a lie. One so easily disproved.

Thanks to Boing Boing for providing several proof points.

This is How We Bring to Justice?

I continue to think that exposing the hypocrisy and purposeful twisting of the truth by the bush Administration will contribute mightily to its downfall. It becomes ever clearer that they will say anything and hope not to get caught to win this race.

Today's latest example, courtesy of the The Talent Show.

If this is the Bush idea of "bringing a terrorist to justice", then how can anyone claim Kerry would be weaker on the war against terrorists?

Promises Made & Broken

As gas prices go back up to their all-time high, it's instructive to think back on promises made and promises broken.

George Bush asked us to "just trust him", and traded on his status as a businessman who would have a good and persuasive relationship with the MidEast oil suppliers like Saudi Arabia.

He made some promises he couldn't, or perhaps won't, keep:

Check it out here.

Reuters Basically Calls Bush on Being a Liar

I know, I know. There are those who don't think it's "productive" to call Bush a liar.

I just happen to disagree.

Don't get me wrong. I think he shows bad judgment. I think he is devious. I think he's incompetent. I'm not sure I really think he's stupid, although I certinaly think he is anti-intelligence and still mentally an adolescent. He can be all these things. And sometimes he's just a liar.

Reuters writes a polite little article that points out some mis-statements Bush has made of late on how things are going in Iraq.

My question is: aren't we worried that our President is either a) purposely lying about how things are going in this War that is killing our troops (and civilians) every day and costing BILLIONS of dollars or b) so NOT on top of what's happening there that he mis-states key data points and by a lot.

Don't we kind of want a President who's a little more engaged, involved, on top of things and honest?

I do.

Boy, this Administration Can't Get Their Story Straight!

So, we were just treated to Bush and Allawi's rosy picture of a safe and secure Iraq...heading toward democracy, and bound and determined to hold elections in January.

A little discordant note was hit by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who said if violence meant that a significant number of Iraqis couldn't vote, well, then "so be it."

And now, Secretary of State Colin Powell admits the insurgency is "intensifying". And predicts that there may be snipers aiming at the polls.

Sounds great. Very safe and secure.

Well, my fave guy Krugman is right when he calls it The Last Deception.

Paul Krugman is Stealing My Line!

Well, okay...my line is "It's the hypocrisy, stupid" and his is "It's the dishonesty, stupid" but pretty damn close.

Krugman's column this week is brilliant.

And ties in very well with my recent rant that political dishonesty has become so commonplace that no one bothers to get outraged over it anymore. It's just considered politics as usual.

Well, maybe it's politics as usual in THIS administration, but that doesn't mean we should stand for it.

Oh, and what's Krugman's beef...deficits. The under-promising and over-performing deficit predictions. Here's the link.

And full text is in the extended entry:

The Dishonesty Thing
By PAUL KRUGMAN
New York Times
Published: September 10, 2004

It's the dishonesty, stupid. The real issue in the National Guard story isn't what George W. Bush did three decades ago. It's the recent pattern of lies: his assertions that he fulfilled his obligations when he obviously didn't, the White House's repeated claims that it had released all of the relevant documents when it hadn't.

It's the same pattern of dishonesty, this time involving personal matters that the public can easily understand, that some of us have long seen on policy issues, from global warming to the war in Iraq. On budget matters, which is where I came in, serious analysts now take administration dishonesty for granted.

It wasn't always that way. Three years ago, those of us who accused the administration of cooking the budget books were ourselves accused, by moderates as well as by Bush loyalists, of being "shrill." These days the coalition of the shrill has widened to include almost every independent budget expert.

For example, back in February the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities accused the Bush administration of, in effect, playing three-card monte with budget forecasts. It pointed out that the administration's deficit forecast was far above those of independent analysts, and suggested that this exaggeration was deliberate.

"Overstating the 2004 deficit," the center wrote, "could allow the president to announce significant 'progress' on the deficit in late October - shortly before Election Day - when the Treasury Department announces the final figures."

Was this a wild accusation from a liberal think tank? No, it's conventional wisdom among experts. Two months ago Stanley Collender, a respected nonpartisan analyst, warned: "At some point over the next few weeks, the Office of Management and Budget will release the administration's midsession budget review and try to convince everyone the federal deficit is falling. Don't believe them."

He went on to echo the center's analysis. The administration's standard procedure, he said, is to initially issue an unrealistically high deficit forecast, which is "politically motivated or just plain bad." Then, when the actual number comes in below the forecast, officials declare that the deficit is falling, even though it's higher than the previous year's deficit.

Goldman Sachs says the same. Last month one of its analysts wrote that "the Office of Management and Budget has perfected the art of underpromising and overperforming in terms of its near-term budget deficit forecasts. This creates the impression that the deficit is narrowing when, in fact, it will be up sharply."

In other words, many reputable analysts think that the Bush administration routinely fakes even its short-term budget forecasts for the purposes of political spin. And the fakery in its long-term forecasts is much worse.

The administration claims to have a plan to cut the deficit in half over the next five years. But even Bruce Bartlett, a longtime tax-cut advocate, points out that "projections showing deficits falling assume that Bush's tax cuts expire on schedule." But Mr. Bush wants those tax cuts made permanent. That is, the administration has a "plan" to reduce the deficit that depends on Congress's not passing its own legislation.

Sounding definitely shrill, Mr. Bartlett says that "anyone who thinks we can overcome our fiscal mess without higher taxes is in denial." Far from backing down on his tax cuts, however, Mr. Bush is proposing to push the budget much deeper into the red with privatization programs that purport to offer something for nothing.

As Newsweek's Allan Sloan writes, "The president didn't exactly burden us with details about paying for all this. It's great marketing: show your audience the goodies but not the price tag. It's like going to the supermarket, picking out your stuff and taking it home without stopping at the checkout line to pay. The bill? That will come later."

Longtime readers will remember that that's exactly what I said, shrilly, about Mr. Bush's proposals during the 2000 campaign. Once again, he's running on the claim that 2 - 1 = 4.

So what's the real plan? Some not usually shrill people think that Mr. Bush will simply refuse to face reality until it comes crashing in: Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman, says there's a 75 percent chance of a financial crisis in the next five years.

Nobody knows what Mr. Bush would really do about taxes and spending in a second term. What we do know is that on this, as on many matters, he won't tell the truth.

E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com

McCain Continues To Try To Have It Both Ways

Poor John McCain. His whole reputation is based on being a straight-shooting, independent guy with appeal to all sorts of people in both parties.

But he's aligned himself inextricably with Bush: essentially a dishonest guy who is tied to special interests and worries most about his appeal to the most radical wing of his party.

What to do?

You try to have it both ways. Hear how in the extended entry:

So conservative columnist Cal Thomas cites a quote from John McCain in a 1973 article and MIS-quotes it to indicate that McCain said John Kerry's Congressional testimony in 1971 was used as propaganda in the POW camps.

Thomas' article was published on 8/9/04.

Yup.

4 weeks ago.

Since then it's been spreading all over the conservative pundit preserve.

And McCain does nothing to stop the misuse of his mis-quoted self.

But when asked directly, he decides can't quite lie, so he compromises by removing himself from the equation, but setting up some shadowy "others" as the source of such a connection between Kerry's testimony and the POW camps.

This is the same sick strategy Bush used so well around the Swift Boat ads.

And McCain should not for one second imagine that he is some morally superior paragon of decency. he has destroyed that image with this campaign.

Read the whole story at mediamatters.org

Excellent Atrios Rant

Read this excellent rant against those who practically swoon whenever a conservative or Republican criticizes Bush or admits they will vote for Kerry.

The thing is, I'm often one of those people. I like to post here when some of those kind of folks make such pronouncements. And I have to admit that I have lately been reading Andrew Sullivan's blog and appreciating his anti-Bush rhetoric.

But this Atrios post makes me more aware of some of Sullivan's earlier writing, which, being late to the Daily Dish party, I wasn't aware of. And it's not stuff I agree with or admire.

I will draw a distinction here: I do think we should welcome with open arms those people who have seen the error of the radical right wing path and, like David Brock, behave like they are atoning for a sin!

Sullivan does have that whole attitude that conservatism is right and proper, and Bush is just some anomaly. I hate to break it to him, but Bush is the norm for the Republican Party now, whatever faces they chose to parade across the podium in NYC.

Enough of my rant: read Atrios' rant.

Ah...the setting of low expectations

It continues.

The dumbing down (if that's even possible) of George Bush by his own supporters.

Oh, yeah, Bush...not a great speaker, not a great debater, not great at thinking on his feet.

This is the President of the United States we are talking about.

Supposedly the most powerful man in the world.

Shouldn't he be able to speak and even debate? I mean how about speaking so he can convince and cajole international leaders?

As for being unable to think on his feet...perhaps that's why he sat there for 7 minutes while the US was under attack.

I mean, this is the President of the United States. Shouldn't he be a quick thinker? Should he be able to react and act?

I actually read a blog entry (which I wish I had bookmarked) yesterday that claimed that being able to relate and connect to people emotionally (As Bush can according to this blogopundit) was more important in times of way than intellectual ability!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gee that sounds awfully "sensitive" to me, doesn't it?

I could throw up.

Ah, the Irony! Zell Introducing Kerry in 2001

Perhaps Zell should have removed this from his site before he got up and performed an egregious flip-flop at tonight's RNC Convention.

Thanks to Atrios for the link.

Gee, a Republican Lying About Kerry? Who'd a thunk?

The WaPo does such a good job picking apart Giuliani's speech, I don't need to say a word.

Read it here.

The only thing that bothers me?

The headline is "Giuliani Charges Lack Context", and the piece proceeds to expose the context.

Why is the media so afraid to simply call these people liars?

Is it NOT lying when you purposely twist and misrepresent someone's words?

I think it is.

George Soros Responds

You might not have even heard about this latest character smear, but Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert made some snide insinuations about George Soros (a major MoveOn contributor) and where he gets his money.

Today Soros responded with a formal letter to Hastert asking him to cease and desist.

You can get a good snapshot of the incident and a link to Soros' letter at Joi Ito's blog Here.

The thing I like is that Soros is stepping up and taking action. All those whiners about Michael Moore and 'Fahrenheit 911' never actually DID anything about it, because they knew Moore had fact-checked that movie.

If you're really in the right, you're willing to do what Soros did. Or what Kerry did by taking his complaint about the Swift boat smears to the FEC.

If you're merely getting appropriately slammed...you complain a lot, but there's nothing you can do.

More Flippity-floppitude from Bush

Just today, I had lunch with a definite non-Bush supporter...someone who really wants him to lose...who, nonetheless, thought Bush had an edge because at least he is that word I'm completely sick of: "resolute".

It only took me a few minutes to convince my friend that Bush is a big flip-flopper. But he's kind of the choir already, if you know what I mean.

Wel, besides his work at the Center for American Progress, David Sirota writes his own personal blog. And in this enlightening post he exposes more of Bush's inconsistencies.

This post examines his flip-flops just in the limited scope of where you draw the line between states' rights and federal responsibilities.

Check it out.

As the RNC plans to milk 9/11, they tell us how they really feel!

The RNC is descending on NYC. I'm sure we'll hear more than a few speeches lauding Bush's post-9/11 leadership, compassion, blah blah blah.

But as Kos points out (and David Sirota backs up) this is how the GOP really feels about NYC.

(Yes, I know, too many acronyms in this post.)

NOW Bush Cares About Reservists?

OK, I'm just incensed by Bush's latest hypocrisy. He running around touting a yet-to-exist plan to increase education benefits for National Guard members and reservists who have served over 90 days of active duty.

That's great.

But how about supporting existing plans that were put forward to ensure those same veterans got health care?!

It's the Hypocrisy that gets me. It's the Hypocrisy that sullies even efforts that seem, on the surface, to be positive.

With the crew currently in the White House: It's Always The Hypocrisy!

Sources:
Bush on proposed education program
SCCDP Talling Points on Veterans Issues

UPDATED: Loyalty Oaths? Proving The Tent is Teeny Tiny

UPDATED: This story is starting to get a little more press as more people are left out in the cold. Here is today's Associated Press article on the subject.
--------------------------
If you're on the fence; if you'd like to see the candidates speak, to get a feel for them and their message; if you're one of those supposedly few and precious 'UNdecided' voters...BushCo does NOT want you!

At least, not at one of their carefully orchestrated campaign events. And certainly not anywhere near a Q&A session.

Nope, you've gotta sign a Loyalty Oath to get in to these events.

And it's a pretty funny oath too. Read all about it in the extended entry:

Here it is:

"I, (full name) ... do herby (sic) endorse George W. Bush for reelection of the United States." It later adds that, "In signing the above endorsement you are consenting to use and release of your name by Bush-Cheney as an endorser of President Bush."

OK, leave aside the typo on 'hereby', what the hell does it mean to say you 'endorse George Bush for reelection of the United States"?

We can laugh about the mis-statements and Freudian slips and such, but it's only laughter to hide the pain!

On the one hand we Democrats praise the Republicans for their "discipline" and "organization" and "focus." But where are OUR loyalty oaths? We have open discussions and lively debate and a true opportunity to reach out to those who are still questioning...but we are missing the sound bites that depict complete unity, and we are giving the mainstream media the shots of dissent that they love to feature.

What do you think? Do we sell our soul for "discipline" and "organization" and "focus?" I'm thinking maybe this year? We should.

Source: Washington Post
Source: Albuquerque Journal

FYI: Olympic Competitors Then & Now

For those of you who might have gotten all misty seeing the Iraqi and Afghani teams march into the stadium during the Olympic Opening Ceremonies.

And for those of you who might have felt a little tug when Bush attributed their participation to being liberated by us.

Those nations participated in the Olympics before we came along, just like Cuba does, just like the USSR did pre-break-up.

This is vintage Bush: walk right up to the line of truth vs. lie...help us to connect dots that simply don't connect.

Source: Atrios post with additional links.

Pandagon Makes My Job Easy!

I'm becoming more and more of a fan of the blog, Pandagon.

They are the masters of finding the short, sweet examples of hypocrisy that fuel my "It's the Hypocrisy" Category.

Here's a good one on Bush and the 527s. Bush won't condemn the Swift Boat ads, but he'll use the incident to condemn 527s. Why? Because while the conservative movement has lagged somewhat at forming and supporting 527s, the progressive movement has actually done this very effectively, MoveOn being the most obvious example.

Pandagon points out the hypocrisy here.

BREAKING NEWS: One of the Swift Boar Liars RETRACTS!

I wrote yesterday about this disgusting new ad attacking Kerry's war record.

I'm hearing on the radio that George Elliott, one of the men in the ad is retracting his claims and saying he made a horrible mistake.

I found this article in the Boston Globe as an online source, but none of the other major online news sources are on it yet.

Here's the Salon.com brief on it as well.

John McCain: Back In My Good Graces?

John McCain has me flip-flopping!

About a month ago I was giving up on the image of McCain as a man of principle.

But now he has regained some of my respect (not all, not as long as he continues to make public appearances with Bush, strained smile and all.)

But he's stepping up and again coming to the defense of his friend and our candidate, Senator John Kerry...defending him from a scurrilous and appalling attack ad.

Read all about it in the extended entry:

It's those Lying Liars, the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" at it again.

They've released an ad featuring 13 veterans who all start by saying "I served with John Kerry." What's the problem? I guess by "served with" they mean they were in Vietnam at the same time, because none of them were on Kerry's boat.

Of the 6 men who WERE on Kerry's boat, 1 is deceased and the other 5 are supporting Kerry.

Oh, there's a doctor in the ad claiming he treated Kerry's Purple Heart-earning injury. What's the problem? His name isn't the one on any of Kerry's medical records from the injury treatment.

And one of the guys in this group has been working against Kerry since Kerry was an anti-war activist in the early 70's...Nixon hired him to trash Kerry back then! Great credentials, don't you think?

Anyway, McCain has had the decency to come out and deplore the ads, AND to call on Bush to specifically condemn those specific ads too.

Oh, what a quandary. You know Bush's name isn't on the ads, but you know he likes them all the same. And you know he pulled the same crap on McCain back in 2000.

Anyway, let's all back McCain up. He's right that this is "dishonest and dishonorable", and let's keep Bush feeling very uncomfortable about it.

Particularly if you're a veteran or family member of a veteran, let Bush know that these kind of dirty tactics are not acceptable. Or write a letter to your local paper.

Source:

8/5/04 Associated Press Story

Bush: Flip-Flopper-in-Chief

The one charge being consistently leveled against Kerry by BushCo is that he's a "flip-flopper." To believe this, you have to commit yourself quite steadfastly to NEVER actually trying to understand how decisions are made or how one adjusts one position n the face of a changing world.

For example, I honestly don't understand why it's hard to appreciate that Kerry voted for an education program AND its proposed budget (Leave No Child Behind.) And I honestly don't understand why it's hard to appreciate that when it became clear that Bush's new budget wasn't going to federally fund this program, and that, in fact, it was going to present more hardship to the states, and make things worse for students, that THEN and only THEN did it become a program to oppose.

But leaving all the explanations aside, I'd like to say to Bush: "Hello kettle? You're black!" You can just call Bush the Flip-Flopper-in-Chief!

And you'll find a couple of great sources for all of Bush's flippity-floppitude in the extended entry:

Sources:

Short, succinct 8/5/04 Washington Post column from Richard Cohen

Ongoing, maintained list of Dubya Flip-flops from the Center for American Progress

What? Now, we're picking on the wives?

George Bush was back to campaigning today, and one of the first things he decided to say?

That perhaps the most important reason he should be re-elected is so that Laura Bush can remain First Lady for another 4 years.

How stupid is this comment? Let me count at least a couple of ways.

1. You're going to start this campaign by going after your opponent's wife? Ooooh, you're one tough guy, Dubya. I think this comment may get a lot of play (especially if everyone who reads this passes it around) and it's going to do two things: piss off John kerry and piss off a good chunk of women. I know you were trying to be all complimentary to your wife. I think there were much more graceful and gracious ways to do it.

2. Laura is the most important reason? Really? That's all you got? Yikes. And yikes for your campaign manager. OK, I know it's rhetoric, but it seems pretty foolish to me.

So, Bush is kicking the last 3 months off in high style... going right for the guy's wife. Nice. But Kerry's the cynical pessimist????

Can Whoopi Goldberg, but Dennis Miller Gay-Baiting? OK

Oh, the hypocrisy!

So, the Republicans have their panties in a bunch over a Democratic fundraiser where some celebrities exercised their freedom of speech to excoriate Bush, and in a rather profane way. One can't help wonder if they were influenced by Mr. Vice-Potty Mouth, Dick Cheney, but nah, probably not.

The stories about Whoopi Goldberg's riff on Bush (which allegedly heavily leveraged a rather raunchy synonym for his name) have actually gotten her fired as a Slim-Fast spokesperson.

I'd like to ask the Slim-Fast folks if they were very aware of Whoopi's stand-up routines to begin with? I guess they know her only from "Ghost" and Hollywood Squares."

Anyway, now we have turncoat comedian Dennis Miller (who has not only become Republican but also become NOT funny anymore) introducing Bush at a fundraiser last night, and according to some reports, using gay-baiting language to do so. While the mainstream media is only reporting some rather lame jokes he made about Kerry being a flip-flopper, I have also heard that he made cracks and homophobic insinuations about Edwards and Kerry.

Apparently THAT type of humor is totally OK.

Like I like to say: I wouldn't get half as upset about the shenanigans of BushCo if they weren't so damn hypocritical.

And It's Mary Beth with the SMACKDOWN!

I don't know where Mary Beth Cahill (John Kerry's campaign manager) has been all my life, but damn! I think I'm in love.

You MUST read her letter to Bush's campaign manager regarding releasing a video of a fundraiser where some celebrities were mean to poor Dubya.

It is PRICELESS. it's basically one big...hmmm...how can I put it? I'd like to quote Dick Cheney, but that wouldn't be nice!

Seriously: read it right now:

Michael Moore Lets It All Hang Out

Great interview with Michael Moore in last week's Entertainment Weekly...which is the best magazine in the whole wide world.

And he articulated something I had been thinking about:

All these whining right-wingers who say Michael Moore is such a big, fat liar in his movie, "Fahrenheit 911"? Why don't they just sue him then? If he's saying things that are untrue and are damaging...that's a crime. But I always figured he had such things as, oh I don't know...lawyers??? Who were pretty much going to be helping him, with his wealth, NOT get sued.

Sure enough, while Moore freely admits he states plenty of inflammatory opinions, the facts are, as they say, just the facts ma'am.

And now he has posted his fact checking back-up on his web site.

I certainly don't have the energy to read it all...mostly because I already believe they are the facts.

But if you have some really cranky friends...send them here:

"Fahrenheit 911" Fact Checking on Michael Moore's site.

I Love The Ladies!

Mrs. Heinz-Kerry and Mrs. Edwards I mean.

I didn't watch the 60 Minutes last night.

But the Kerry site picked out a pretty good excerpt to put on their blog, featuring Ms. Theresa, my close personal friend since I shook her hand, and Ms. Elizabeth giving as good as they got from lame Leslie Stahl.

I especially love Theresa's response to questions about how their rich husbands can qualify as populists.

Read it here.

Really. Right Now!

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire

OK, they've got Cheney's poor spokesman spinning so hard, he got to be feeling nauseated.

Let me just give you the highlights from earlier entry citing specific instances where they made these assertions.

2. The Commission called on Cheney to release any further info he had to them.

3. The Commission subsequently issued a statement re-affirming that they had all information that Cheney had.

4. So, Cheney being slammed not once, but twice, for providing disingenuous information, sends his spokesman out to say the White House welcomed the statement, calling it proof that the White House had fully cooperated in providing the panel all available intelligence relevant to its work.

Does anyone else find this so twisted it's almost funny?

Bush Shuns NAACP

But the Republicans have a big tent, uh huh. And Im sure the television coverage at their convention will find every minority they possibly can to show at every possible opportunity.

I bet they provide those folks with changes of clothing, so they can shoot them multiple times. Or maybe it's like "Lord of the Ring" and they just digitally multiply them using CGI?

Anyway, this story from the Associated Press doesn't surprise me: Bush spoke at the NAACP Annual Convention when he was a candidate in 2000, but has declined every invitation since. he will be the first president since Herbert Hoover (hey, more Herbert Hoover parallels!) to not attend their convention.

As I've been saying, my slogan is: it's the hypocrisy, stupid.

Did I Say I Respected John McCain?

A few weeks back I was praising John McCain for his willingness to stick up for Kerry, for his willingness to continue to disagree with and criticize Dubya, for his overall forthrightness. I may not agree with all his stances, certainly not on choice, but I could respect him.

Color me disappointed. McCain obviously wants to be in the political good graces of the right wing of his Party (running for President in 2008 maybe?) And to do so he is swallowing his pride (and his distaste) and fervently working it for Dubya.

Stories like this one in the Washington Post and this other one also from the Post, show that some form of political pragmatism has set in, and McCain has sullied his reputation as an independent and fair thinker.

I have the same feelings about Colin Powell, actually. This guy was once among the most respected leaders in our country, with both parties clamoring for his membership.

Well, he made his choice and day by day, bit by bit, his credibility is being diminished. By the time he finishes his tour with the Bush Administration he will mostly be remembered as the guy they marginalized, except for the times they wanted to use to make a false case based on trumped up evidence.

I'd feel sorry for him, but he has to be held accountable just like anyone else in the Administration for his actions.

Even Republican Rep. Lyndsay Graham, a former military guy, who made such a big deal about not letting the Abu Ghraib investigation stop at the 7 enlisted soldiers, has backed down and fallen into party lines over the investigation.

I guess when it comes to the Republican Party, they only accept strict adherence to the party line. Call them the Stepford Republicans. They've had their natural characters replaced.

Krugman does it again: this time defending Moore

I've said it before: it's the hypocrisy, stupid! And the hypocrisy inherent in the outcry over Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911" is pretty thick.

I think the movie is actually fairly tame. Moore asks a lot of questions, letting the audience draw their own conclusions. Does Moore hope you'll come to the conclusion that Bush is corrupt, disengaged, and definitely worthy only of being a one-termer? Clearly!

But the outcry over his work is ridiculous when compared to both:

-the LACK of outcry over Bush's tenuous statements

-the pure viciousness the Clintons encountered from all manner of press-types. And there was a lot more outright accusation going on then.

Read Op-Ed Idol Paul Krugman's column, full text is in the extended entry:

Moore's Public Service
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: July 2, 2004

Since it opened, "Fahrenheit 9/11" has been a hit in both blue and red America, even at theaters close to military bases. Last Saturday, Dale Earnhardt Jr. took his Nascar crew to see it. The film's appeal to working-class Americans, who are the true victims of George Bush's policies, should give pause to its critics, especially the nervous liberals rushing to disassociate themselves from Michael Moore.

There has been much tut-tutting by pundits who complain that the movie, though it has yet to be caught in any major factual errors, uses association and innuendo to create false impressions. Many of these same pundits consider it bad form to make a big fuss about the Bush administration's use of association and innuendo to link the Iraq war to 9/11. Why hold a self-proclaimed polemicist to a higher standard than you hold the president of the United States?

And for all its flaws, "Fahrenheit 9/11" performs an essential service. It would be a better movie if it didn't promote a few unproven conspiracy theories, but those theories aren't the reason why millions of people who aren't die-hard Bush-haters are flocking to see it. These people see the film to learn true stories they should have heard elsewhere, but didn't. Mr. Moore may not be considered respectable, but his film is a hit because the respectable media haven't been doing their job.

For example, audiences are shocked by the now-famous seven minutes, when George Bush knew the nation was under attack but continued reading "My Pet Goat" with a group of children. Nobody had told them that the tales of Mr. Bush's decisiveness and bravery on that day were pure fiction.

Or consider the Bush family's ties to the Saudis. The film suggests that Mr. Bush and his good friend Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the ambassador known to the family as Bandar Bush, have tried to cover up the extent of Saudi involvement in terrorism. This may or may not be true. But what shocks people, I think, is the fact that nobody told them about this side of Mr. Bush's life.

Mr. Bush's carefully constructed persona is that of an all-American regular guy — not like his suspiciously cosmopolitan opponent, with his patrician air. The news media have cheerfully gone along with the pretense. How many stories have you seen contrasting John Kerry's upper-crusty vacation on Nantucket with Mr. Bush's down-home time at the ranch?

But the reality, revealed by Mr. Moore, is that Mr. Bush has always lived in a bubble of privilege. And his family, far from consisting of regular folks with deep roots in the heartland, is deeply enmeshed, financially and personally, with foreign elites — with the Saudis in particular.

Mr. Moore's greatest strength is a real empathy with working-class Americans that most journalists lack. Having stripped away Mr. Bush's common-man mask, he uses his film to make the case, in a way statistics never could, that Mr. Bush's policies favor a narrow elite at the expense of less fortunate Americans — sometimes, indeed, at the cost of their lives.

In a nation where the affluent rarely serve in the military, Mr. Moore follows Marine recruiters as they trawl the malls of depressed communities, where enlistment is the only way for young men and women to escape poverty. He shows corporate executives at a lavish conference on Iraq, nibbling on canapés and exulting over the profit opportunities, then shows the terrible price paid by the soldiers creating those opportunities.

The movie's moral core is a harrowing portrait of a grieving mother who encouraged her children to join the military because it was the only way they could pay for their education, and who lost her son in a war whose justification she no longer understands.

Viewers may come away from Mr. Moore's movie believing some things that probably aren't true. For example, the film talks a lot about Unocal's plans for a pipeline across Afghanistan, which I doubt had much impact on the course of the Afghan war. Someday, when the crisis of American democracy is over, I'll probably find myself berating Mr. Moore, who supported Ralph Nader in 2000, for his simplistic antiglobalization views.

But not now. "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a tendentious, flawed movie, but it tells essential truths about leaders who exploited a national tragedy for political gain, and the ordinary Americans who paid the price.  

Can't we call them Liars AND Ideologues AND Incompetent

Okay, I know I live in Silicon Valley, but I am so OVER digital thinking.

What am I even talking about, you wonder?

Well, this rant is courtesy of reading Nicholas Kristof's totally annoying piece in the NY Times today.

And you can read all about it in the extended entry:

Digital thinking asks us to believe there is only one or another contributing factor to a bad situation or solution to a problem.

Digital thinking gets caught up in wondering if Bush is a liar or just incompetent.

Digital thinking traps us into what James Carville points out as a central PR problem for Democrats...that people would rather have strong and wrong than weak and right. And he asks: why can't we be strong and right???!!!

And Nicholas Kristof tells us in his piece that we shouldn't bother making a point that BUsh has lied, instead focusing on him being a somewhat-misinformed ideologue.

What? Lying doesn't matter if you believe in what you're lying about enough?

What? Lying doesn't matter, because it's worse if someone is a poor manager and builds a poor team around him?

There's something so elitist about Kristof's position. Lying? Why, that's looking at someone's character and morals. That's so simple and homespun.

Well, lying is bad. Lying to the American people is bad. Lying to take us to war is bad. Lying to cover up administration failures is bad.

I am not a conspiracy theorist.

I am just saying that Bush FELT we ought to attack Iraq. I dn't know all his motivations. They could include any combination of factors from avenging his daddy to protecting allies like Saudi Arabia to really feeling in his gut that Saddam was an evildoer.

But Bush didn't have the CASE to justify an attack on Iraq for any reason. And his team wasn't COMPETENT enough to build that case, if it so existed. And his IDEOLOGICAL devotion wouldn't let it go, so he LIED to the people to get us to back him up, and he was STUPID enough to try to cover it up and ARROGANT enough to think he could get away with it.

See, Bush and his crew can be incompetent, ideologically obsessed, stupid arrogant liars.

All at the same time.

That doesn't make my head explode like it does poor Kristof's.

Nope, trying to wrap my head around how bad a president Bush has been for this country makes MY head explode.

Rant ended.

It's Not the F-word; It's the Hypocrisy, Stupid!

As per usual I tend to think people miss the point.

Okay, it's crass and rude for Cheney to have told Senator Leahy to go F himself or F off or whatever it is he said.

And yes, I may say that naughty word a lot, but rarely to a colleague!

But what is truly bothersome is the HYPOCRISY. Don't brag about your civility and honor when your way of handling conflict is to curse.

And don't have your FCC Chairman work very hard to raise the fines for indecency on-air, especially for a guy who disagrees with you politically, when you can't tell someone off with using some indecent language yourself.

It's the hypocrisy, NOT the curse word that offends me.

One Bill Illuminates Why We Are Cynical

Buy Viagra, Cialis or Levitra prescription from online pharmacy:

Viagra prescription
Buy Levitra
Buy Cialis

The bill was originally just a Defense Department authorization bill. A version of it has already passed in the House, which means that now the House and Senate need to negotiate about how to incorporate the Senate amendments into the bill presented to Bush to sign. With me so far? I mean, first of all, doesn't that seem inefficient?

The added amendments specifically:

- Give the FCC authority to increase the maximum fine for each incident of broadcast indecency from $32,500 to $275,000, with a cap of $3 million a day.

- Strike down FCC rules that would allow big media companies to grow larger. (This may be fruitless as similar provisions had to be dropped from a bill already due to Bush resistance.)

- Require the FCC to study whether the V-chip and television ratings protect children from violent content.

And what does any of that have to do with the Defense Department? Yeah. Nothing.

This is what turns every vote into a compromise. This is what makes the people look askance at their politicians. And no matter how many people get elected earnestly claiming to be reformers, I don't see this kind of stuff going away.

I sure don't have the answers. Just question, like anyone else.

Source: 6/23/04 Washington Post article

Source: 6/23/04 NY Times article

Clinton, Bush & Semantics

Buy Viagra, Cialis or Levitra prescription from online pharmacy:

Viagra prescription
Buy Levitra
Buy Cialis

Sources:

6/22/04 Christian Science Monitor column

6/18/04 Washington Post article

6/19/04 NY Times editorial, "Show Us the Proof"

Wow, After Only 3 Years: Lay MIGHT be Indicted

Buy Viagra, Cialis or Levitra prescription from online pharmacy:

Viagra prescription
Buy Levitra
Buy Cialis

The stonewalling & sweetheart deals continue

The latest non-scandal that is quietly brewing is over a sweetheart deal Boeing got for some unneeded planes. The US agreed to lease rather than buy them at a huge additional cost, and it's doubtful they were even necessary to begin with.

Not only that but "Stonewall" Rumsfeld is at it again, refusing to let the appropriate Congressional committee have full access to documents need to investigate the deal properly.

I guess that was Clinton's problem. He should have just refused to cooperate with all of the myriad investigations that turned into unfounded scandals.

I'm sure the press would have let him off the hook the way they apparently let BushCo off the hook at every turn...heard anything about the Medicare scandal lately?

Didn't think so.

Here's the link to the story.

Cheney & Halliburton: Still the Bestest Friends?

First Cheney claimed no "financial ties" to Halliburton while he continue to receive six-figures from them annually.

Now, he may have managed getting Halliburton a huge, no-bid, federal contract.

Do you think, with Republicans running Congress, that this will get the proper attention and investigation? Doubt it.

And worst of all, Bush/Cheney campaign adviser (and one half of the one couple on earth I LEAST understand) Mary Matalin is saying we should basically get off the topic because some Halliburton employees have died in Iraq.

More exploiting of the fallen, I suppose. Why am I surprised?

Here's a link to the CNN story.

Soapbox: Part II of Policy for Sale

The Washington Post follows up yesterday's piece on the highest-level Bush fundraisers with a companion piece today.

See how just one Bush Pioneer benefitted from legislation once Bush was in office.

And this is an example of a Bush-run agency actually overturning a Clinton-era regulation once in office...to this fundraiser's direct monetary benefit.

Here's the link.

Full text is in the extended entry.

THE BUSH MONEY MACHINE : An Industry Gets Its Way
Fundraiser Denies Link Between Money, Access
EPA Rule on Hazardous Waste Favored Ohio Businessman Who Is a Big GOP Donor

By James V. Grimaldi and Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, May 17, 2004; Page A01

MASON, Ohio -- Richard T. Farmer is one of America's richest men and a Bush Pioneer by virtue of having raised at least $100,000 for the 2000 campaign. Over the past 15 years, he and his wife have given $3.1 million to Bush campaigns, the Republican Party and Republican candidates.

Farmer's family controls Cintas Corp., a $2.7 billion company that rents and launders uniforms and industrial shop towels. For years, Farmer's industry has been at odds with the Environmental Protection Agency over increased regulation of shop towels, particularly a Clinton administration proposal that, though not fatal, "would have cost us a lot of money," Farmer said.

In a recent interview at company headquarters here, Farmer said his campaign donations were made with no strings attached. He said he supports Republicans because they believe in "less government, more individual freedom, more individual responsibility."

"If you think I'm giving money to get access to [President Bush], you're crazy," Farmer said. "I'm just trying to get the right guy elected. That's all I care about."

The Clinton proposal would have required that woven shop towels contaminated with chemical solvents be wrung dry for them to be treated as laundry, not hazardous waste. Last November, the EPA changed its position, adopting a more lenient proposal for the woven towels. Farmer and his industry were overjoyed, because the change promised to save them millions and preserve their advantage over the competition -- paper towels. "It would have been a big problem," Farmer said.

After a series of telephone calls, e-mails, letters and meetings with representatives of the laundry industry, the EPA had provided industrial-laundry lobbyists with an advance copy of a portion of the proposed rule, which the lobbyists edited and the agency adopted.

That same opportunity was not given to the rule's opponents -- environmental groups, a labor union, hazardous-waste landfill operators and paper towel manufacturers who argue their product should be treated as environmentally equal to laundered towels. The opponents say industrial laundries send tens of thousands of tons of hazardous chemicals to municipal sewage treatment plants and landfills where toxics can get into groundwater, streams and rivers. Labor unions contend that the towels expose workers to cancer-causing fumes.

Cintas said in a statement that the rewritten rule will prevent pollution because "reusable shop towels are friendlier to the environment" than disposable paper towels.

The proposed shop towel rule is but one example of a policy change by the Bush administration that favors a company controlled by a Bush Pioneer or Ranger, who as a group have helped the president bank a record $200 million for the 2004 election campaign. The shop towel case reflects the subtle interactions between corporations and an administration determined to roll back what it considers to be regulatory overkill. For many big donors, getting "the right guy elected," as Farmer puts it, is an end in itself.

EPA Assistant Administrator Marianne Lamont Horinko said Farmer's campaign contributions had nothing to do with the agency's decision. Although Cintas was represented by the industrial-laundry lobbyists in discussions with the EPA, Farmer said he himself did not directly contact the administration about the proposed rule. He did say that, at the behest of the laundry industry, he called members of the Ohio congressional delegation, who wrote to then-EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman.

In a summary of the rule, the EPA said it would improve "clarity and consistency" of regulation, "provide regulatory relief, and save affected facilities over $30 million." Whitman -- who resigned from the EPA last year and has since become a Bush Ranger -- declined to be interviewed. But she said through a spokesman that contacts such as those from the Ohio congressional delegation "are helpful because they highlight an interest and a constituent's interest" and "that just feeds into the deliberative process."

Fred Meyer, the former chairman of the Texas Republican Party who in 1998 helped set up the Pioneers for then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush, said there is a good reason money will always flow to political campaigns. "There are too many things that are important to too many people," Meyer said. "The existence of businesses and billions of dollars are affected."

Democrats have their own history of rewarding large donors. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt appointed major contributor Joseph P. Kennedy to be ambassador to Britain. Lyndon B. Johnson funneled contracts to Texas firms.

Direct quid pro quos -- specific benefits in exchange for cash -- are illegal. There is nothing illegal, however, about the adoption of broad legislation or regulations benefiting sectors of the business community -- such as laundries disposing of wastewater containing toxic chemicals -- that happen be a source of major fundraisers and donors.

For example, securities and investment banking firms have benefited enormously from reduced capital gains and dividend taxes initiated by the Bush White House. Six produced 17 Pioneers and Rangers this year, and employees in those firms have raised $2.53 million. Altogether, finance industry employees have raised $19.68 million for the 2004 election campaign, according to an analysis produced for The Washington Post by Dwight L. Morris & Associates.

Twenty-four Rangers and Pioneers are either drug industry executives or lobbyists whose companies stand to get more business from the administration's Medicare drug benefit bill passed last year.

Twenty-five energy company executives, along with 15 energy industry lobbyists, are either Pioneers or Rangers. Many have been deeply involved in developing the administration's energy policy. Seven of those Pioneers served on the Bush energy transition team. The administration's energy bill, which remains stalled by a largely Democratic filibuster in the Senate, would provide billions of dollars in benefits to the energy industry.

Industry: $400 Million Cost

The proposed shop towel rule shows how the process can play out to the advantage of a Pioneer.

For more than two decades, the EPA has grappled with how to regulate the cloth towels used to wipe up chemicals in printing plants, factories and industrial shops. Each year, 3 billion of them sop up more than 100,000 tons of hazardous solvents such as benzene, xylene, toluene and methyl ethyl ketone.

"Why should these materials be regulated as a hazardous waste?" the EPA said in a document given to the laundry industry in 2000. "Because they have the potential to cause fires, or to be the source of fugitive air emissions, and ground water contamination."

In 1997, the Clinton administration proposed a clean-water rule requiring industrial laundries to pretreat their wastewater to remove chemical solvents. The Uniform & Textile Service Association (UTSA) and Textile Rental Services Association of America (TRSA) mounted a $1.2 million lobbying campaign against the proposed rule, arguing that toxic pollutants are removed at the laundries or by municipal wastewater treatment plants. The trade groups said the proposal would have cost them more than $400 million.

In 1999, the Clinton EPA withdrew the rule. The next year, with Clinton still in the White House, the EPA floated a new draft rule that proposed to exempt shop towels from hazardous-waste requirements only if factories squeezed the towels "dry" -- defined as containing no more than five grams of solvents -- before placing them in sealed containers and sending them to laundries.

Calling this "an extremist view in the EPA," the laundry industry forcefully opposed the new proposal as overregulation.

But environmental activists, labor groups and paper towel makers said the laundries and local treatment plants frequently exceed their mandated pollution limits. Sixty-five Cintas laundries in 15 states and Canada have exceeded pollution limits on more than 1,100 occasions in the past several years, according to public records gathered by the Sierra Club and the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees (UNITE).

For the EPA and the laundry industry, things changed when Bush took office in 2001. The industry pushed hard to derail the Clinton proposed rule in favor of a more lenient one that gives shop towels a hazardous-waste exemption without the need to wring them dry or store them in special containers.

Laundry trade groups appealed directly to EPA Administrator Whitman in February 2001: "The draft regulation in its current form . . . increases the regulatory burden."

In May, Whitman sent a conciliatory response: "Partnerships with our stakeholders will be an important part of how we will do business at EPA."

To aid in the effort, the industry urged contributions to its Textile Rental Services Association's Political Action Committee. "Will PAC donations open doors, get appointments and allow your message to be delivered? Absolutely," Textile Rental magazine said in its March 2002 edition.

Exemption Sought at EPA

In Richard Farmer, the industry had one of the biggest political givers in the country.

For President George H.W. Bush, Farmer, now 69 , was a member of "Team 100," donors who gave more than $100,000 to Republican Party-building committees. When George W. Bush ran for office in 2000, Farmer's "golfing buddy," Cincinnati financier Mercer Reynolds III, recruited Farmer to be a Pioneer, Farmer said. This year, he earned the more exalted Ranger status by raising a minimum of $200,000 in individual contributions.

Farmer said that his big gifts are not connected to political favors.

In the case of shop towel regulation, Farmer said Cintas itself was unconcerned. "We huddled up and [decided] no matter what happens here, it will have no impact on Cintas," he said.

Later in the interview, when specifically asked about the Clinton-era proposal, he said it would have hurt Cintas by making it difficult for the company to provide the full range of services its customers demand. Shop towels are now about 5 percent of Cintas's business, but they remain an important service to customers who also rent uniforms.

Farmer said he never contacted the administration about the new rule. He said he did complain about the rule to Ohio Republican Sen. George V. Voinovich and Rep. Rob Portman, a fellow Bush Pioneer and chairman of Bush's campaign in Ohio this year.

Farmer said he made the calls in 2002 on behalf of the two laundry trade groups. Cintas is the biggest company in the industry, but Farmer said that complaints from hundreds of small laundries probably had more impact than his calls. "It would have put small guys out of business," he said.

Portman said in a recent interview that he was first contacted by one of the trade groups, which he knew represented Cintas, "one of those big companies in our district." He said he considered it a constituent issue. "I do remember talking to Dick about it at least once," he said.

About the same time in 2002 that Farmer was making his calls and the trade groups were contacting members of Congress, he made a major contribution. On March 19, 2002, Farmer gave $250,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee.

On March 25, Portman and Voinovich co-wrote a letter to Whitman asking her to support a more encompassing waste exemption for shop towels -- this one from solid waste regulation. Gaining a solid-waste exemption would remove a further layer of regulation because some states apply additional taxes, fees and special handling requirements to solid waste.

Whitman spokesman Joe Martyak said such a letter from lawmakers "helps to precipitate a meeting to find out what's the glitch. You help to unglitch it, to move it along."

At this point , EPA attorneys were balking at the solid-waste exemption, Portman and Voinovich said in their letter.

A month later , Whitman wrote Portman and Voinovich that the EPA was considering the solid-waste exemption and assured that it would "incorporate suggested changes where appropriate."

Three weeks later, EPA officials signed off on the exemption, according to the trade group's timeline.

Jim O'Leary, the EPA official who wrote the original language that was rewritten, said there was no political interference from Whitman's office. "That's nonsense," O'Leary said. "We called it the way we saw it. No one interfered."

A Rule That Isn't 'Onerous'

On Aug. 2, EPA's Kathy Blanton, who replaced O'Leary, e-mailed to industry attorney William M. Guerry Jr. the "language we have put together to address the laundries' concerns," according to a copy of the e-mail obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

Guerry wrote back on Aug. 15 with proposed changes, documents show. Among them was deletion of a phrase in the preamble stating that shop towels "remain regulated." Instead, the lobbyist wanted the words "regulatory status . . . remains unchanged."

Guerry, in an interview, said the change was important to make sure that states did not misread the rule as a significant change in policy. Otherwise there would have been "chaos" and a "train wreck," he said. EPA officials shared the language with him, he said, because "they recognized that we had the expertise they needed."

Blanton said she sent Guerry just part of the regulatory language. "I can see how, from the outside, that it would look like colluding or something. [But] these were the people who were going to be most affected by the rule and they were the ones with the expertise." She said at this point the EPA had already had sufficient input from the paper towel people and others affected by the rule.

Opponents, including the union, environmentalists and paper towel makers, say they were not given an advance look at the language. Ralph Solarski, a Kimberly-Clark Corp. executive who chairs a task force of paper towel makers, said his group would have been glad to have one.

"Kathy Blanton and Bob Dellinger at EPA were asked on multiple occasions for advance copies and we were consistently denied," Solarski wrote in an e-mail to The Post.

EPA officials attended two industry meetings to discuss the proposed rule, one in Baltimore on Aug. 20 and one in Old Town Alexandria on Sept. 12. On Aug. 30, Farmer donated $250,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

EPA's Office of Solid Waste Director Dellinger spoke at the Alexandria meeting. His comments later appeared in the trade group's magazine: "EPA doesn't want to make this onerous."

Instead of screw-on, sealed containers for transporting contaminated woven towels from factories to laundries, which were proposed in 2000, Dellinger said, a piece of plywood over a barrel would meet the new EPA proposed standard.

Also, the EPA opted not to require the towels to be wrung out. "The point of that is not to make it harder to do than what you would do through your normal course of business," Dellinger said.

However, he told the group, the paper towel industry would have to wring out its towels to make sure they had no more than five grams of solvent on them before being dumped.

The new proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on Nov. 20, 2003.

Paper industry officials say that the EPA is ignoring its own studies showing that laundries create 30 percent more waste than paper towels in the form of sludge -- lint, debris, toxics and other substances extracted from laundry wastewater -- sent to municipal landfills.

"This is a case study," Solarski said, "for how an industry has used the regulatory process to gain a market advantage."

Post database editor Sarah Cohen and researcher Alice Crites contributed to this report.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

Soapbox: There Oughta Be a Law

I think we've gotten to the point where there ought to be some legal accountability for lying about an opponent during a political campaign.

Now, folks can disagree on an issue. Folks can even disagree on the interpretation of a statement. But to purposely mis-quote and mis-attribute and mis-represent someone's words, votes or positions? I think there oughta be a law.

Of course I've been reading "What Liberal Media?" by Eric Alterman, so I'm a little riled up about the topic right now. He has some incredible examples from the 2000 Presidential election.

But let's just look at an example from yesterday's paper. It's an excellent example of how campaigns seem to be able to lie with impunity, how the media perpetuates the lie until it's uncovered, then they just let the story die away without emphasizing how LAME they were to perpetuate it.

And this example also refutes the concept that the media is liberal. Check it out in the extended entry:

Here's the quote from John Kerry:

"Do I support oil drilling? The answer is yes. I support oil drilling in the right places."

Okay, maybe I'm just simple-minded, but I don't see him stating exactly where or what those right places are, right? I mean to extrapolate such data from that statement you'd have to be either psychic or purposely deceitful, right?

Apparently later in the discussion Kerry mentioned protecting Florida's coast. And even later, his campaign said he thought some of the "right places" included in deep water off Louisiana and other central and western areas of the Gulf of Mexico.

So, here's a little more from the story:

"The Bush campaign jumped on the incomplete statement and Bush's brother, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, kicked off a storm by telling reporters that the comment meant Kerry favored drilling off Florida."

And later, Dubya himself made a veiled reference to this issue. He wasn't allowed to mention Kerry by name, given the tax-payer funded nature of the event, but he threw in this subtle statement:

"My administration is committed to conserving Florida's natural beauty. As you can see there is no ambiguity in my position on drilling off the coast of Florida."

Source: San Jose Mercury, April 24, 2004

Now, why does this refute the notion of a liberal media?

Well, what do you think the headline and sub-headline might have been for this story?

"Bush mis-represents Kerry comments at tax-payer funded event" ??

"Jeb Bush resorts to outright lying to help elect his brother a second time" ??

"They're stealing Florida again folks!!" ??

Nope. Not even close.

Here was the headline:

"Bush slams Kerry on Florida drilling"

and the sub-headline:

"Incumbent portrays Democrat as weak on protecting coast."

Reading these headlines, wouldn't you think Kerry HAD favored drilling in Florida?

The damage is likely done for some number of voters who will never hear the retractions and the mea culpas...probably attributed to some low-level staffer.

It is up to us to be vigilant, to keep talking to everyone we meet, to make sure we, ourselves, are well-informed, and try to help other be so, to never take what we hear at face value, but look for alternate sources of information.

So spread these stories around! Do your part!

And maybe we should start a campaign to our Congress people asking for a bill covering campaign stump lying.

Irony? Hypocrisy? Exactly How Can I Put This?

You remember the first Bush campaign ads that came out right. They caused a little controversy as you might recall, what with the display of human remains, draped in American flags, being removed from the WTC after 9/11.

Oh, that wasn't exploiting the dead for political gain, no siree.

Well, here's a little story from yesterday's paper regarding the brouhaha over photographs released to the paper, despite Pentagon policy, showing the return of flag-draped coffins containing US soldiers killed in Iraq.

"Pentagon officials said the photos, issued last week and posted on an Internet site, should not have been made public, under a policy prohibiting media coverage of human remains."
Source: San Jose Mercury, April 24,2004

I'm just not going to say another word. This story speaks for itself.

Helpful Link: The DNC "Mistakes Were made" Ad

Many people are calling Bush's inability to respond to a question about whether he has made any mistakes as a defining moment of his recent press conference.

The DNC has taken that moment and turned it into an Internet ad, with some helpful suggestions for mistakes he can name when asked the same question again.

Take a look:

The DNC Ad

Last word on the infamous PDB

I've been saying, and I still believe, that we will not serve our greater cause to oust Bush from the White House by trying to pin the blame for 9/11 on him or his Administration.

I've been saying, and I still believe, that they may have made mistakes; they may have ignored counsel from the outgoing Administration purely out of ideological spite, but that if they had known something like 9/11 was going to happen they surely would have acted to prevent it.

I've been saying, and I still believe that the problem for me is the Administration's disingenuous, deceptive behavior AFTER 9/11...leading up to and including their tap dances for the 9/11 Commission.

They will take no responsibility, cop to no accountability, and while I am being generous and NOT pointing the finger at them, they are certainly behaving with less generosity in their eagerness to pin it (and every other bad thing of the last 50 years) on Clinton.

Al Franken has boiled it down to two very telling quotes that expose Bush for the stunning hypocrite that he is on this topic. Read all about it in the extended entry:

Courtesy of Al's AirAmerica Blog:

In his 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush made the case for invading Iraq even though we lacked specific information about the threat it posed to the United States. He said:

'There was nothing there that said, you know, 'There's an imminent attack.'

Condi & Bush keep telling us they didn't know the date, the time, the place, so they couldn't or shouldn't have acted. Perhaps so, but they didn't want the American people to require that of them to justify the War on Iraq, right?

It's just one more stunning example of this arrogant, cowboy President and his cabal of advisers continue to deceive and patronize their constituents...we, the People.

And we, the People have the collective responsibility to say this is not OK. And we have the power to send that message in a decisive and unmistakable fashion...by kicking this crew out of office come November.

Discussion: Is this some strategy too clever for me?

I'm trying to figure out what is going on over there in the White House.

First, Condi can't testify under oath, but can go on every morning news show. After public pressure, suddenly she CAN testify.

First, the White House won't release thousands of documents from the Clinton Administration (which Clinton authorized the release of even though technically he didn't have to.) After public pressure, suddenly they are letting the 9/11 Commission's legal staff review the documents.

I can't believe this is the smooth Republican machine that we are used to, allowing these snafus to dominate the news.

I feel like a conspiracy theorist, looking for some diabolical strategy behind these various decisions and reversals. Of course what gets buried each time they relent is the limits they're putting in place:

Condi can testify, but ONLY IF no other White house official is asked to testify again.

We'll release the documents, but ONLY TO a team of lawyers who will let the commission know if they need to see them themselves.

I heard Al Franken posit that they are "unraveling" over there. I find it hard to believe.

Any other skeptics out there?

Soapbox: Karen Hughes, the prototypical Bushie

I don't know if anyone else caught Karen Hughes, Bush's adviser, on "The Daily Show" on Wednesday night. It occurred to me while watching her that she is the prototypical Bushie, all "gee, gosh, shucks" on the outside, while being absolutely cold as ice and hard as nails on the inside.

Read the rest of my rant in the extended entry.

Hughes speaks in simple terms; she's got that warm, folksy Southern accent that says "just good, plain folk" without sounding like Gomer Pyle. She talks about being just a regular wife and mother. She talks about every day things. She sounds completely innocuous and like someone you'd want to sit down and have a cup of coffee with at your kitchen table.

This is the same role being played when Bush pitches hay, or whatever the hell else he does down on the ranch.

I found myself liking Ms. Hughes, then shaking my head when I thought about what she was saying.

Here's an example: Ms Hughes has recently released a book, "10 Minutes from Normal" (no comments from the peanut gallery please; it's just too easy. In it, apparently, she talks about how most people in government, "on both sides of the aisle", are "good", just seeking to "serve their country."

So, Jon Stewart asks her: "If you really believe those folks are good, and mean well, doesn't it bother you to go after them and attack them?"

Her response? "No, that's just my job."

And she says it with this warm smile, and practically a little wink. But what she is saying is that it's perfectly okay to trash and attack good people because you disagree with them.

In her next breath she's saying how unfortunate it is that there is such partisan rancor in Washington, and she really regrets it's such a poisonous atmosphere, as though her own willingness to say or do anything to further her agenda has nothing to do with such bitter relations between the parties.

But man, is she sincere. Boy, do you feel like she's just regular folks. Regular, scheming, dissembling, manipulative, amoral folks, but regular folks all the same.

Watching people like Karen Hughes in action can give us insight into how people fall for the Bushie line.

Great Link: Ever get annoyed with Bush spin you just know is false?

So, apparently, does our esteemed candidate, John Kerry. His web site has a great section called: DBunker: Setting the Record Straight

When you're looking for ammunition to combat that crooked, lying attack machine (hey, if Kerry's not going to apologize for it, neither will I!) this is a good from-the-horse's-mouth resource.

Great Link: Krugman hits the nail on the head again

Lately I've become a huge Paul Krugman fan. One thing I have to point out is that Krugman generally avoids the kind of hyperbolic, vitriolic ranting that can often dominate editorial pieces coming from the left and the right.

After I posted my last posting about the number of insiders coming forward to reveal the truth behind what has gone on in the Bush White House, I read Krugman's op-ed piece as a perfect complement to my earlier posting.

I've posted both the link and the entire piece in the extended entry.

Lifting the Shroud
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: March 23, 2004

From the day it took office, U.S. News & World Report wrote a few months ago, the Bush administration "dropped a shroud of secrecy" over the federal government. After 9/11, the administration's secretiveness knew no limits — Americans, Ari Fleischer ominously warned, "need to watch what they say, watch what they do." Patriotic citizens were supposed to accept the administration's version of events, not ask awkward questions.

But something remarkable has been happening lately: more and more insiders are finding the courage to reveal the truth on issues ranging from mercury pollution — yes, Virginia, polluters do write the regulations these days, and never mind the science — to the war on terror.

It's important, when you read the inevitable attempts to impugn the character of the latest whistle-blower, to realize just how risky it is to reveal awkward truths about the Bush administration. When Gen. Eric Shinseki told Congress that postwar Iraq would require a large occupation force, that was the end of his military career. When Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV revealed that the 2003 State of the Union speech contained information known to be false, someone in the White House destroyed his wife's career by revealing that she was a C.I.A. operative. And we now know that Richard Foster, the Medicare system's chief actuary, was threatened with dismissal if he revealed to Congress the likely cost of the administration's prescription drug plan.

The latest insider to come forth, of course, is Richard Clarke, George Bush's former counterterrorism czar and the author of the just-published "Against All Enemies."

On "60 Minutes" on Sunday, Mr. Clarke said the previously unsayable: that Mr. Bush, the self-proclaimed "war president," had "done a terrible job on the war against terrorism." After a few hours of shocked silence, the character assassination began. He "may have had a grudge to bear since he probably wanted a more prominent position," declared Dick Cheney, who also says that Mr. Clarke was "out of the loop." (What loop? Before 9/11, Mr. Clarke was the administration's top official on counterterrorism.) It's "more about politics and a book promotion than about policy," Scott McClellan said.

Of course, Bush officials have to attack Mr. Clarke's character because there is plenty of independent evidence confirming the thrust of his charges.

Did the Bush administration ignore terrorism warnings before 9/11? Justice Department documents obtained by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, show that it did. Not only did John Ashcroft completely drop terrorism as a priority — it wasn't even mentioned in his list of seven "strategic goals" — just one day before 9/11 he proposed a reduction in counterterrorism funds.

Did the administration neglect counterterrorism even after 9/11? After 9/11 the F.B.I. requested $1.5 billion for counterterrorism operations, but the White House slashed this by two-thirds. (Meanwhile, the Bush campaign has been attacking John Kerry because he once voted for a small cut in intelligence funds.)

Oh, and the next time terrorists launch an attack on American soil, they will find their task made much easier by the administration's strange reluctance, even after 9/11, to protect potential targets. In November 2001 a bipartisan delegation urged the president to spend about $10 billion on top-security priorities like ports and nuclear sites. But Mr. Bush flatly refused.

Finally, did some top officials really want to respond to 9/11 not by going after Al Qaeda, but by attacking Iraq? Of course they did. "From the very first moments after Sept. 11," Kenneth Pollack told "Frontline," "there was a group of people, both inside and outside the administration, who believed that the war on terrorism . . . should target Iraq first." Mr. Clarke simply adds more detail.

Still, the administration would like you to think that Mr. Clarke had base motives in writing his book. But given the hawks' dominance of the best-seller lists until last fall, it's unlikely that he wrote it for the money. Given the assumption by most political pundits, until very recently, that Mr. Bush was guaranteed re-election, it's unlikely that he wrote it in the hopes of getting a political job. And given the Bush administration's penchant for punishing its critics, he must have known that he was taking a huge personal risk.

So why did he write it? How about this: Maybe he just wanted the public to know the truth.  

E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com

Recent News: Is it Watergate or Filegate?

There's a story coming out of Washington that's eerily reminiscent of 30 years ago.

This escapade features an enterprising young congressional aide, wanting to make a good impression on his bosses. Knowing that (being Republican) dirty tricks wouldn't bother them, he spied over someone's shoulder as they logged in to their computer, and recorded exactly how they got access to thousands of confidential Democratic Party files.

Now, Watergate toppled a presidency and damaged, perhaps irrevocably, the American people's trust in political leaders.

Filegate was a tempest in a teapot that blew over and resulted in little damage to the presidency. (And for those of you who don't even remember Filegate, it was when some Clinton White House staffers requested FBI files on people needing White House access and mistakenly included some folks from the departed Bush Sr. Administration in their request...therefore being accused of spying on Republican staffers.)

Here's the latest in file-related scandals, and it reminds me of one of my favorite humorous statements of late: "Republicans will try any way to win except getting the most votes."

Now, beware, there is a lot of rampant stupidity to rail about in this story, and it's not all on the side of the Republicans. But if you can take a little ribbing, read on to the Extended Entry!

As promised, let me take a moment to chastise the Democratic Party for being really really amateurish and stupid. Some may call it naive, but at this point, haven't we learned to be more careful?

Apparently an "inexperienced coordinator" was put in charge of saving these documents in the computer and didn't properly save them in secure fashion. (That is to say...the documents were not even placed behind a password protected barrier.)

Okay, so we have literally thousands of documents, outlining exactly how the Democrats intend to go after Bush judicial nominees, among other things, and we give these to an "inexperienced coordinator"?

And, by the way...dude, if you're entering confidential documents in a computer, shouldn't you feel a bit like you're at an ATM and NOTICE someone looking over your shoulder.

I mean I'm trying to picture this, honestly, how "inexperienced" was this person?

I'm visualizing some Congressperson's elementary school-aged kid doing it because "these kids know more than us about computers these days, dagnabit."

I'm also quite curious how, after 18 MONTHS (!) of free rein with these documents, it ever came to light at all? How much do you want to bet the Republican spin-meisters leak some of the Democratic strategy and try to paint the Democrats as sneaky and underhanded?

Here's a capper that amuses me:

The report on this 18 month spying spree was supposed to leave out the names of those aides who started down this merry path, but a copy was "mistakenly released" with the names included.

I just finished reading Hillary Clinton's autobiography right now, and a lot of her explanations for various mini-scandals that came and went during the Clinton years are along the lines of...bureaucratic snafu or simple miscommunication.

I was starting to get a little suspicious of that explanation, thinking that this is Washington DC, surely the folks are a little more savvy than her explanations would have you believe.

Guess not.

A Great Link: The DNC Answers Back to Bush Ad

The Democratic National Committee has published a great response to Bush's initial campaign ads.

The ads seeks to position Bush as a leader in tough times, as the guy who's going to magically solve all the problems in his next term that he either caused, or did nothing about, in his first term.

The DNC's response picks apart every statement in the ads, showing the truth behind every empty promise.

Talk about saying one thing and doing another? That would be the specialty of George W. Bush, where the 'W' stands for 'Waffle'.

Go to this URL to download your own copy of the Truth Behind the Ads:

The DNC Itemized response to Bush Ads

Bush's Lies and Distortions

Another example; On May 25, 2003, Seth Borenstein in the San Jose Mercury News wrote: "On Sept. 13, 2000 presidential candidate George W. Bush posed before the Cascade Moutains in Washington state and...vowed to eliminate a $4.9 billion backlog in deferred maintenance. ... The budget for repairs at western parks overall was slashed 28% this month, in part to pay for a study...to see if park workers should be replaced with low-bid private contactors."

Also, take a look at these documents, comparing Bush's words with his actions on the economy, the deficit, and Iraq:

Honesty Day
Deficit Deception
Posted by sccdcc at 05:40 PM | Comments (1)