Friday, April 23, 2004
Putting aside Iraq, 9/11 and the Election…Important other stuff to consider
(1) Competitiveness:
Tom Friedman used to write admirable columns about the Middle East. It’s been a while since I’ve credited him with raising an issue.
The bottom line: we are actually in the middle of two struggles right now. One is against the Islamist terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere, and the other is a competitiveness-and-innovation struggle against India, China, Japan and their neighbors. And while we are all fixated on the former (I've been no exception), we are completely ignoring the latter. We have got to get our focus back in balance, not to mention our budget. We can't wage war on income taxes and terrorism and a war for innovation at the same time.
Craig Barrett, the C.E.O. of Intel, noted that Intel sponsors an international science competition every year. This year it attracted some 50,000 American high school kids. "I was in China 10 days ago," Mr. Barrett said, "and I asked them how many kids in China participated in the local science fairs that feed into the national fair [and ultimately the Intel finals]. They told me six million kids."
For now, the U.S. still excels at teaching science and engineering at the graduate level, and also in university research. But as the Chinese get more feeder stock coming up through their high schools and colleges, "they will get to the same level as us after a decade," Mr. Barrett said. "We are not graduating the volume, we do not have a lock on the infrastructure, we do not have a lock on the new ideas, and we are either flat-lining, or in real dollars cutting back, our investments in physical science."
And what is the Bush strategy? Let's go to Mars. Hello? http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/22/opinion/22FRIE.html
(2) North Korea- Nick Kristof:
Resolving this crisis is in the interests of virtually everybody on the planet, with two exceptions: President Bush and Mr. Kim. They may have nothing else in common, except that their fathers also ran their countries, but they do share an interest in delay.
Mr. Bush has his hands full with Iraq and doesn't want attention paid to the North Korean nuclear threat, which is substantially worsening on his watch. Mr. Kim figures that he may as well wait to see whether John Kerry is elected, and he'd also like to finish reprocessing the plutonium and enriching the uranium.
While the administration has steadily become more reasonable on North Korea, it still hasn't fully accepted the unpalatable truth: the only possible route out of this crisis is a grand bargain. Mr. Bush, who listened way too much to Mr. Cheney on the topic of Iraq, should reflect on something Mr. Cheney said on his China trip about negotiations over North Korea's nuclear programs: "Time is not necessarily on our side."http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/21/opinion/21KRIS.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists
(3) Employers Given Free Reign re Medicare coverage
Robert Pear’s report in today’s NY Times notes the import of this ruling by the Republican majority on the EEOC.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission voted Thursday to allow employers to reduce or eliminate health benefits for retirees when they become eligible for Medicare at age 65.
The agency approved a final rule saying that such cuts do not violate the civil rights law banning age discrimination. The vote was 3 to 1, with Republicans lining up in favor of the rule and a Democrat opposing it.
Employers and some labor unions supported the change, saying it would help preserve coverage for early retirees. But AARP, which represents millions of Americans age 50 and older, strenuously objected. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/23/politics/23RETI.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=
Middle East
Little is in our papers on a daily basis, but there is steady resolve and rage in other reports from the region. Al Jazeera was as kind as I could find, asserting that Bush is “oblivious of the outrage his support for Sharon has stoked, Bush urged world leaders to seize the moment to bridge their differences.” http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8F1E6440-6048-4E8D-A4E0-3A0E9F5C962C.htm
Bandar: We hear he’s very tight with Bush, Sr. and now is calling some shots with Junior. The New Yorker fleshes out the portrait.
He is a man of exuberant charm; he is also flashy, cunning, secretive, and, at times, ruthless (“a.k.a. ‘Mr. Smoothie’” is how the Times columnist William Safire has referred to him). Unlike most ambassadors, Bandar has unprecedented access to the President and to most senior American officials. On the night that we met in McLean, George Tenet, the director of the C.I.A., stopped by for a quick meeting, and when I visited Bandar last month he received a telephone call from Condoleezza Rice, Bush’s national-security adviser…. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030324fa_fact2
What’s Happening, Iraq:
The Mercenaries… I mean, the “Contractors”, security guys. Nicholas Von Hoffman leaves out the euphemisms.
Evidently, thousands of mercenaries have been put to work in Iraq, and this raises some troublesome questions. Is all this stuff we are fed on TV and in the newspapers about the new and democratic Iraqi Army and constabulary just lies? Why aren’t Iraqis guarding "bureaucrats, soldiers and intelligence officers"? Why aren’t soldiers guarding themselves?
Sooner or later, the American troops are going to find out about this. Is it going to occur to the young gung-ho guys, who volunteered right out of high school, that they are risking life and limb for chump change while other men (and probably a few women) with the same skill sets are getting rich? What will be the reaction of the middle-aged reservists and National Guard people serving for a few hundred dollars a month, at the risk of job and mortgage, when they find out about the thousands of mercenaries being paid a king’s ransom to do for money what they do for country? If there is a morale problem now, as these stories about suicides among our service people suggest, what, pray tell, will be the state of morale then?…
Not only does privatization not save money waging war, it creates problem after problem, only some of which are visible at this juncture. If captured, are these mercenaries prisoners of war and subject to the Geneva Convention, or can they licitly be shot as spies and saboteurs?
We know that there are thousands of mercenaries now loose in Iraq. Only some of them work for Blackwater. Apparently, there are a number of companies who hire these people, so the question arises about how much control the American authorities have over the irregulars running about the country. Dyncorp mercenaries in the former Yugoslavia were accused of rape and robbery. The point is that they are not subject to military discipline, and even if they commit no acts universally regarded as criminal, they may still do things that offend the Iraqis: They might drink alcohol, use insulting gestures, whistle at women or find a dozen ways to get into trouble doing things which are innocent enough if done in Indiana, but which are incendiary acts if done in Basra. http://www.newyorkobserver.com/pages/story.asp?ID=8944
Running Out of Money
It’s not been included in the budget, and they’ll want this off the books as well, I suppose. Jonathan Weisman of the Washington Post has the facts.
Intense combat in Iraq is chewing up military hardware and consuming money at an unexpectedly rapid rate -- depleting military coffers, straining defense contractors and putting pressure on Bush administration officials to seek a major boost in war funding long before they had hoped.
Since Congress approved an $87 billion defense request last year, the administration has steadfastly maintained that military forces in Iraq will be sufficiently funded until early next year. President Bush's budget request for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 included no money for Iraqi operations, and his budget director, Joshua B. Bolten, said no request would come until January at the earliest.
But military officials, defense contractors and members of Congress say that worsening U.S. fortunes in Iraq have dramatically changed the equation and more money will be needed soon. This comes as lawmakers, returning from their spring break, voice unease about the mounting violence and what they say is the lack of a clearly enunciated strategy for victory.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28903-2004Apr20?language=printer
Afghanistan Funds Used in Iraq. Another No-No
The question: Did the alleged transfer, noted in Woodward’s book violate not only Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution which vests the power of the purse with Congress, but also specific federal statutes? Blogger David Sirota, who makes appearances on Al Franken’s show, comments
Since Bob Woodward disclosed that President Bush in July of 2002 diverted $700 million into Iraq invasion planning without informing Congress, the Bush Administration has failed to provide one shred of evidence to rebuff the charge. According to Woodward, Bush kept Congress "totally in the dark on this” leaving lawmakers with "no real knowledge or involvement." Not only does the Constitution vest the power of the purse with Congress, but whichever of the two supplemental bills the President drew the money from had explicit language obligating him to inform key congressional leaders. Instead of opening an investigation, White House allies on Capitol Hill actually told USA Today that the move was acceptable because "the $700 million was small compared" with the overall spending bills. Here is a look at the provisions in the only two supplemental bills that Congress passed between 9/11 and July 2002, and thus which Bush could have gotten the money from:
- BUSH REQUIRED TO TELL CONGRESS, IF DREW FUNDS FROM THE 9/11 SUPPLEMENTAL: While the President was given discretion to direct $10 billion of the post-9/11 Emergency Supplemental bill, the legislation specifically obligated the President to "consult with the chairmen and ranking minority members of the Committees on Appropriations prior to the transfer" of any funds. In other words, the President was obligated to tell key congressional leaders of both parties anytime he moved money. [Source: Text of HR 2888, Post-9/11 Emergency Appropriations, 9/14/01]
- BUSH DELIBERATELY USED VAGUE LANGUAGE IN DOCUMENTS TO HIDE SECRET MOVE: The White House issued two legally mandated updates to Congress about where the 9/14/01 supplemental funds were being spent. Both covered portions of the time Bush made his $700 million order. But in these documents, instead of telling Congress money was going to Iraq, the White House deliberately used vague and evasive language. For instance, in both of its updates to the Appropriations Committee, the Administration only said it had used monies for "increased situational awareness" and "increased worldwide posture" – and did not mention Iraq at all. [Source: OMB Notification, 8/9/02 & 10/17/02]
http://www.davidsirota.com/blogarchive/2004_04_18_davidsirota_archive.html#108250001704787023
Public Pessimism on Terror:
Half of those surveyed in the AP-Ipsos poll said they have concerns that terrorists may be winning, and a fifth of those polled felt strongly that is the case.
“Terrorists are winning the war for the hearts and minds of the people in the Mideast,” said Christine Wyatt, a 52-year-old church deacon in Clarkston, Mich. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4805575/
Why is Bush Doing So Well? (continued)
Last blog noted the maddening reality of Bush going up in polls despite all the bad news. Richard Cohen adds his take:
Why? Well, in the first place, it's hard to envisage things getting even worse for Bush. The past month should have been ruinous, and yet the president not only survived, he thrived. Explanations abound for this state of affairs. Some credit the Democrats on the Sept. 11 commission for being too partisan and thus eliciting support for Bush, much as Republican zealots once proved so helpful to Bill Clinton.
Maybe. More likely though, and certainly more important, is the $41 million the Bush campaign spent on television ads in March alone. They defined Kerry as a man who gives wishy-washy a bad name -- or who has been an unceasing advocate of tax increases, such as the one on gasoline he once suggested, although he never introduced a bill to that effect. Never mind. It still made Kerry look like a jerk. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32840-2004Apr21.html
The view of Josh Marshall, noted blogger, again in today’s Times
In wars abroad, Americans don't want their presidents to fail.
In part that's because a failure for the president is a failure for the nation. Indeed, the logic may apply with more force in cases like Iraq, in which the president has cast the nation on what is essentially a war of choice. To admit that the president blew it is to say the same of the public that followed him into the conflict. And like its leaders, the public not only doesn't like admitting it was wrong, but it will go to great lengths to avoid doing so.
The danger for President Bush is clear: the public's patience is not unlimited, and eventual failure in Iraq will almost certainly sink his candidacy. (Sometimes the conventional wisdom is actually right.)
For John Kerry, the risks are less obvious but no less real: running a campaign that focuses the voters' gaze solely on the president's manifest failures will probably run into resistance, especially with the voters he most needs to win over, those from the ambivalent middle. Mr. Kerry is far more likely to win if he has a plan to show how he — and thus the American people — can succeed rather than simply showing how President Bush — and thus they — have failed. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/23/opinion/23MARS.html
Dumbed Down America:
Always a factor to consider. A Harris Poll reinforces the sense that way too much of this country is profoundly ignorant and unthinking, i.e. ready and willing to absorb the Big Lie from the Administration.
-- A 51% to 38% majority continues to believe that "Iraq actually had weapons of mass destruction," virtually unchanged since February.
-- A 49% to 36% plurality of all adults continues to believe that "clear evidence that Iraq was supporting Al Qaeda has been found." These numbers have scarcely changed since June 2003.
-- A 51% to 43% plurality continues to believe that "intelligence given before the war to President Bush by the CIA and others about Iraqi's weapons of mass destruction" was "completely" or "somewhat" accurate. In February a 50% to 45% plurality believed this.
-- While a 43% plurality believes that the "U.S. government deliberately exaggerated the reports of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to increase support for war," a 50% plurality (also virtually unchanged over the last eight months) continues to believe that the government "tried to present the information accurately." http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-21-2004/0002156598&EDATE=
Election Formula: EJ Dionne boils it down:
The Bush campaign wants to recreate the dynamic of 2002 and render criticism of Bush's anti-terror policies illegitimate and unpatriotic. Kerry wants Bush held accountable for the decisions he made. The side that wins this definitional war is likely to win the election. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25791-2004Apr19.html http://www.workingforchange.com/printitem.cfm?itemid=16797
Compassion from the Republicans.
They’re trying to trap the Dems, pushing legislation that will purportedly aid soldiers on unexpectedly long tours of duty--by dipping into their retirement savings without tax penalties. How touching!! Inadequate body armor, Humvees without armor, lengthened tours in a war of choice, inadequate pay, but at least they won’t be penalized by the IRS!! And if the Dems oppose this bill, they’re clearly not supportive of the troops.
``That is a really pathetic gesture,'' said John Tanner, D-Tenn. ``Active duty guard and reservists and their families are the only people in this country who have been asked to sacrifice anything, anything whatsoever.''
Employers are not required to pay workers activated to duty, nor do they have to continue providing health insurance and other benefits. Employers are required to give the same or equal job to the soldier when active duty ends. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Taxes-Military.html
Touch Screen Voting: A Note of Progress
AP report (Jim Wasserman) that is promising, but just a drop…
California should ban the use of 15,000 touch-screen voting machines made by Diebold Election Systems from the Nov. 2 general election, an advisory panel to Secretary of State Kevin Shelley recommended Thursday.
By an 8-0 vote, the state's Voting Systems and Procedures Panel recommended that Shelley cease the use of the machines, saying that Texas-based Diebold has performed poorly in California and its machines malfunctioned in the state's March 2 primary election, turning away many voters in San Diego County.
The recommendation affects 15,000 Diebold touch-screen machines in San Diego, Solano, Kern and San Joaquin counties. http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20040422-1251-ca-electronicvoting.html
-R
(1) Competitiveness:
Tom Friedman used to write admirable columns about the Middle East. It’s been a while since I’ve credited him with raising an issue.
The bottom line: we are actually in the middle of two struggles right now. One is against the Islamist terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere, and the other is a competitiveness-and-innovation struggle against India, China, Japan and their neighbors. And while we are all fixated on the former (I've been no exception), we are completely ignoring the latter. We have got to get our focus back in balance, not to mention our budget. We can't wage war on income taxes and terrorism and a war for innovation at the same time.
Craig Barrett, the C.E.O. of Intel, noted that Intel sponsors an international science competition every year. This year it attracted some 50,000 American high school kids. "I was in China 10 days ago," Mr. Barrett said, "and I asked them how many kids in China participated in the local science fairs that feed into the national fair [and ultimately the Intel finals]. They told me six million kids."
For now, the U.S. still excels at teaching science and engineering at the graduate level, and also in university research. But as the Chinese get more feeder stock coming up through their high schools and colleges, "they will get to the same level as us after a decade," Mr. Barrett said. "We are not graduating the volume, we do not have a lock on the infrastructure, we do not have a lock on the new ideas, and we are either flat-lining, or in real dollars cutting back, our investments in physical science."
And what is the Bush strategy? Let's go to Mars. Hello? http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/22/opinion/22FRIE.html
(2) North Korea- Nick Kristof:
Resolving this crisis is in the interests of virtually everybody on the planet, with two exceptions: President Bush and Mr. Kim. They may have nothing else in common, except that their fathers also ran their countries, but they do share an interest in delay.
Mr. Bush has his hands full with Iraq and doesn't want attention paid to the North Korean nuclear threat, which is substantially worsening on his watch. Mr. Kim figures that he may as well wait to see whether John Kerry is elected, and he'd also like to finish reprocessing the plutonium and enriching the uranium.
While the administration has steadily become more reasonable on North Korea, it still hasn't fully accepted the unpalatable truth: the only possible route out of this crisis is a grand bargain. Mr. Bush, who listened way too much to Mr. Cheney on the topic of Iraq, should reflect on something Mr. Cheney said on his China trip about negotiations over North Korea's nuclear programs: "Time is not necessarily on our side."http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/21/opinion/21KRIS.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists
(3) Employers Given Free Reign re Medicare coverage
Robert Pear’s report in today’s NY Times notes the import of this ruling by the Republican majority on the EEOC.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission voted Thursday to allow employers to reduce or eliminate health benefits for retirees when they become eligible for Medicare at age 65.
The agency approved a final rule saying that such cuts do not violate the civil rights law banning age discrimination. The vote was 3 to 1, with Republicans lining up in favor of the rule and a Democrat opposing it.
Employers and some labor unions supported the change, saying it would help preserve coverage for early retirees. But AARP, which represents millions of Americans age 50 and older, strenuously objected. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/23/politics/23RETI.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=
Middle East
Little is in our papers on a daily basis, but there is steady resolve and rage in other reports from the region. Al Jazeera was as kind as I could find, asserting that Bush is “oblivious of the outrage his support for Sharon has stoked, Bush urged world leaders to seize the moment to bridge their differences.” http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8F1E6440-6048-4E8D-A4E0-3A0E9F5C962C.htm
Bandar: We hear he’s very tight with Bush, Sr. and now is calling some shots with Junior. The New Yorker fleshes out the portrait.
He is a man of exuberant charm; he is also flashy, cunning, secretive, and, at times, ruthless (“a.k.a. ‘Mr. Smoothie’” is how the Times columnist William Safire has referred to him). Unlike most ambassadors, Bandar has unprecedented access to the President and to most senior American officials. On the night that we met in McLean, George Tenet, the director of the C.I.A., stopped by for a quick meeting, and when I visited Bandar last month he received a telephone call from Condoleezza Rice, Bush’s national-security adviser…. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030324fa_fact2
What’s Happening, Iraq:
The Mercenaries… I mean, the “Contractors”, security guys. Nicholas Von Hoffman leaves out the euphemisms.
Evidently, thousands of mercenaries have been put to work in Iraq, and this raises some troublesome questions. Is all this stuff we are fed on TV and in the newspapers about the new and democratic Iraqi Army and constabulary just lies? Why aren’t Iraqis guarding "bureaucrats, soldiers and intelligence officers"? Why aren’t soldiers guarding themselves?
Sooner or later, the American troops are going to find out about this. Is it going to occur to the young gung-ho guys, who volunteered right out of high school, that they are risking life and limb for chump change while other men (and probably a few women) with the same skill sets are getting rich? What will be the reaction of the middle-aged reservists and National Guard people serving for a few hundred dollars a month, at the risk of job and mortgage, when they find out about the thousands of mercenaries being paid a king’s ransom to do for money what they do for country? If there is a morale problem now, as these stories about suicides among our service people suggest, what, pray tell, will be the state of morale then?…
Not only does privatization not save money waging war, it creates problem after problem, only some of which are visible at this juncture. If captured, are these mercenaries prisoners of war and subject to the Geneva Convention, or can they licitly be shot as spies and saboteurs?
We know that there are thousands of mercenaries now loose in Iraq. Only some of them work for Blackwater. Apparently, there are a number of companies who hire these people, so the question arises about how much control the American authorities have over the irregulars running about the country. Dyncorp mercenaries in the former Yugoslavia were accused of rape and robbery. The point is that they are not subject to military discipline, and even if they commit no acts universally regarded as criminal, they may still do things that offend the Iraqis: They might drink alcohol, use insulting gestures, whistle at women or find a dozen ways to get into trouble doing things which are innocent enough if done in Indiana, but which are incendiary acts if done in Basra. http://www.newyorkobserver.com/pages/story.asp?ID=8944
Running Out of Money
It’s not been included in the budget, and they’ll want this off the books as well, I suppose. Jonathan Weisman of the Washington Post has the facts.
Intense combat in Iraq is chewing up military hardware and consuming money at an unexpectedly rapid rate -- depleting military coffers, straining defense contractors and putting pressure on Bush administration officials to seek a major boost in war funding long before they had hoped.
Since Congress approved an $87 billion defense request last year, the administration has steadfastly maintained that military forces in Iraq will be sufficiently funded until early next year. President Bush's budget request for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 included no money for Iraqi operations, and his budget director, Joshua B. Bolten, said no request would come until January at the earliest.
But military officials, defense contractors and members of Congress say that worsening U.S. fortunes in Iraq have dramatically changed the equation and more money will be needed soon. This comes as lawmakers, returning from their spring break, voice unease about the mounting violence and what they say is the lack of a clearly enunciated strategy for victory.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28903-2004Apr20?language=printer
Afghanistan Funds Used in Iraq. Another No-No
The question: Did the alleged transfer, noted in Woodward’s book violate not only Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution which vests the power of the purse with Congress, but also specific federal statutes? Blogger David Sirota, who makes appearances on Al Franken’s show, comments
Since Bob Woodward disclosed that President Bush in July of 2002 diverted $700 million into Iraq invasion planning without informing Congress, the Bush Administration has failed to provide one shred of evidence to rebuff the charge. According to Woodward, Bush kept Congress "totally in the dark on this” leaving lawmakers with "no real knowledge or involvement." Not only does the Constitution vest the power of the purse with Congress, but whichever of the two supplemental bills the President drew the money from had explicit language obligating him to inform key congressional leaders. Instead of opening an investigation, White House allies on Capitol Hill actually told USA Today that the move was acceptable because "the $700 million was small compared" with the overall spending bills. Here is a look at the provisions in the only two supplemental bills that Congress passed between 9/11 and July 2002, and thus which Bush could have gotten the money from:
- BUSH REQUIRED TO TELL CONGRESS, IF DREW FUNDS FROM THE 9/11 SUPPLEMENTAL: While the President was given discretion to direct $10 billion of the post-9/11 Emergency Supplemental bill, the legislation specifically obligated the President to "consult with the chairmen and ranking minority members of the Committees on Appropriations prior to the transfer" of any funds. In other words, the President was obligated to tell key congressional leaders of both parties anytime he moved money. [Source: Text of HR 2888, Post-9/11 Emergency Appropriations, 9/14/01]
- BUSH DELIBERATELY USED VAGUE LANGUAGE IN DOCUMENTS TO HIDE SECRET MOVE: The White House issued two legally mandated updates to Congress about where the 9/14/01 supplemental funds were being spent. Both covered portions of the time Bush made his $700 million order. But in these documents, instead of telling Congress money was going to Iraq, the White House deliberately used vague and evasive language. For instance, in both of its updates to the Appropriations Committee, the Administration only said it had used monies for "increased situational awareness" and "increased worldwide posture" – and did not mention Iraq at all. [Source: OMB Notification, 8/9/02 & 10/17/02]
http://www.davidsirota.com/blogarchive/2004_04_18_davidsirota_archive.html#108250001704787023
Public Pessimism on Terror:
Half of those surveyed in the AP-Ipsos poll said they have concerns that terrorists may be winning, and a fifth of those polled felt strongly that is the case.
“Terrorists are winning the war for the hearts and minds of the people in the Mideast,” said Christine Wyatt, a 52-year-old church deacon in Clarkston, Mich. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4805575/
Why is Bush Doing So Well? (continued)
Last blog noted the maddening reality of Bush going up in polls despite all the bad news. Richard Cohen adds his take:
Why? Well, in the first place, it's hard to envisage things getting even worse for Bush. The past month should have been ruinous, and yet the president not only survived, he thrived. Explanations abound for this state of affairs. Some credit the Democrats on the Sept. 11 commission for being too partisan and thus eliciting support for Bush, much as Republican zealots once proved so helpful to Bill Clinton.
Maybe. More likely though, and certainly more important, is the $41 million the Bush campaign spent on television ads in March alone. They defined Kerry as a man who gives wishy-washy a bad name -- or who has been an unceasing advocate of tax increases, such as the one on gasoline he once suggested, although he never introduced a bill to that effect. Never mind. It still made Kerry look like a jerk. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32840-2004Apr21.html
The view of Josh Marshall, noted blogger, again in today’s Times
In wars abroad, Americans don't want their presidents to fail.
In part that's because a failure for the president is a failure for the nation. Indeed, the logic may apply with more force in cases like Iraq, in which the president has cast the nation on what is essentially a war of choice. To admit that the president blew it is to say the same of the public that followed him into the conflict. And like its leaders, the public not only doesn't like admitting it was wrong, but it will go to great lengths to avoid doing so.
The danger for President Bush is clear: the public's patience is not unlimited, and eventual failure in Iraq will almost certainly sink his candidacy. (Sometimes the conventional wisdom is actually right.)
For John Kerry, the risks are less obvious but no less real: running a campaign that focuses the voters' gaze solely on the president's manifest failures will probably run into resistance, especially with the voters he most needs to win over, those from the ambivalent middle. Mr. Kerry is far more likely to win if he has a plan to show how he — and thus the American people — can succeed rather than simply showing how President Bush — and thus they — have failed. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/23/opinion/23MARS.html
Dumbed Down America:
Always a factor to consider. A Harris Poll reinforces the sense that way too much of this country is profoundly ignorant and unthinking, i.e. ready and willing to absorb the Big Lie from the Administration.
-- A 51% to 38% majority continues to believe that "Iraq actually had weapons of mass destruction," virtually unchanged since February.
-- A 49% to 36% plurality of all adults continues to believe that "clear evidence that Iraq was supporting Al Qaeda has been found." These numbers have scarcely changed since June 2003.
-- A 51% to 43% plurality continues to believe that "intelligence given before the war to President Bush by the CIA and others about Iraqi's weapons of mass destruction" was "completely" or "somewhat" accurate. In February a 50% to 45% plurality believed this.
-- While a 43% plurality believes that the "U.S. government deliberately exaggerated the reports of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to increase support for war," a 50% plurality (also virtually unchanged over the last eight months) continues to believe that the government "tried to present the information accurately." http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-21-2004/0002156598&EDATE=
Election Formula: EJ Dionne boils it down:
The Bush campaign wants to recreate the dynamic of 2002 and render criticism of Bush's anti-terror policies illegitimate and unpatriotic. Kerry wants Bush held accountable for the decisions he made. The side that wins this definitional war is likely to win the election. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25791-2004Apr19.html http://www.workingforchange.com/printitem.cfm?itemid=16797
Compassion from the Republicans.
They’re trying to trap the Dems, pushing legislation that will purportedly aid soldiers on unexpectedly long tours of duty--by dipping into their retirement savings without tax penalties. How touching!! Inadequate body armor, Humvees without armor, lengthened tours in a war of choice, inadequate pay, but at least they won’t be penalized by the IRS!! And if the Dems oppose this bill, they’re clearly not supportive of the troops.
``That is a really pathetic gesture,'' said John Tanner, D-Tenn. ``Active duty guard and reservists and their families are the only people in this country who have been asked to sacrifice anything, anything whatsoever.''
Employers are not required to pay workers activated to duty, nor do they have to continue providing health insurance and other benefits. Employers are required to give the same or equal job to the soldier when active duty ends. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Taxes-Military.html
Touch Screen Voting: A Note of Progress
AP report (Jim Wasserman) that is promising, but just a drop…
California should ban the use of 15,000 touch-screen voting machines made by Diebold Election Systems from the Nov. 2 general election, an advisory panel to Secretary of State Kevin Shelley recommended Thursday.
By an 8-0 vote, the state's Voting Systems and Procedures Panel recommended that Shelley cease the use of the machines, saying that Texas-based Diebold has performed poorly in California and its machines malfunctioned in the state's March 2 primary election, turning away many voters in San Diego County.
The recommendation affects 15,000 Diebold touch-screen machines in San Diego, Solano, Kern and San Joaquin counties. http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20040422-1251-ca-electronicvoting.html
-R
