Does this look like the behavior of a smart operator? I have to say it looks more like the work of a pinhead.
Wild Bill
I Heart Kerry
Tonight, Digby writes:
Zen MasterI have felt the same way for quite some time, and I think that some of the other criticisms of Kerry (which, unfortunately, have manifested as concerns about Kerry on the Left), are patently false. When I see footage of him interacting with a crowd, I think he comes across as extremely likeable, and better than that, he comes across as genuinely liking the people he's with.
Kos called Kerry that tonight and I think it's true. The guy just has a sense of inner confidence and centeredness that is very reassuring. He is a mature, fully realized human being. I think that peopole had forgotten that this is something we can expect in our leaders. It's with a strong sense of relief that I watch him in action and see him prevail.I would bet that by Friday the conventional wisdom will be that Kerry won all three debates. And the CW, for once, will be right. The next two weeks are going to be a wild ride, but the wind is at our backs. I think it's time for Democrats to start giving our man Kerry a little bit of credit. He's a very impressive politician and a very impressive man. Cool under fire, smart as a whip and hard as nails. Some months back I wrote that Kerry has been fighting the right since he was a very young man and may be the best qualified man in America for these times. I think I was right. He's the right man at the right time to set this country back on course. I'm proud to be voting for him.For the first time since 9/11, I am feeling a little bit zenlike myself. We're going to win.
I also believe his inability to be succinctly articulate has been overblown. Yes, he’s bungled through things that should have been easier, but there have been just as many times that I've heard him deliver a line clearly and concisely, and - most importantly - with an honesty that stands in stark contrast to Furious George.
I remember the moment when I first really started liking John Kerry, and it was that moment that he was caught on film (and on mic) when he thought he wasn't being broadcast. He called the Bush administration (I'm paraphrasing) the biggest bunch of liars and thieves he'd ever seen. I felt good knowing that he believed that. I was reassured to know he wanted them out just as much as he wanted in, and for the right reasons. I like John Kerry a lot, and I'm proud to be voting for him, too.
Bush Lies About Osama
From the White House website (until they take it down):
Q: But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.
(Emphasis added.)
Kerry: 3-0
Despite the fact that I spent the better part of the hour and a half trying to decide if I was more revolted by the glob of spittle clinging to the corner of Furious George's mouth or the policies he tried to stumblingly articulate through said globbed-up piehole, I did manage to pay attention to the content of the debate.
First thoughts: This was by far the most even match-up, but Kerry definitely won, mainly through less evasion of questions. Bush's mantra that education is somehow the cure-all for all of society's ills was tiresome and repetitive. It made him sound desperate, and his domestic platform ring hollow, which is pretty much on the mark.
Education is imperative, but it is not even remotely a panacea for the multitude of problems facing this nation, not the least of which is un- and underemployment. Some poor guy in (here I will carefully insert a swing state, since the rest of us don't exist according to both candidates) Ohio who was two years away from retirement isn't going to agree that education is the solution to unemployment. He's knows community college won't solve his problems, because he's smart enough to know that the chances of his getting hired in an entry level position at his age are unlikely at best, and he waved bye-bye long ago to any (dubious) help that could be afforded by No Child Behind. Bush has no plan for the real people out there who are getting laid off, and it showed.
Additionally, Bush certainly didn't ingratiate himself with his economic plans to someone like me, who has no children and therefore gets no relief from a 'child tax credit' or a 'tuition tax credit,' and who has paid into Social Security for half my life, only to hear it will be effectively dismantled during his next term, should his deal with Satan ensure him one. What does he say to the not-young and not-old about how they'll never see a dime of what they've already put into Social Security? Am I to be expected to replace the money that has come out of my paycheck all these years with money that I put into the accounts he's proposing that are essentially glorified IRAs? I can't afford to contribute the maximum amounts to my IRA now, no less somehow manage to fund it in a way that would make up for the loss of the money I've contributed thus far to Social Security.
Ditto with his asinine health savings accounts. If I had $5,000 to put away every year just in case, I'd be doing it already, tax-free or not. I don't, so his little HSA proposal is falling on broke ears.
And the thing is, I'm not remotely destitute. There are people in the community in which I live - people who probably hear the words 'ownership society' and think it sounds great; people who might vote for Bush - who are much worse off than myself, and it frightens me to think that they may very well vote against their own best interests because of Bush's ability to shine up a turd.
At the Corner of 1st and Amendment
I almost forgot - today was Freeway Free Speech Day! Check out some of the awesome freeway blogs posted around the country here. (There are four pages worth of pictures; some of them are truly outstanding.)
Rageaholics
I've had no internet access all day, but the big news story seems to be the voter fraud in Las Vegas, and Mr. Furious has covered that nicely. Also, Salon has some more news on Bush's Bulge.
Ohhhh, Snap!
Slate’s Timothy Noah lays out his recommendations for watching tonight’s debate:
Tonight, whenever either candidate mentions a domestic-policy proposal, ask yourself the following question: "Will this cost the government a lot of money?" If the answer is "yes," feel free to tune out discussion of the proposal's substance…
Instead of trying to master the details of complicated new proposed initiatives, focus on the following question: Which of these guys will do a better job cleaning up the horrible fiscal mess left behind by President Bush's first term? Because, when you get down to it, that's the only honest job description for the domestic-policy part of this gig…
Another is to see if you can identify which candidate even recognizes that there's a mess to clean up. Come to think of it, that isn't a bad method for sizing up the foreign-policy debate part of this job, either.
GOP Committing Voter Fraud!!!!
First Sinclair, now this! This is very big news and should be reported in all media. If Kerry's camp were pulling this, it would be on every headline and he would be toast. This is the extremely far-reaching sinister network we're up against. Very chilling.
Information on the voter registration fraud stories breaking in Nevada and Oregon: Nathan Sproul of Sproul & Associates in Phoenix, Arizona. Nathan Sproul is the former head of the Arizona Republican Party and of the Arizona Christian Coalition. Sproul is connected with the Republican National Committee-funded voter registration organization, Voter Outreach, Inc., a group that used paid registrars to register voters in a number of states including Nevada, Oregon, Arizona and perhaps more, including Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maine and Missouri. Sproul's organization also recruited registrars by fraudulently telling recruits that they would be working for America Votes, a legitimate nonpartisan GOTV operation!
In Nevada, Sproul & his team were caught throwing new voter registration cards in the garbage (Democrats only), so that Dems who think they are registered will find out when they get to the polls that they are not. Of course, the registration deadline for them has now expired.
For a more detailed info round-up, go to: http://dailykos.com/story/2004/10/13/32821/029
Perplexed by Puppets: Team America, World Police
As many people are aware, Team America: World Police starts this Friday. It is from Trey Parker & Matt Stone, the creators of South Park. I happened to see the sneak preview last weekend. I have been a big fan of South Park for several years. While sometimes the politics of that show lean to the right, it has also presented leftist views, and manages to pretty ridicule everyone – Jews, Christians, gays, straights, the disabled, etc. Those looking for polite, PC humor need not turn to South Park, Team America, or any other entertainment produced by Parker and Stone.
That said, I was a bit perplexed upon viewing the new film. Of course, I expected crude irreverent un-PC humor, which it delivered, and I laughed through much of the movie. However, I found that the critique targeted the left too heavily and left the right pretty much unscathed. For instance, there is the band of liberal Hollywood actors called the Film Actors Guild (F.A.G. – sigh!) which teams up with Kim Jong Il for a “peace conference” only to get obliterated by Il and Team America.
And while I honestly believe that the movie is most likely meant to make fun of both sides - the ultra macho/but ultimately damaging "fuck yeah" attitude of Bush & co., as well as the self righteous whining of actors like Sean Penn - they should have skewered specific right wing personalities like Anne Coulter, or had a Bush puppet get blown up (how do you include Kim Jong Il in a satire of the war on terror but not Bush?). It is clear that they went out of their way to mock the unilateral war-mongering ways of the US, showing the team destroying ancient artifacts, museums, landmarks, and entire towns just to stop a couple terrorists with blinking suitcases, horrifying the civilians more than doing any good (a critique of the Iraq war?). But this critique of the right wing US is too obtuse and not nearly as pointed as the many critiques of the left and their peacenik hysteria. Because of this, liberals can walk away from this movie with plenty to be offended over, but conservatives may mistakenly and unironically adopt “America: Fuck Yeah!” as a patriotic theme song instead of the tongue in cheek satire it is meant to be.
This having been said, Team America is a great satire of the typical Jerry Bruckheimer/Armageddon-type Hollywood action flick. Parker and Stone know their stuff and they mock every cliché – the training montage, the tough guy one-liner, the sex scene in the midst of chaos, the hero’s touching backstory – it’s all there and it’s funny. For what it’s worth, the duo has said in interviews that they made the film with the intention of mocking these Hollywood films. It was originally meant to be a spoof of the goofy environmental disaster film The Day After Tomorrow. The politics of Team America seem to be an after thought. It has been said that South Park represents a "hip" new subversive form of Republicanism, with many fans calling themselves “South Park Republicans.” Certainly, the message can be culled from various episodes. But Parker and Stone seem to lean toward libertarianism more than anything else. They have called themselves “middle of the road guys” and many of their views do not mesh with the conservative mindset.
For image-conscious liberals who think any negative portrayal of a liberal in the media is a conspiracy (I admit I often have that reaction myself), it might be hard to watch themselves being mocked. They might be scared that the only message young people will take from this movie is that liberals and terrorists should be killed indiscriminately, a fear which I think is valid. Whether or not Parker and Stone want to accept the responsibility, media images are powerful, and young minds are malleable, and Team America does not send a good message for the uncritical eye.
However, at a certain point, I think we all need to lighten up. Parker & Stone have made a fortune out of not giving a shit, and enjoying getting a rise out of people. That is their schtick. Maybe we think it’s irresponsible but that's what they do. To them, Team America is meant to be unabashed, bipartisan, unPC fun, and nothing more. I’m not saying I agree with that, nor am I trying to serve as an apologist for their twisted politics. I honestly still don’t know how I feel about this movie. I laughed despite myself. I felt guilty afterward, like when you automatically laugh at an unPC joke. I do feel, though, that if right-wingers use this film as pro-war propaganda (which they will do), I think they're just falling into the same trap the liberals are when they get up in arms about the anti-liberal content. To me, Parker and Stone are not so much conservatives as they are political pranksters playing a joke on everyone.
There's a good discussion of Team America at this link: http://dailykos.com/story/2004/10/11/1463/0260.
Jadoo-doo
Matthew Yglesias reports:
and:[I]t turns out that through [Sinclair Broadcast Group's] wholly owned subsidiary Sinclair Ventures, Inc., SBC is a major investor in a company called Jadoo Power ystems which has won some major military contracts during the Bush years. Defense contracts aside, as Fortune has reported, "Jadoo's biggest coup came after President George W. Bush touted hydrogen as an alternative to foreign oil in his State of the Union speech last January . . . The startup got some unexpected free publicity when Bush held a TV camera using one of Jadoo's lightweight fuel cells on his shoulder as media photographers captured the moment. Jadoo plans to begin selling such batteries to the broadcast market early next year."
Bush gives "unexpected free publicity" to a Sinclair subsidiary, Sinclair gives a little unexpected free publicity to John Kerry's opponents. One hand washes the other.
Another Sinclair Ventures company, VisionAIR, seems to have gotten into the federal contracting business recently. And, conveniently enough, when the Justice Department issued some new rules for contractors in August, VisionAIR was able to happily announce that they were already compliant with the new standards, so it's nothing but less competition for them. Not as fortunate as unexpected free publicity, perhaps, but lucky just the same.How utterly and completely unsurprising.
Look Back in Anger
Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas has a new column at the Guardian that takes an interesting look at how the Right's portrayals of "angry" Dems are coming back to bite Furious George in his angry ass.
Kos recalls the casting of Howard Dean and Al Gore:
Bush's political operators have worked overtime to make "angry" a pejorative term this political cycle. They wielded the "too angry" attack against Howard Dean in the primaries, when it seemed Dean would be the Democratic nominee, and it helped destroy Dean's candidacy. Republicans again shouted "too angry" to discredit Al Gore's series of impassioned anti-Bush speeches earlier this year.
The "too angry" claims successfully marginalized the content of those speeches - blistering indictments of an incompetent administration.
What Kos fails to explicitly mention is that once the Bushies had successfully tagged Dean and Gore as angry, Part Two of their plan went into motion. The anger was indicative of something even worse, according to the Right. Dean and Gore weren't just angry; they were off balance.
Here's Joseph Farah from the always-reliable WorldNetDaily in an article titled "Gore mentally unstable":
Had the Constitution called for direct election of the president of the United States, a clearly mentally unstable man would be sitting in the Oval Office right now.
That's my conclusion after watching, listening to and reading Al Gore's speech to the Moveon.org-New York University crowd this week.
The man is unhinged. He's deranged. He's unbalanced. He had better get out of New York as quickly as he can because, as Ralph Kramden would say, "Bellevue is calling."...
Somebody get this guy a sedative. I really believe he needs medical and psychiatric help. Throw a net over this man before he does any further harm to this nation.
The talking heads at Fox News, the radio personalities, and all the other usual suspects did their parts in creating the "Al Gore is crazy" echo chamber, rhetorically asking if he "has gone off his meds" and consistently associating his "anger" with the possibility that he had lost his mind. (A comprehensive collection can be found at Media Matters here.)
Howard Dean was also castigated for being somehow touched in the head, with articles like "Conservative leader calls Dean too 'mentally unstable' to be president" popping up and his temperament becoming useful fodder for late-night television:
"Cows in Iowa are afraid of getting mad Dean disease....It's always a bad sign when at the end of your speech, your aide is shooting you with a tranquilizer gun." - Jay Leno
"Dean is a doctor, but he acts more like a postal worker." - Jay Leno
"Did you see Howard Dean ranting and raving? Here's a little tip Howard - cut back on the Red Bull." - David Letterman
By the time all was said and done, the notion that Al Gore and Howard Dean had lost their minds was complete. That was the real intended result of the "angry" accusations - not just to paint them as angry, because then voters might want to know what they were so angry about - but to associate that anger with instability. An angry candidate is a viable candidate, if he's angry for a reason, but an irrational candidate doesn't have a chance.
That's what the Bushies depended on, and now they're hoping that the constituency that once happily cheered the demise of the crazed, angry Democrats won't worry that their fearless leader's recent shows of anger aren't symptomatic of something a bit more...scary. I wouldn't count on it, though. They've trained the monkeys well.
Celebrity Round-up
From Salon's The Fix:
Add Roseanne to the list of celebrities taking aim at Dr. Phil. And in typical Roseanne fashion, she's not holding back one little bit. "I want to go on record and say that I hate Dr. Phil and I would fight a grudge match with him if I were a wrestler," she says. "Dr. Phil is just a used car salesman with barnyard psychology ... He's a fat slob talking about how to lose weight. Who wants to hear that? . . . I just hate Dr. Phil and his wife! ... He's just so stupid and the cause of the dumbing down of America ... He's just a huckster used car salesman, scam artist . . . I'd like to knock the [bleep] out of him! Dr. Phil is Hitler! I think he's Hitler reincarnated! When Dr. Phil and his wife had President Bush and his wife on their show, it was probably the scariest thing ever seen on television." (Steppin' Out magazine via Page Six)
and:
Jake Gyllenhaal on how to reach young voters: "Voter registration forms need to be places where young people are going to see them ... [Like on] pornography and cigarettes and condoms -- places where they can't miss them. Things young people actually buy." (Rush and Molloy)
Articles of Note
Scott D. O’Reilly explores why Bush’s opposition to stem cell research is ethically unwise and scientifically unsound in Intervention Magazine.
Deborah Tannen looks at Furious George’s inability to apologize or acknowledge mistakes in the New York Times.
And good article on our hero, the Freeway Blogger, here.
Lies and the Lying Liars...
Paul Krugman at the New York times prepares for the next debate by predicting the lies we’ll hear from Furious George. He anticipates eight lies or distortions, and offers the truth about each. So if you’d like to know what to expect from President Pinocchio on the topics of jobs, unemployment, the deficit, tax cuts, the Kerry tax plan, fiscal responsibility, spending, or health care, check it out.
Just Eat It, Sinclair
Sinclair Broadcasting’s decision to air an anti-Kerry film on its affiliates is being challenged by the Democratic leadership:
The documentary, "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," chronicles Kerry's 1971 testimony before Congress and links him to activist and actress Jane Fonda. It includes interviews with Vietnam prisoners of war and their wives who claim Kerry's testimony -- filled with "lurid fantasies of butchery in Vietnam" on the part of U.S. troops -- demeaned them and led their captors to hold them longer.
The Democratic National Committee planned to file a complaint with the Federal Election Commission on Tuesday contending that Sinclair's airing of the film should be considered an illegal in-kind contribution to President Bush's campaign. Also, 18 Democratic senators sent a letter to the Federal Communication Commission asking that it investigate whether Sinclair's plan was an improper use of public airwaves.
However, Sinclair's Hyman said, "The documentary is just a part of a special news event that we're putting together. We've invited one person to be a guest. That's Senator John Kerry." The company posted a note on its Web site Monday afternoon urging people to call Kerry's headquarters to urge his participation.
Chad Clanton, a Kerry campaign spokesman, said, "Everything is on the table but it's hard to take an offer seriously from a group with such a fierce partisan agenda, a group that's clearly not interested in the truth."
See the whole story here, and if you want to register your disgust with this entire debacle, hit Sinclair where it hurts and contact their advertisers here.
Kerry by a Nose
USA Today reports that Furious George’s approval ratings are slipping:
Unease about the country's direction has eroded Bush's job approval rating into dangerous territory for an incumbent president. And Kerry holds a decided advantage on the domestic issues that will be the focus of their last face-to-face encounter.
Their newest poll shows Kerry with a 2% lead over Bush in a two-way race. They also note that Bush’s response to the hurricanes in Florida could help him a bit, possibly swaying 13% of undecided voters in his direction, though the majority say his response will not affect their decision at all.
In other Florida news, the Washington Post reports that party loyalties drawn along ethnic lines in the Sunshine State are changing:
Haitian Americans, once solidly Democratic, are in play for the GOP. Arab Americans, once reliably Republican, are nudging toward the Democratic ticket. Cuban Americans, a staple of the GOP, are considered gettable by Democrats. Moving even small numbers of these minority voters -- either to the polls for the first time or into a different party's vote-tally column -- could have a huge impact during this closest of battleground races in this closest of presidential elections.
Of course, whether Florida actually allows any of these people to vote is another story altogether.
The First Ladies Club
Interesting conversation between Mr. Shakespeare's Sister and I this evening on our way home from the salt mines. In contemplating just what it might be that finally swings a swing voter in one direction or another, we settled momentarily on the wives of the candidates. It occurred to me that one could do worse than voting for one of the two just on the basis of whether one liked the Mrs., considering if that's one's decision-making criteria, one obviously has no interest, or ability, to discern the actual issues.
If you prefer Mrs. Bush, it's probably because she and Furious George have been together a long time, (allegedly) worked their way through his alcoholism with prayer, have a very traditional marriage, etc. She has, in fact, discussed how she doesn't 'get involved' in policy discussions and defers to Junior on most matters, and she tends to come across as the sort of quiet, submissive librarian that she is supposed to be. Someone to whom such a set-up appeals is probably more likely to themselves be quite conservative and traditional.
If, however, you prefer Mrs. Heinz Kerry, it's probably because she and the Senator are a blended family; it's the second marriage for both. They seem to have quite the egalitarian relationship, and she's fiery and worldly and opinionated. She is outspoken about her beliefs, her history, and her ideas, and she is by all accounts extremely active with her own foundation, and puts in a lot of time on her own things, separate from her husband. Someone to whom such a match appeals is probably more likely to themselves be quite progressive and forward-looking.
Summary: Laura = retro; Teresa = metro.
A little pithy post for the evening as Shakespeare's Sister yawns...
Goofus v. Gallant
Gallant: "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives but they're a nuisance." – John Kerry, via AP as quoted in The New York Times Magazine on Sunday
Goofus: "I couldn't disagree more," Bush said. "Our goal is not to reduce terror to some acceptable level of nuisance. Our goal is to defeat terror by staying on the offensive, destroying terrorist networks and spreading freedom and liberty around the world." The Bush campaign is also criticizing the comment in a new television ad. (Also via AP.)
Is it even possible for the Bush campaign to use any of Kerry’s words against him without totally removing them from their original contexts? Clearly, the implication of what Kerry is saying is that it’s impossible to definitively win the war on terror, but it is possible to contain it to a dull roar—i.e. to the point where the average American isn’t so scared (and/or fearmongered) about a potential catastrophic attack that they’re willing to give up their civil rights for protection.
And didn’t the same Bush that’s quoted above recently say that we can’t win the war on terror, then immediately flip-flop and say we could? Sounds to me like maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle, that quashing terrorism completely is an impractical and unachievable goal, but that trying to control the tide of terrorism is probably the most reasonable and attainable objective. (See Gallant, above.)
Worth a Look
Benjamin M. Friedman has an excellent article at the New York Review of Books site on the differences between Furious George's and Kerry's policies here. If you come across an undecided voter, directing him/her to this article, or just having at hand the intricacies it lays out about the two candidate's respective proposals to make your case, might be useful.
Got Balls?
The L.A. Times reports that the Bush administration plans to hold all major assaults in Iraq until after the election:
"When this election's over, you'll see us move very vigorously," said one senior administration official involved in strategic planning, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Once you're past the election, it changes the political ramifications" of a large-scale offensive, the official said. "We're not on hold right now. We're just not as aggressive."
And this should quell any doubts that the current interim government in Iraq is just a puppet of the Americans:
During a recent trip to Washington, Allawi expressed his interest in reclaiming insurgent-controlled cities in the Sunni Triangle in time for the January election, even in light of the potentially negative political impact in Iraq that a bloody military operation could have. Yet officials say that the man who owes his job to President Bush — and might not have such a warm relationship with a President John F. Kerry — does not want to press his case too hard before the U.S. election."A lot of his political future depends on our election," said the senior administration official.
I honestly can’t decide what shocks me more about this story—the brazenness of the admittance, even if it was by yet another anonymous senior administration official, or the actual decision to delay necessary actions to secure the peace in Iraq because of “political ramifications.”
I acknowledge that Furious George’s supporters would argue that because Bush is the right man for this fight, it’s necessary to ensure he gets reelected by any means necessary. However, if he can’t run the war the way he would normally and still get reelected, then perhaps that’s a sign that the American people, were they not being constantly hoodwinked, don’t agree that he is the right man for this fight, after all.
