Interesting opportunity coming up to see some of the presidential candidates interviewed in real time at a moderately sized conference.
Here's the info I got:
Five presidential candidates confirmed they will take part in discussions of key domestic issues before more than 600 representatives of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) on August 27 and 28 at the Disney Yacht and Beach Club in Orlando, FL.The schedule for the IAM's Conversation with the Candidates is as follows:
Mon. Aug. 27, 3:30 pm: New York Sen. Hillary Clinton
Mon. Aug. 27, 7:30 pm: California Rep. Duncan Hunter and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee
Tue. Aug. 28, 7:30 pm: Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and Ohio Rep. Dennis KucinichThe candidate conversations will be moderated by Erin Moriarty of CBS News.
The event will be streamed, live, from the www.GOIAM.org web site. Streaming provided by ustream.tv.
Also interesting that they'll show up at a small group of 600 here, but most didn't even send representatives to BlogHer where 800 influential women bloggers were in physical attendance and another 500 attended via Second Life. Jennifer L. Pozner ruminates more on that here.
Hard to imagine that the IAM represents a more powerful or influential niche than, oh, say women! :)
In the last two weeks there have been two major dust-ups regarding hate speech over a mass communications channel. First there was a major blogosphere brouhaha when a prominent woman blogger announced she had been receiving death threats (you start to read about it here if so inclined), then there was the whole Don Imus flap (Here's a nice long thread on that too).
In response to both scandals I've been chuckling to see some right wing bloggers drone on about how they are the subject of such attacks from the left, and how persecuted they are, and how no one on the right would ever think to be so mean and hateful to the left. oh, those sicko liberals, you know?
I'm not chuckling that Michelle Malkin has received hateful, racist, sexist, violent comments and emails. Not at all. I don't like it when I hear people's condemnation of Ann Coulter descend into calling out her physical attributes or using easy profanity. because I think there's enough to attack about the ideas of these women, we don't have to talk about their race, their female parts, their hair color.
No what has me chuckling is this absolutely distorted sense of reality that no right-wingers would ever be mean, nasty and hateful to liberals. What a joke. Sure, ask for civility and deplore hate speech...on both sides! Or shut the hell up.
Need some examples? Here's a link that will make you very very depressed:
it's not just Imus from MediaMatters.org
Enjoy.
The WaPo asked four historians/professors to consider whether Dubya is the worst president ever.
The most positive among them says only that "I don't know how history will judge him. My guess is that, like most presidents, he will bequeath a mixed record. We can debate policies and actions now, but honesty should force us to acknowledge that real judgments will have to wait."
That's the best review the president gets: he's not the worst, because I refuse to concede that I am able t even judge whether he's the worst right now. Oh, and we haven't been attacked since 9/11.
More faint praise: At least he's not Nixon. Although further investigation might bear out that he's worse. "Bush has two years left in his presidency and we don't know what they'll hold. They may be as dismal as the first six. Future investigations may bear out many people's worst fears about this administration's violations of civil liberties. And it's conceivable that the consequences of the invasion of Iraq may prove more destructive than those of Nixon's stubborn continuation of the Vietnam War. Should those things happen, Bush will be able to lay a claim to the mantle of U.S. history's worst president. For now, though, I'm sticking with Dick."
The other two are pretty much settled that he's, if not the worst of all time past and future, a case study on bad presidenting (yes, I made that word up) and at the very least the worst to date.
Hat tip to Dave Weinberger, who also provides us with a handy dandy Pro/Con table to save us from actually reading the long essays.
So, if you check out the Endorsements page on this site, you'll note that the state party has endorsed voting "Yes" on Prop. 83. (And provides a link to this site to explain why.) I was at the meeting where the state party endorsements were decided on, and I don't remember any debate on this one. The law, commonly known as Jessica's Law is titled to make this seem like a no-brainer vote: "Sex Offenders. Sexually Violent Predators. Punishment, Residence Restrictions and Monitoring" Well, who could be against those things?
But there are many local Democrats, me included, who are voting "No." I read this post by someone whose opinion and research I respect, and it pushed me into the "this isn't the right law" camp.
And at least one of our blog readers here wrote us a lengthy comment explaining why their vote is "No". Click to the extended entry to learn why blog reader Alice M. is urging a "no" vote over the endorsement of the state party:
The let us know what you think.
Text of Alice M.'s comment:
Dear SCCDP voters,I'm writing to encourage Californians to vote against Proposition 83.
If Prop. 83 passes, some of those affected could easily be 19 year olds who have become registered sex offenders for having consensual sex with their 17 year old girlfriends. Is this the population we want to target with being required to wear global monitoring devices for life and forced to move, so they don't live within 2000 feet of a park or school?
At the same time, 83 would not apply to family members who have molested their children (over 93% of all sexual crimes are perpetrated by family and friends, not by strangers living in the neighborhood or lurking outside schools).
Protecting our children is of paramount importance, but the money this proposition would require ($2 billion for the first 10 years, increasing thereafter, as projected by KQED "Forum" experts last week) is too much for a program that likely will do little to address the problem of sexual predators. The Los Angeles Times (10-2-06, "Offending the Law") says that most evidence shows that satellite tracking devices don't reduce sex crimes and forcing parolees out of cities just pushes them underground.
As a community, in our homes and schools, we need to continue helping children learn the sanctity of their bodies, how to set boundaries, say, "No," and where to go for help when help is needed.
California already has among the strongest sex offender laws in the U.S. In September, Governor Schwarzenegger signed two new ones, SB1128 and SB1178, to bar offenders from loitering near schools and parks, and strengthen/lengthen all sentences for violent sex offenses). The Contra Costa Times has an excellent editorial from Friday, 10/20, entitled "Vote No on Prop. 83." You can read it at this website.
The other newspapers I've checked, the San Jose Mercury News, the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Francisco Bay Guardian, have joined the Contra Costa Times and Los Angeles Times in saying, "Proposition 83 isn’t the answer." Please vote against it.
Yes, some day the reign of Dubya II will end, and we wil have a new leader. Hopefully in 2008 we'll get a President who believes in being President, not King.
Charlie Cook from the WaPo takes a crack at handicapping the early contenders. I'm still a Wesley Clark fan, so I'm glad he is conuted among the top 8 Democrat contenders.
So, who's your early pick?
It's also a lengthy analysis in Rolling Stone.
One key excerpt:
Bush has chosen to act in ways that have left the country less united and more divided, less conciliatory and more acrimonious -- much like James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson and Herbert Hoover before him. And, like those three predecessors, Bush has done so in the service of a rigid ideology that permits no deviation and refuses to adjust to changing realities. Buchanan failed the test of Southern secession, Johnson failed in the face of Reconstruction, and Hoover failed in the face of the Great Depression. Bush has failed to confront his own failures in both domestic and international affairs, above all in his ill-conceived responses to radical Islamic terrorism. Having confused steely resolve with what Ralph Waldo Emerson called "a foolish consistency . . . adored by little statesmen," Bush has become entangled in tragedies of his own making, compounding those visited upon the country by outside forces.
Lots of bloggers are talking about it, including:
And countless others.
Look, our country won't recover in my lifetime. Our reputation abroad and our high standards at home have been severely damaged. It's not that there's no hope, it's that the recovery is going to be a lot harder and take a lot longer than the destruction did. Very similar to how I can eat one big meal and seem to gain 5 lbs overnight...and then it seems to take weeks to lose them!
Although, let me be clear, I am *not* equating my weight aggravations with the sorry state of affairs a double-Dubya Administration has wrought.
In case you were wondering.
Read the whole RS article. It's fascinating, comprehensive, weighty...and therefore, obviously, depressing.
I don't know how the guy does it. He puts on a show of being plain- or out-spoken a few times, and suddenly even Democrats think he's some solution.
John McCain is a good guy perhaps, and lived through a hell of a lot. But his values do not align with the values of the Democratic Party.
This is a guy who sold his moderation down the river, campaigning for George W. Bush, no vigorously campaigning for George W. Bush in 2004.
This is a guy who at one time stood against tax cuts for the wealthy and now thinks they're peachy-keen.
This is a guy who is now playing ball with the most radical right-wing zealots, like Jerry Falwell.
This is a guy who is pro-life and would overturn Roe v. Wade.
Read Arianna Huffington's commentary on the sad decline of John McCain here. This from a woman who used to work closely with him, even after she was already a convert to Democratic causes.
He is not on our side. He does not support our values. And if you watched him wiggle and worm his way around the questions on the Daily Show last week, then you know he's not much of a straight talker either.
Sorry to be the reality check here, but I'm getting a little sick of the cult of John McCain.
UPDATED: ARGH, totally meant to also point to this NY Times profile of McCain.
Bill Press from the Huffington Post:
But, talk to any Democrat running for re-election today. And you'll get the same set of goals:*Iraq - set a timetable for bringing the troops home.
*Tax cuts - replace Bush's tax cuts for the rich - with tax cuts for the middle class.
*Social Security - make it secure and protect it.
*Health Insurance - provide it for 45 million Americans who don't have any.
* National security - give first responders the tools they were promised by George Bush, but never received.
And that's just for starters.
Here's where Bill loses me a little, though:
But, to tell the truth, Democrats don't need a lot of ideas.In 2006, they've got something even more important going for them.
In 2006, the one big, winning ticket for Democrats is very simple: They're not George Bush! That's all they need to win.
Now we need more. We need to stop letting the Republicans define us and defuse us. Take a stand. Say it out loud, media and right wing hacks be damned. Defend yourself against any smear tactic...right away. That would be my advice to Democratic candidates this year.
What's yours?
You've probably heard for a while how the Republicans are using their majority to strong-arm Congress. They don't let things get out of committee, or even get a discussion. They don't have to.
But this NY Times editorial lets you get a peek at exactly how closed and controlled the Republicans are managing to make Congressional activities.
They fiddle with bills in closed committee meetings...with Republican members only. And the influence of lobbyists like Jack Abramoff are everywhere.
You know, my Homeowner's Association Board of Directors isn't allowed to have a meeting without posting a public notice and letting other owners sit in. How can Congressional committees close and lock the doors to alter bills without even other members of Congress having access?
Doesn't seem quite right. (oh, and you can say all you like what might go on if the shoe was on the other partisan foot...but it's not, so mind-read on your own time.)
DonkeyRising with an excellent comparison of Repugs and Dems on issues...and where their stands stand with the people.
Bottom line:
"In short, voters are still much surer of what they don’t like (Republican policies and Bush’s job as president) than of what they might like (Democratic policies and leadership). It’s up to Democrats to clarify that situation, starting with, finally, convincing the American public they know what they stand for."
It was our problem in 2004, I'm fairly certain. We need more Murtha-mouths, Boxer bocas if you will, willing to say what they believe. I actually believe the people can handle disagreeing with us on an issue or two if they believe we stand for something. Well, I know that we do, quite strongly, so let's start saying so, quite loudly.
See, I suspected all along it was a conspiracy. Nominate someone for the Supreme Court who is unqualified (and just happens to be a woman.) between the left and the right it was easy to squash that nominee. Now Bush is free to nominate the radical right-wing nutjob he wanted in the first place, in this case Mr. Samuel Alito.
So who's got the goods on Alito?
and
And as AmericaBlog rightly points out, this guy is so extreme that those moderate Republicans are going to have to walk one plank or another...they simply can 't claim to be moderate and vote for this guy.
The fun's about to begin. Too bad some very basic civil rights, particularly for women, are at stake.
Here's a stat I learned while at the California Democratic Party Executive board meeting a couple of weeks ago:
California ranks 44th out of 50 states on per child education spending.
Now, you can say all you want that simply and only throwing money at a problem like education doesn't solve it. But in a state that has the 5th biggest economy in the world, and where many of our industries rely on an educated work force, does it sound right to you that we are spending so little, comparatively speaking?
Seriously?
And if we are already in such a situation, why would we feel comfortable voting for Proposition 76 and giving the Governor of the state such unilateral power to cut the education budget? It's not just Ah-nold, I simply don't want to trust any single state leader as though they were a benevolent king...counting on them to share our values and priorities.
Given how Ah-nold destroyed the long-time California dream that if you were qualified you would get in to a 4-year California university, I guess I should not be surprised by our low standing as a state.
But it doesn't mean we should enable it to get even worse!
What's to be done about Democrats who vote for Bush pet policies?
This post from the Nation names them, and in the comments you'll find a lively debate about it.
Part of me thinks that any Democrat is better than any Republican, given how lock-step the Republicans are, and how much I revile just about everything they stand for: intolerance, forming a new aristocracy, intrusion and oppression, war because we feel like it...you know, that stuff.
But when you have weak Democrats who slavishly avoid confrontation and taking a stand...what do yo do? I tend to think the answer is find a better Democrat to run against them in the primary, not turning to a third-party candidate.
What do you think?
Come on you know you've been thinking it.
So Frank Rich does his usual excellent job breaking it down for us.
Key excerpt:
"Charles Colson's hit men broke into the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist, seeking information to smear Mr. Ellsberg after he leaked the Pentagon Papers, the classified history of the Vietnam War, to The Times. But there was even greater incentive to smear Mr. Wilson than Mr. Ellsberg. Nixon compounded the Vietnam War but didn't start it. The war in Iraq, by contrast, is Mr. Bush's invention."
Ouch.
That Democrats can be a bunch of weenies, and you would never catch the Republicans dissing their party leader for a little bit of harsh rhetoric?
Well, I'll say it. Shut the hell up guys and complain about what you should be complaining about:
The so-called liberal media once again taking a Democrat's meaning out of context and fanning the flames.
Dean was talking about Republican party leadership, and if you have never said that the people who run the Republican party are a bunch of elitists who can't relate to regular folks, but somehow manage to bamboozle them, then I will eat my hat.
And if you've never said Tom DeLay is corrupt and needs to go, then you haven't been paying attention.
But no, let's eat our own shall we? Gee, where's Donna Brazile? It's about time for her to jump on the bandwagon right?
But here are some folks who think the Democrats really did get the best deal they were going to out of this situation:
Salon.com (You have to watch a brief ad if you're not a subscriber)
All of the above articles definitely find the positive spin on the filibuster deal.
There are no doubt many out there who have the same initial reaction I had which was: that's it? This is some great deal? We're going to confirm Bush's radical choices and all we got the Republicans to agree to is not try to get rid of the status quo on filibusters. Not only that now we will operate under the burden of this vague "extraordinary reasons" measure that I'm sure they'll throw in our ace every time we try to do anything.
But the three links above make me feel a little better about it.
The Talent Show does a good job of pointing to a few worthy blog posts here.
The subject: how should Democrats "brand" themselves.
This is interesting to me, because I really didn't like the highest level branding at the California Democratic Party State Convention last month. It was: "Protecting Real People."
Find out why it didn't strike a chord with me in the extended entry...
Look, my point isn't what that tagline is supposed to evoke. Intellectually I can appreciate that it's supposed to appeal to our instincts to stick up for the little guy, the underdog.
But the point of branding is to appeal to the emotions or instinct, not the brain. And when they displayed that tagline accompanied by pictures of the elderly, nurses, firefighters, construction workers and even teachers, I didn't see me...or most of the folks I know in Silicon Valley... represented.
I'm not a senior, a service worker, a public servant or even a parent. Apparently I'm not a "real" person. I'm a single woman who is a consultant with my own business, and before I did that I was in high-tech marketing. As a small business owner I might be statistically more likely to create jobs, but I'm not a "real" person.
I felt alienated every single time I heard that tagline or saw it. Even though intellectually I got the point, I still felt alienated. And that ain't good, folks. How are we going to broaden our base if our message is only inclusive to certain kinds of people, as worthy as they may be.
Now the debate that I pointed to at the beginning of this post is over a similar catch phrase: "Democrats are the party for people who work for a living." And I find it equally off-putting.
Because both phrases assume that certain people are by definition less worthy based on something as superficial as how much money they have or what kind of job they have.
Why aren't we appealing to the character of the people in our tent, not the occupation?
How about:
"Democrats are the party for people who care about liberty and justice for all."
or
"Democrats...building a better America for the next generation."
It would certainly make me feel better about being a Democrat, how about you?
Hmmm. Apparently Wes Clark had a private fundraiser before the big Howard Dean dinner on Saturday night and didn't invite me. Whassup with that? I donated to his PAC, I was a big fan before he dropped out of the race. I found every opportunity to quote him here in this blog. I'm a little hurt.
Anyway, apparently he's already considering the '08 run.
I was an early Clarkie, and I still think he's the bees knees. He's the perfect guy to combat the Republicans heinous and insulting framing on Democrats and patriotism and national security. And he's actually pretty damn socially liberal.
I hear people who are "suspicious" of his commitment to the Democratic Party. Similar to the people I heard after Arianna Huffington spoke at the Convention Sunday. Great plan guys. Let's reject someone who not only wants to vote our way, but clearly articulates our deepest beliefs because they're not "pure" enough.
How exactly are we going to expand our base if we don't want any new Democrats?
Anyway...it's a little soon to be thinking '08, so I'm going to try to quell my excitement :)
In case you don't know "framing" is almost like marketing: framing means taking an issue and creating a simple framework for helping people to understand that issue...from one's own particular point of view of course.
The Republican party has been doing a brilliant job of framing for the last couple of decades. Framing is how restriction of a woman's rights and intrusion into a private family medical issue suddenly becomes "fostering a culture of life." Why is this frame successful: well, who is against life, after all?
Framing is how the estate tax...which, as its actual name "estate tax" implies, impacts primarily the most well-to-do among us..becomes a "death tax." This even though everyonedies, but relatively few are hit with an estate tax. Why is this frame successful: well, we all die, so we figure we all have to deal with the death tax.
Lately the Democratic Party has been recognizing the power of frames, and trying to develop our own. And a Berkeley linguist, George Lakoff, is leading a lot of the discussions around the topic, particularly with his latest books, Don't Think of an Elephant and How Democrats and Progressives Can Win. In fact Lakoff is speaking in San Jose in just a couple of weeks.
I've posted before about framing, Lakoff, and my concerns about talking vs. action.
And Ezra Klein is even more blunt: he thinks Lakoff is great at picking apart Republican Frames, and terrible at creating Democratic ones.
I realize that until I do more than watch a 20-minute video from Lakoff, I should probably shut up, but controversial or no, it's a discussion worth having.
Some moderates and even conservatives are getting increasingly forlorn watching the Republican Party they thought they knew and tolerated being hijacked by the radical religious right.
Some of them plaintively cry out: I am struck by the possible fruitfulness of moderate Republican conservatives joining forces with similar folks in the Democratic Party. [snip] I think a strong, pragmatic, sensible, workable "party" could emerge."
But I'm betting you will just fall in love with Digby as I did when he answers here:
"Can someone explain to me how this substantially differs from the vast mainstream of the Democratic party?"
Read the whole thing. It is priceless.
Back during the campaign a study was released that showed that far more Bush-supporters (and Fox News viewers) had a shaky grasp on the facts surrounding many key campaign issues.
They were far more likely to think Saddam Hussein has masterminded 9/11. They were far more likely to have no clue that the WMDs hadn't been found. And so on.
I've seen several links in the last few days indicating that woeful misinformation is far from solved in the general populace.
And this simply proves that Democrats first have to educate on the facts before they can overcome the Republican spin machine.
Examples are in the extended entry.
As Ezra Klein points out, we've generally done a good job of pointing out the pitfalls of Bush's Social Security Elimination program, but the one things we need to communicate is that the program itself is going to cost a boatload of money, sending our ever growing deficit even farther through the roof.
The Political Animal Kevin Drum points to a WaPo poll that indicates that people have completely out of whack ideas about where our money gets spent.
I admit that some of this was a surprise to me too. I've hear that old chestnut that we spent tons of money on foreign aid, when in fact it comprises about 1% of our budget. Seems the American people have the same misconception I had.
The problem is that as long as the smoke & mirrors tricks of the bush Administration are working, it's harder for people to know that they really wouldn't like the America Bush has planned.
It's really up to each of us, as new Chairman Dean emphasizes, to be informed and be outspoken.
Of how nicely that all majority thing is going for the Republicans thus far.
It's definitely cheer-you-up material, especially if you're into schadenfreude.
If seeing all those red/blue maps showing a huge swath of red enveloping the country, then you may be comforted by reviewing these cartograms (from the University of Michigan) that reflect red/blue by population, not area.
It's a week later, and the Democratic "circular firing squad", as The Moderate Voice blog calls it, is in full swing. Where did it all go wrong. What happened?
I don't claim to be any more (or less) qualified than these pundits, but I do have a few thoughts. See them in the extended entry:
1. You may think that the people who voted for Bush are stupid and/or selfish and/or bigoted...but I'm pretty sure expressing that analysis won't be a great basis from which to get their votes. Either we find a way to communicate with those people, or we give in to being a minority party.
2. And simplifying our language and dropping any fear of offending the teeny tiny swing vote is one way to start. The Republicans are great at picking one or two primary, simple messages and hammering them home. What were they this year?
a. Bush will keep you safer
b. Kerry is a waffling (and perhaps immoral) liberal
So what should our simplified message have been? Well, I can't say for sure, but I would have gone for more blood. The Reps. had no moral quandary about evoking bugaboos from the Democratic past...did you ever wonder why Ted Kennedy kept coming up? So why didn't we evoke some bugaboos of our own? and why did we use such veiled language all the time? Wanting to be "respected abroad" isn't quite as clear as wanting to return to the times when the world didn't hate us.
-Bush has returned us to a Nixonian atmosphere of lies, secrecy and dishonesty.
-Bush has put the security and pocketbook of his family and colleagues over you. This "CEO president" is as corrupt as the CEOs of Tyco and Enron.
-Bush wants this country to live by the religious beliefs of a mere 20% of the population.
3. Yes, so, speaking of evangelicals. I spoke to many conservative, religious Republicans who were, nonetheless, most bothered by Bush's allegiance (or some would say obligation) to the evangelicals. Who make up, they say, 20%. That means 80% are not evangelicals. Yet no one ever really called Bush on it. I'm not saying you have to slam evangelicals, but I am saying you have to stand up for prioritizing this nation's value over any particular denomination's values. And those values encompass more than abortion and homosexuals.
Most people would agree that:
-lying is a moral issue
-responsible stewardship of our world and environment is a moral issue
-stealing from the poor to give to the rich is a moral issue
-killing innocent civilians is a moral issue
-letting children go hungry is a moral issue
-upholding human rights, even to those we are detaining, is a moral issue
and so on...
I don't think a winning candidate must talk about God or going to church a lot (hell, Bush never goes to church) but I do think a winning candidate must talk about right and wrong.
4. I think there was one last thing we didn't know how to overcome, and I'm not sure I have the answer. But I think it might give us a lesson about how the Democrats should behave over the next 4 years. When times are good, there is little perceived risk in giving someone else a shot. In the year 2000 it seemed like we would remain a prosperous, peaceful nation for years to come. And we were tired of the constant struggle that was the Clinton Administration. What struggle? The struggle created by those intransigent right wingers with their knives out. So why not give that other side a chance?
4 years later, the country is in very uncertain, unstable times. There is much more perceived risk to going to a new leader. Bush truly is the "devil you know." I heard many people complaining that they just didn't know what kerry would do.
As though they knew Bush would morph from a "compassionate conservative" to a radical neocon.
But that's not the point. People's memories are short unless we constantly remind them.
So, I am not an advocate of sitting back and being polite.
I am an advocate of fighting back.
I am an advocate of constantly reminding this country what we got in our devil's bargain.
And I'm betting in 4 years people may be tired of that too.
So, latest I heard, Ira Ruskin was leading Steve Poizner by nearly 52% to 48%.
So, better win than Bush's, right?
Yes, there are some uncounted absentee ballots, but there are in Ohio too.
Yet, Poizner refuses to concede.
So where are the calls for Poizner to do the "right thing"? To be "the bigger man"? To help "heal the district"?
Same for Rich de la Rosa (although I'll grant you that race is a lot closer.)
Just asking.
As though any of my faithful readers need to hear another one!
But this is a good one for those who are Undecided. So, check it out and pass it along.
I know that the SCC DP has already provided a hand-out that outlines the significant differences between Bush & Kerry (for those people who complain there's not much difference.)
But this is another good source, and it's more about how Democrats vs. Republicans voted in recent Congressional votes.
Eye-opening.
I've never understood the "they're all the same" mentality. but if you have allen prey to it, this link should make a difference.
And while they do so, they do so with more admiration for Bush and less respect for Kerry than I can understand.
But I will give them total props for bringing up two issues that have been completely ignored throughout this campaign:
Abu Ghraib
Guantanamo
I have been a bit dumbfounded that these two blights on our reputation and international standing have not been made more of by the kerry campaign. I would guess that there is a lot of internal polling that supports such a decision. Americans don't want to be reminded of the oppression which has been committed in their name, perhaps.
I personally would want to appeal to the goodness at the heart of Americans and ask them if they're OK with the fact that no one has been held accountable except lower level soldiers? Ask them if they're OK with the fact that the very highest levels of our government were looking for ways to get away with torture, despite the dangerous ramifications it would have for our own troops, not to mention the pure question of right and wrong.
Anyway, The Economist brings up both issues as examples of how Bush has severely undermined American credibility (and his own.)
I agree. And I'm glad to hear someone say it...even if it's a British magazine.
Heavy security
Loyalty Oaths
Arrests of those with Kerry T-Shirts (later released of course)
There was really no visible security presence -- aside from a perimeter of loosely hinged-together metal gates and a handful of Madison police lolling about at the road blocks. But the crowd was exceedingly mellow. The people didn't cheer or chant much. There was no heckling of any kind. No one bothered the few people who held up Bush/Cheney signs. There were tons of students, assorted other folks, and a few Madison characters -- and many of them had been standing around for four hours. The speech itself you already know, so there's nothing to report there. The most notable thing to me about the live experience was how entirely pacific that huge sea of people was.
This from the conservative InstaPundit blog!
I'm just saying.
And I say this not just because she agrees with me that it won't even be close.
And breaking an 80-year streak of NOT endorsing anyone, The New Yorker is endorsing Kerry. AP story here.
They continue to roll in.
The choice is clear. Now get out and make the best man win!
Once again, The Moderate Voice blog did a thorough and ni-partisan wrap up post on Debate #3. If you want to hear what bloggers from both ends of the spectrum are saying, here is where to go.
I usually compare Bush and Kerry, but this time compare Bush to Bush...ten years ago.
It's pretty stunning the difference in his ability to just speak.
You can get the link to watch for yourself here.
This NY Times column debunks the myth that being anti-abortion makes George Bush the natural candidate for Catholics.
The author, a Dean at Notre Dame, explores all of the vested interests of Catholics and compares the candidates' positions.
Good reading.
Full text in extended entry:
Voting Our Conscience, Not Our Religion
By MARK W. ROCHE
NY Times
Published: October 11, 2004
South Bend, Ind. — For more than a century, from the wave of immigrants in the 19th century to the election of the first Catholic president in 1960, American Catholics overwhelmingly identified with the Democratic Party. In the past few decades, however, that allegiance has largely faded. Now Catholics are prototypical "swing voters": in 2000, they split almost evenly between Al Gore and George W. Bush, and recent polls show Mr. Bush ahead of Senator John Kerry, himself a Catholic, among white Catholics.
There are compelling reasons - cultural, socioeconomic and political - for this shift. But if Catholic voters honestly examine the issues of consequence in this election, they may find themselves returning to their Democratic roots in 2004.
The parties appeal to Catholics in different ways. The Republican Party opposes abortion and the destruction of embryos for stem-cell research, both positions in accord with Catholic doctrine. Also, Republican support of various faith-based initiatives, including school vouchers, tends to resonate with Catholic voters.
Members of the Democratic Party, meanwhile, are more likely to criticize the handling of the war in Iraq, to oppose capital punishment and to support universal heath care, environmental stewardship, a just welfare state and more equitable taxes. These stances are also in harmony with Catholic teachings, even if they may be less popular among individual Catholics.
When values come into conflict, it is useful to develop principles that help place those values in a hierarchy. One reasonable principle is that issues of life and death are more important than other issues. This seems to be the strategy of some Catholic and church leaders, who directly or indirectly support the Republican Party because of its unambiguous critique of abortion. Indeed, many Catholics seem to think that if they are truly religious, they must cast their ballots for Republicans.
This position has two problems. First, abortion is not the only life-and-death issue in this election. While the Republicans line up with the Catholic stance on abortion and stem-cell research, the Democrats are closer to the Catholic position on the death penalty, universal health care and environmental protection.
More important, given the most distinctive issue of the current election, Catholics who support President Bush must reckon with the Catholic doctrine of "just war." This doctrine stipulates that a war is just only if all possible alternative strategies have been pursued to their ultimate conclusion; the war is conducted in accordance with moral principles (for example, the avoidance of unnecessary civilian casualties and the treatment of prisoners with dignity); and the war leads to a more moral state of affairs than existed before it began. While Mr. Kerry, like many other Democrats, voted for the war, he has since objected to the way it was planned and waged.
Second, politics is the art of the possible. During the eight years of the Reagan presidency, the number of legal abortions increased by more than 5 percent; during the eight years of the Clinton presidency, the number dropped by 36 percent. The overall abortion rate (calculated as the number of abortions per 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44) was more or less stable during the Reagan years, but during the Clinton presidency it dropped by 11 percent.
There are many reasons for this shift. Yet surely the traditional Democratic concern with the social safety net makes it easier for pregnant women to make responsible decisions and for young life to flourish; among the most economically disadvantaged, abortion rates have always been and remain the highest. The world's lowest abortion rates are in Belgium and the Netherlands, where abortion is legal but where the welfare state is strong. Latin America, where almost all abortions are illegal, has one of the highest rates in the world.
None of this is to argue that abortion should be acceptable. History will judge our society's support of abortion in much the same way we view earlier generations' support of torture and slavery - it will be universally condemned. The moral condemnation of abortion, however, need not lead to the conclusion that criminal prosecution is the best way to limit the number of abortions. Those who view abortion as the most significant issue in this campaign may well want to supplement their abstract desire for moral rectitude with a more realistic focus on how best to ensure that fewer abortions take place.
In many ways, Catholic voters' growing political independence has led to a profusion of moral dilemmas: they often feel they must abandon one good for the sake of another. But while they may be dismayed at John Kerry's position on abortion and stem-cell research, they should be no less troubled by George W. Bush's stance on the death penalty, health care, the environment and just war. Given the recent history of higher rates of abortion with Republicans in the White House, along with the tradition of Democratic support of equitable taxes and greater integration into the world community, more Catholics may want to reaffirm their tradition of allegiance to the Democratic Party in 2004.
Mark W. Roche is dean of the College of Arts and Letters at the University of Notre Dame.
I've gone through my notes thoroughly now and pulled out what I thought were some of the key moments for both Kerry and Bush.
You can read my rather length recap in the extended entry:
On the Kerry side:
Kerry finally said some things I've been waiting for him to say:
1. Explained why he voted for the PATRIOT ACT and wants to change it, voted for No Child Left behind and now derides it etc. And he finally gave the complete explanation for the $87 Billion vote/non-vote thing:
-The policy was going bad...no blank check for incompetent execution...Bush wanted the money without accounting for how it was used.
-The money for Halliburton
-AND, most importantly, that Bush was going to veto a version that would appropriate the money, but address how to pay for it...that Bush felt it was more important to protect tax cuts for the wealthy than protect our servicepeople and our homeland.
2. Speaking of that, Kerry hammered that one about tax cuts vs. security home several times, and again...made a simple, strong case. So much for the guy being too nuanced or long-winded.
3. Kerry made some concise and brilliant points throughout, such as:
-The point of UN sanctions was NOT to remove Saddam; the point was to remove the WMDs. So Sanctions worked.
-The bit about Missouri being the 3rd largest contributor of troops behind the US and GB, if it were a country, was brilliant. Take that Mr. Bush and your grand coalition.
-"The test isn't whether you added money. The test is whether you've done what you can." Thank you. I hate Bush's out-of-context, meaningless statements like "I tripled the security budget." Kerry finally called him on it.
-First tax cuts during a war...yes. I think it is a good plan to remind people of our past generations and how little Bush is willing to ask of us for this generations great battle against terrorism.
-There are already hundreds of thousand frozen embryos at fertility clinics. Do we destroy them or keep them frozen indefinitely, rather than use them?
-It's gut check time: do you believe we went to war as a last resort? Good, tough question to ask the American people.
-Bush doesn't have a reason, just an excuse.
4. Kerry is also stepping up and defending his Senate record. I love that he's bringing in the Democratic Party as a whole: we balanced the budget. etc. etc.
5. I also think Kerry is exhibiting a very real, human and likable side during these debates. OK, so some right-wing snipers are citing his joke about Bush, Kerry and Charlie Gibson being the only ones who were in the top 1% in the room to prove he's "an elitist", but I think that's lame. It was funny and self-deprecating in a way. Without having to ask us if we wanted "buy some wood." I'm sorry, but didn't Bush exceed lame and go into pathetic again with that joke?
6. Throwing in a few (not too many, just a few) references to Bush not being in touch with reality is a good move too.
7. Kerry kicked ass on the Supreme Court question. After Bush reverts to his developmentally delayed teenager persona and says "I'm not telling, heh heh", and goes way out on a limb to decry slavery, Kerry takes his opportunity and gives a well-considered and eminently reasonable answer. First: give examples of Bush's comments and "favorite" justices. Remind us the Court is at stake. And, use that Potter Stewart quote to seem impartial and non-partisan. Very classy.
8. He also did well with his abortion answer. Someone needs to stand up for this nation being a secular nation...not ruled by one faith or another. "I can't take what is an article of faith for me, and legislate it for someone who doesn't share my article of faith." And he also scored points by explaining what was wrong with the Partial birth Abortion bill and the Parental Notification bill...in terms almost everyone in the nation agrees with. All Bush could say was "No, it is simple" without rebutting Kerry at all.
On the Bush side:
1. Well, his first direct response referenced 9/11 three times in the first 30 seconds. What a surprise.
2. He's moved on to Excuse #347 for the War on Iraq. Saddam wanted to restart his program, and wanted to provide knowledge and other stuff to terrorists. As they say, if wishes were horses. Call this the "Minorty Report" rationale...we can now read people's mind and stop them for what they dream about.
3. And he's got a million excuses for his poor economic record too:
-The mythic recession and unnamed bubble.
-The cost of the war and homeland security.
-Tax cuts were needed to get us out of the recession...otherwise we would have gone into a depression.
4. I really don't think it hangs together to use Reagan's "winning" of the Cold War as a supporting example. Reagan didn't invade the Soviet Union or any of its satellites.
5. Yikes..."The President sets strategy. He relies on the military to propose tactics." So, now he's blaming the military he claims the other side doesn't support? This was really a mangled and offensive moment. Which, by the way, Kerry completely flattened him on, by saying: "it's the military's job to win the war; it's the Presidents job to win the peace."
6. OK, so Bush didn't say "it's hard work", but he did say (with an incredibly whiny tone) "We're doing the best we possibly can." All I can say is...be afraid...seriously. That, in a single statement, illustrated why it's so disturbing that Bush cannot answer any question about making mistakes. If this is the best they can do...where is our hope? Who is pessimistic now?
7. Bush's answer on the environment was pathetic. Seriously. I'd like to know what restoring inner city trouble spot into "useful property" has to do with the environment, first of all. Sure, cite it as evidence that you're helping urban areas out of poverty or something, but the environment? Reaching!
8. He doesn't even sound like he believes himself when he throws out various tired and/or flimsy Kerry criticisms. Like what, you ask? Like:
-He's a liberal...be afraid.
-Of course he'll raise your taxes...be afraid.
-Government take-over of health care...be afraid.
-He prefers Saddam in power...be afraid.
-He would make there be a "global test"...be afraid.
And I think it's so clear that Bush has nothing to run on but instilling fear in people, especially about Kerry personally. Bush has no vision. Bush has no positive results to outline. Bush has no concrete plans. It's more than campaign speak when Kerry says bush can only promise "more of the same". Bush's performance in the debates thus far confirms that that is it...and "the same" is BushCo flying by the seat of their ideologically extreme pants.
The more I review my notes, the more I wonder how anyone called this a draw (see my post from earlier today.)
I thought it was a spanking. Delivered by Kerry. With a strangely hostile and whiny Bush on the receiving end.
Thanks to The Moderate Voice for offering to do a recap of any blogger's reaction who cared to send it to him.
You can find the lengthy result here.
And yes, that's mine near the bottom, even though he calls me Elsa instead of Elisa...sigh. Yes life would have been much simpler if I had stuck with the shortened version, Lisa, that I went by until college. I wouldn't hear all the Elizas and Elsas that I hear now.
But I digress: Joe did a real service to all of us by compiling these debate reactions and providing links. It must have been quite a chore. Check it out.
So, I finally watched the 2nd Presidential Debate yesterday afternoon.
And I am shocked that anyone would call it even close.
Yes, I know I'm partisan, and obviously biased by agreeing with one man's policies and philosophies and not the other's. But my respect for John Kerry, who was not my primary choice, has only grown over these last few months, and I have to say he impressed me very much. Not only that Bush seemed almost more off-putting and poorly behaved n this debate than the last one.
After every exchange I thought to myself "Kerry is kicking his ass", no Democratic Party animal symbol pun intended.
Having already read the conventional wisdom that it was a draw while watching it, I was left wondering how to explain it. And I came up with a couple of answers why I think Kerry's performance was so strong, while some pundits can't seem to make that call:
1. Pundits confuse performance against expectations with performance against an opponent. I don't think the people will have that same problem. They know that in real life, it really is beating the competition, not just your own personal best.
2. If body language was the indicator of victory/defeat in the last debate, vocal tone will be the indicator in this one.
3. After four years of a "cowboy" president without gravitas, whose policies most people have deep reservations about, the people will gravitate back to a guy who seems presidential.
I explain further in the extended entry:
1. Performance against expectations
Are we really giving Bush points just for not looking like a whiny, petulant, vacant pre-teen? Well, yes, many pundits are. He "won" by not sucking wind quite as badly as in Debate #1. I find this ridiculous. And I don't think the majority of regular people are quite so low in their standards. Sure, Bush's partisans will breathe a sigh of relief, and Kerry's will feel slightly disappointed that he managed not to look quite as out of it. But the regular person was watching two guys debate, comparing two guys' answers right then, not comparing it vs. the performance of a week before.
2. Vocal tone
I finally figured out why I felt so strongly about Kerry's decisive win, and it's something beyond what either guy was saying...it was how.
I used to be in the theatre, and even in my high tech marketing life I was one of the go-to public speakers for my company. Talking at conferences, to the press and analysts, customers etc. One of the basics of public speaking is that if your voice rises at the end of a sentence...you sound like you're asking a question. Now maybe you are. But if, by chance you are not...then that vocal habit will make you sound weak or even worse, like you're lying.
No, you want to have your voice hit high points in the middle of the sentence on critical words, and then end on an authoritative, firm down note.
Every sentence Bush uttered ended with his voice going up. "It's not credible." "It was the right decision." He sounded whiny. But worse, he sounded weak, defensive and dishonest. in this debate and the last he reminded me of the Martin Short character saying "Of course I knew that! Why wouldn't I know that?"
Worse for Bush, his typical pattern was to say "Kerry says xxx." and then follow with his, "It's just not yyyy" or "but I'm going to do zzz." And each time the sentence about Kerry was said with a downward, authoritative tone, and then his final sentence that was supposed to be the zinger was said with that rising tone.
Bush ended up repeating Kerry's messages with a tone that gave them authority, and trying to tear those messages down with a tone that sounded questioning and weak.
Now, you could say I'm being way too pedantic about this, but you would be wrong. This is exactly the kind of thing that can make a difference. After 90 minutes a lot of people won't really be paying attention to the actual statements anymore, and in some cases the politicians used buzz terms or short-hand descriptions, and a lot of people wouldn't really get exactly what they were trying to say. But they will absorb things like body language and vocal tone. They'll absorb them and get a "feeling" about the debate, even if they can't explain it. Does anyone deny that the split screen showing Bush's scowling, furtive face was his biggest downfall in the first debate? I think is weak, whiny vocal habits will do the same in this one.
3. The Gravitas Thing
Sophomoric jokes don't have the same ring to 'em in these troubled times, as they did during our prosperity in 2000. And Bush's embarrassing laughter at his own jokes doesn't help.
And Kerry was masterful at appearing more like he was truly interested in answering the audience's questions. I'm not saying he always was. But it's one thing to ignore a moderator's question to go off on your pre-recorded message; it's another thing to show that disrespect to the audience of "real" Americans. The way Kerry returned to previous questioners, their names, their issues...and so seamlessly. Meanwhile Bush nearly always refused to address the actual questions. Most telling, and least unexpected, was his stark refusal to talk about mistakes. Bush and Cheney insisting on saying not only that they were right to go into Iraq, but that they wouldn't change a thing, that they did it all exactly right??? Well, if they really believe that, then I hope they can comfort themselves that it was their own "catastrophic success" when they're sitting at home in January.
Also, Bush may not have seemed tired and worn down, but instead he seemed hostile and combative. Bush was yelling at the audience, yelling at the moderator. He seemed on the manic side of a bi-polar moment to me. I know pundits want to call it forceful or aggressive. But Kerry showed how you can be those two things without having to seem angry or whiny. I submit that if someone woke from a 4 year coma and watched this debate, they would assume Kerry was the President and Bush some upstart challenger.
Frankly the best thing the Bush campaign could have done was to announce after that first debate that Bush had been suffering with a 106 degree temperature, and not burdened him with this need to "come out swinging". I bet he would have almost gotten the sympathy vote if they had played it that way.
Now he's got people thinking he's a little bit off. Not the guy whose finger you want near the button, as they used to say.
Andrew Sullivan is a conservative blogger/commentator who has turned against Bush. he was king of the high flying right-wing rhetoric back in the days after 9/11, but he has grown disillusioned. Not just with the war. But also on social issues.
His blog over today and last night is must-read. I won't point to a single entry. Just read them all from the 5th and 6th.
here:
If you missed it, and you want to read more than punditry about it, here are the actual transcripts of last Thursday's debate.
Enjoy.
So, after having a little more time to ruminate, I have a little more to say about the debates.
I think Bush was sent in with an overall Goal: steer your debate responses only towards a limited set of talking points.
To achieve this Goal, they formulated a Strategy: provide Bush with four talking points to memorize and only rely on him to pick the right one to answer each debate question with.
His generally accepted loss in the debate indicates either:
1. They erred in setting the Goal
or
2. Bush erred in his execution of that Strategy
But there's a third element. The Goal reflected an adherence to a specific Vision. And a mindset that their Vision was the only thing they needed to communicate to the public to win.
So possible error #3 is that their Vision is not as in step with the people as they think it is.
More in the extended entry:
It's not a new concept that Bush sticks to a talking points plan in a debate. There was a great article in the Atlantic a few months back that analyzed both Kerry's and Bush's debating styles. Bush was generally lauded for being able to seamlessly bring every response in line with one of his campaign talking points. he was also praised for his ability to do this transparently and smoothly.
While the desire to focus on his talking points is still there, the ability to skillfully execute seems lost.
As I review my notes, these were the Bush Talking Points that were repeated endlessly:
1. Saying "Wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place" is sending a mixed message. How can allies and/or out troops follow a leader who says that?
2. It's hard work.
3. A free Iraq will be the center of a newly democratic Middle East. Spreading freedom etc.
4. I'm not trying to be popular; I just do what I believe is right. You know where I stand.
So, where are the problems?
Problems with the Goal of tightly controlling topics Bush would discuss:
"Repetitive and Reactive." These aren't my words, but the words of a conservative blogger. Perhaps in debates past bush did this a little more skillfully, but Thursday night certain phrases were used too often. Every person I spoke to complained that they got tired of hearing the phrase "mixed messages" an that they didn't know what Bush was trying to gain by "whining" repeatedly about "hard work."
Problems with the execution of the Strategy:
I am willing to concede that every now and then Bush connected the appropriate talking point with the debate question, and then he sounded nearly reputable and reasonable. But mostly it was way too obvious that he wasn't answering the question as posed. It was jarring and confusing. And off-putting to those people who are not partisans already, but sincerely looking to get some answers. This is probably the main reason Kerry scored better with independents and swing voters on the debate. He actually answered questions asked, and with specific, detailed responses. Could some people wish he had been even more specific and detailed, I'm sure they did, but the comparison between the two candidates was stark in this regards.
But let's get to the biggie...the one that will cost Bush this election:
Problems with their Vision that they wanted endlessly parroted:
For every talking point, and these 4 talking points contain everything the Republican strategists think is required to win, there are significant problems, and Kerry DID find the logical response:
1. The 'Mixed Message' talking point
Leave aside that Kerry made a reasonable argument that he was the one who had been consistent. It is incredibly contradictory to use this talking point. On the one hand Bush mocks Kerry for citing the importance of proving your case to your allies. On the other, Bush states that allies won't get behind a "mixed message". Which is it? Do we care about convincing our allies or don't we?
And this talking point played into exactly what voters don't like about the war: that we're on the wrong track and they don't see a plan for change. Bush touts his consistency, but Kerry masterfully pointed out: "You can be certain and be wrong."
When a lot of people feel so uncomfortable about the war, how it's been handled, and how we're going to get out of it, I question the Bush strategy to refuse to talk about doing anything differently. "Everything's fine, just trust me" is not a winning argument these days.
2. The 'Hard Work' talking point
This one is pathetic, frankly. In his effort to be a "plain speaking" guy, he instead sounded juvenile. Really, like a whiny teenager asked to clean out the garage. "But mooooom...it's hard work." His mistake was in personalizing it. Too much about how hard it is to make decisions and how hard it is to see things on TV (how out of it does that make him sound...that he sees things from TV, not from intelligence reports?) and how hard it is to read casualty reports.
And as numerous bloggers have pointed out: sitting in your office reading reports and hearing news is not hard work...being on the front lines and ending up on a casualty report is. It only reinforces the image of Bush that hasn't actually ever known a hard day's work. His plaintive, whiny "it's hard work" schtick might have worked if it were not delivered in that plaintive, whiny way. And this is where repetition hurts you. The first few times he said it, it was more strong and resolute. But upon countless repetitions...he lost his strength and descended into whine.
3. The 'Free Iraq' talking point
Some say Bush is at his best when he talks nobly about the vague notions of liberty, freedom, faith. OK, I'll take those people at their word. If that's the case, I'm not sure why this was perhaps the least used of the 4 main talking points.
I have a guess though: The more you point out what you're shooting for, the more obvious you are drawing the distinction between that vision an today's reality. If the goal was to unseat Saddam, well, hell, we did that. If the goal is a newly democratic and peaceful Iraq...we are so far from that place, and everyone knows it. Talking about it will just point it out more starkly.
That's why all the talk of Saddam the evil dictator, and so little talk about a concept that actually could be inspiring: the spread of freedom, democracy and a return to nations admiring us for helping to bring that to the world.
4. The 'You know where I stand' talking point
The Strategy just bumps right up against the Vision and takes a fall on this one.
The fact is, in this debate, Bush avoided most opportunities to take a stand. The one takeaway I got: he prefers multi-lateral negotiations in Korea, rather than bi-lateral. But even on that one he set himself up. You can't call yourself an optimist and then say that something "can't be done" without really offering a rationale for why.
Kerry totally seized this moment too, with his rejoinder: "just because the president says something can't be done, doesn't mean it actually can't be done."
But my point is really that Bush articulated no plans. He relied so heavily on talking points, that were so obviously talking points, that he contradicted his own Vision of being the one where you "know where he stands."
I don't think anyone walked out of there with any idea about what Bush intends to do about Iraq, and worse still, you walked out with the idea that he thinks everything is progressing well. Given a minority of Americans agree...not sure this Vision will serve Bush well.
While Republican strategists would like to believe that Bush was "off his game" and a better performance in the next debates will help him recover, I think their greater fear should simply be that his message is not resonating with the people.
When 57% of the people think we're on the "wrong track": Kerry's message of "Change vs. More of the Same" is going to be pretty powerful.
And Bush isn't doing anything to combat it. And even when he makes the attempt, Kerry has the perfect response:
"You've had four years to do something about it, and you haven't."
Yup. Looks that way to me too.
From James Wolcott
From Amy Sullivan at the Washington Monthly
From Talking Points Memo
From The American Prospect, courtesy of Matt Yglesias
And this fantastic audio clip of exactly how badly Bush messed up the whole "Osama Bin Laden attacked us" moment. Courtesy of The Talent Show
Enjoy all of the above. Good reading, and in the last case, devastating listening.
If you saw Rudy Giuliani on The Daily Show yesterday, then, like me, you might be hoping he's the republican nominee in '08 running against President Kerry.
I never really liked the guy. I do admit he stepped up on 9/11 and managed to convey both compassion and calm.
So, while the guy may have leadership qualities, political leadership isn't one of them.
First of all, he needs lessons on spinning from Karl Rove, because he makes it way too obvious that he's actually lying. As Jon Stewart said: "were we watching the same debate?"
Second, I'm not sure this really played well: Stewart points out that "Kerry said he might have made a mistake in talking abut the war, but Bush made a mistake in going to war...which is worse?" And Giuliani really tried to make the case that it's worse to make a mistake talking abut the war...that whole "sending mixed messages" thing.
He didn't even say...but wait, Bush DIDN'T make a mistake.
I thought that was a colossal error, as they say.
Not very well suited for the political life, in my opinion. He's still a law enforcer...let him go back to that.
Of course, I'm not surprised Kerry spanked Bush. I am surprised that the media is admitting it so readily.
I guess it was just that obvious.
Here's are some good articles:
CNN.com - this one is a very good read...not so dry.
The NY Times - using my word for Bush: "petulant.
washington Post - Perhaps trying the hardest to remain "objective" by not stating a position.
Even the right-wing rag The New York Post declared it a "Bad Night" for W.
OK, I know it's not just me because I'm seeing it all over the place:
We know now why Bush wanted the cameras to only stay on the person speaking. He has this really shifty, cranky look whenever Kerry speaks.
I don't know about you, but I expect a President to be less petulant. I expect a sitting President to be able to outline his plan in some level of detail. I expect NOT to see someone smile slightly when they're talking about Osama Bin Laden and other serious matters.
Kerry, on the other hand, seemed strong, calm, reasoned and reasonable.
I'll pick out more great Kerry quotes later, but here are a few to send you to bed with pleasant dreams:
You can be strong and smart.
Yes, we will succeed, but it doesn't mean it wasn't wrong to go.
It's a mixed message to give a tax cut to the wealthiest, rather than invest in national security.
1 Consistent Position: Saddam is a threat; Saddam should be disarmed, but there was a wrong way and a right way to go about it, and Bush chose the wrong way.
Don't confuse the war and the warriors.
You can be certain...and be wrong.
He has had four years to do something about it...and hasn't.
Just because the President says it can't be done...doesn't mean it can't be done.
Saddam was a threat...that's not the issue. it's what you do about it.
And here's what some other bloggers are saying about it:
No doubt Ah-nold is an actor. he fooled a lot of people when running for Governor. He's a moderate; he's pro-choice; "pro-environment" (despite the Hummers); hell, he's married to a Kennedy.
But the role of moderate Republican savior is starting to be harder for him to maintain. His true partisan nature is showing. And it isn't pretty.
Read all about it in the extended entry:
I was never convinced because my feeling is that if a Republican has ambitions to continue in public office, the way the Party is now aligned...he will have to cave to the ultra right wing to continue fundraising and getting support from national leadership.
Anyway, my prescience aside, Arnold ran along the same disingenuous "uniter, not divider" lines as Bush did in 2000.
Well, we saw how that turned out.
The problem is probably that, as he keeps reminding us, Ah-nold is a big star and very very wealthy. He is used to a lot of kow-towing and ass kissing to be perfectly frank. He somehow must have imagined he would sweep into the Capitol and everyone would fall under his spell and abandon their principles.
Didn't happen. Democrats dared to disagree.
First he started with the "girly-man" name calling.
Now he's letting his true partisan nature showing with a militaristic "deputizing" of Republicans as "mini-Terminators" who should go out and "take out" the Democrats.
Seriously.
How old is this guy? Twelve? makes me sick.
Again...Arnold...we KNOW you are a movie star. PLEASE STOP quoting your own movies in every speech you make. It is so self-aggrandizing and juvenile. you are the Governor of a state which has an economy larger than all but half a dozen countries in the world. This is serious. No, everyone is not just going to bow to your will.
This is NOT a movie.
Get over it.
This is a terrific blog entry from Greater Democracy.org exploring the question of being "better off."
First he provides some great links to other sites that have visually graphed comparisons of where we are now vs. four years ago.
Second he provides a link to a list of 10 questions everyone should be asking themselves and those on the fence to help them assess their situation.
And lastly he closes with a statement about a question that is one we too often forget to ask:
"However, Jock’s final question, “Are we leaving our children a better world for their children”, is the question that most resonates with me, and I believe that by asking these questions, we can help make this a better world."
Call me idealistic. Call me a hippy dippy liberal. But that question is really the one that is most practical and most down-to-earth of all.
Pete McCloskey was a local Congressperson here n the Bay Area for 17 years. And in fact he may be the last Republican I can remember having a generally good feeling about.
He's written an excellent and brief opinion piece on why a vote for Kerry is the only option for a "true" or "traditional" Republican.
It's more of the same points about fiscal responsibility, limited governmental intrusion into private lives and personal accountability.
Read it here. And I think registration may be required, so the full text is in the extended entry:
Posted on Fri, Sep. 10, 2004
San Jose Mercury News
If you're a true Republican, you'll vote for Kerry
By Pete McCloskey
Although I'm a lifelong Republican, I will vote for John Kerry on Nov. 2. The choice seems simple under traditional principles of the Republican Party.
I first met John Kerry in the spring of 1971. Each of us was just back from Vietnam -- he as a Navy officer and I as a member of Congress -- and were appalled by what we had seen there. I found Kerry to be idealistic, courageous and, above all else, truthful to a fault. He demonstrated courage in Vietnam, but as Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. once said, the courage to speak against prevailing opinion in civil strife is often greater than that demanded on the battlefield.
During Kerry's public career after his election to the Senate, he has clearly grown and matured. I believe he is incapable of deliberate deceit or dissembling. This alone represents a refreshing hope for a return of public faith in our government.
That Kerry has attained the solid support of former Secretary of Defense William Perry, with whom he has worked for years on issues of nuclear proliferation, confirms his ability to study, listen and reach sound judgments.
The primary issue in November will be who can best lead us in the bitter struggle against the Islamic fundamentalists who perpetrated 9/11 and are willing to die to kill Americans throughout the world. The Iraq occupation has caused thousands of new suicide bombers to join the jihad against us; with Kerry as president, the nation will properly refocus the battle away from Iraq and against the true enemy, Al-Qaida.
As Kerry has stated, we desperately need the cooperation of every country in the world, friend and enemy, where terrorist cells can germinate and operate.
We need to be more humble in asking for this assistance. A return to the ``speak softly but carry a big stick'' philosophy of Teddy Roosevelt should be far more effective than the bluster, bravado and ``shock and awe'' firepower of the neocon advisers who have commandeered White House foreign policy.
There are many other reasons to support John Kerry.
The incredible budget deficits projected to be $2.3 trillion or more in the next decade, disrespect for the United Nations, international law and Geneva Conventions, secrecy in government -- all of these are positions Kerry would certainly reverse.
As a Catholic, Kerry is sure to maintain the constitutional separation between church and state, recognizing that while we are indeed a nation under God, everyone is free to choose his or her own faith in God.
He will also end the inordinate secrecy that has characterized this administration. It seems incredible that a matter as important as our national energy policy could be decided in secret by Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force -- individuals whose very names have been withheld from the public.
Kerry's record on environmental issues is superb, an area where the Bush administration has been a disaster.
Finally, there's the matter of John Ashcroft and prospective judicial appointees who could undo Roe vs. Wade, a woman's right of choice and many of the civil liberties we have earned over 225 years.
Each of the foregoing reasons for supporting Kerry is based on traditional Republican values of fiscal responsibility, limited governmental intrusion and the accountability of individuals.
In truth, John Kerry and John Edwards come far closer to the Republicanism of Teddy Roosevelt, Earl Warren, Barry Goldwater, George Bush the elder and, yes, even Richard Nixon, than does the present incumbent.
Ending secrecy and bringing truth and honesty back to the White House are reasons enough to elect Kerry and Edwards.
PETE MCCLOSKEY represented the San Francisco Peninsula in Congress from 1967 to 1983. He earned a Navy Cross, Silver Star and two Purple Hearts as a Marine rifle platoon leader during the Korean War. He wrote this column for the Mercury News.
Tina Brown manages the seemingly impossible.
She throws out a million reasons that no sane person should want to re-elect Bush, and at hte same time manages to make it sound like a depressing inevitably.
She practically wants to make me stay home on Election Day.
What is her intent? I have no idea.
Read it only if you can resist the Borg mentality that re-election is inevitable, and glean all the negatives that should be dogging the Bush campaign.
It's here.
I read this blog entry today that totally annoyed me. Or at least, one of the commenters on the entry annoyed me. here's the statement that made my head explode:
"And Kerry has not given us a clear, strong picture of what makes him different from W."
Oh really?
So I wrote a responding comment myself. You can read it in the extended entry:
Not different from W.? That's just smoking crack.
Let's step away from the Iraq mess for a moment, which either guy is going to be stuck with, and think about the following:
-Pro-choice vs. Anti-choice (with a bunch of really old Supreme Court justices.)
-Pro-environmental regulation vs. getting rid of them
-Pro-civil unions vs. Pro-rewriting the Constitution to make 10% of our population second-class citizens
-Pro-assault weapons ban vs. NOT
-Pro-separation of church and state vs. NOT
-Pro rolling back tax cuts for wealthy vs. making them permanent
-Raising the minimum wage vs. NOT
-Raising the cap, but keeping the Estate tax vs. Repealing it altogether
-Allowing drug importation and government negotiation on drug prices vs. NOT
I could go on. Do none of these issues matter anymore?
You can agree or disagree with any number of the above positions, but don't pretend these two candidates are the same.
This is the Nader red herring, and it makes me crazy.
The fact is that Bush has adopted Kerry's position on Iraq in the last months since it became such a millstone around Bush's neck.
This is a common issue I rant about in the blog for the Santa Clara County Demo. Party, mostly because I can't believe that after four years of Bush, people would still trot out that line.
[Had to get in the plug for this blog of course :)]
I know I might be just a teeny bit biased, but I like this blogger's comparison of what he observed at each of the National Conventions.
I think you will too.
I think this guy has pegged as brilliantly as Michael Moore, or I, for that matter, what is so freaky about the lack of republican uprising against this totally extreme and un-accomplished wing of their party.
This column pretty much reflects Moore's standard line.
When I saw him live in Santa Cruz, one of his bits was to call the Republican husband of an audience member, and ask him the same questions.
Conclusion: really a closet liberal, of course.
I like to say that most of America is Kerry's kind of liberal.
Moore establishes the same argument in the column.
So, Bush flies around the country campaigning. I know that somehow they do something to track official "president" stuff with official "candidate" stuff, and that his campaign shells out money.
But I also know that they try combine "presidential" activities in a town with "campaign" activities, so at least the campaign doesn't have to pay for, say, the use of Air Force One.
Or, take a look at the official White House web site. If that's not a re-election site, I don't know what is. I'm just curious about whether Bush campaign funds pay the webmaster's salary, or the hosting and server maintenance costs.
Lastly, there's the little issue of Loyalty Oaths.
So, this is what I'd like to know. Since these campaign events, where American citizens are kept out from listening to their President speak, clearly represent a time when Bush is NOT acting as President of the ENTIRE United States: shouldn't he prorate his salary? Why am I paying him if he won't let me in to a supposedly public forum?
Bush prefers selective intelligence, selective opinions, and cares about a select few when policy-making.
Kerry lets them all in, and I would submit that his attitude on his campaign events...that they're open, that everyone deserves a chance to listen and to be heard...will carry over into how he conducts himself as President.
I've heard the argument that we, the Democrats, are just as responsible for the degradation of political discourse as the Republicans, and it has always stuck in my craw.
Where are our ads comparing Bush to Bin Laden? Where are our accusations that Bush killed people, not just via waging war unnecessarily, but via hit men employed to eliminate those who "knew too much." Where are the Democratic Party Loyalty Oaths to ensure that no one gets into a Kerry event who has not drunk every last bit of Kool-Aid?
Oh yeah, that is right. They don't exist.
But here, let me put you in the good, well-informed and properly outraged hands of the Political Animal himself.
Read Arianna's latest blog post.
She does a handy job of busting the pre-Convention myth of the "moderate Republican."
While I am loathe to discount the significance of being pro-choice or pro-civil unions, she does make the point that progressive positions on those issues don't outweigh supporting the rest of Bush's extreme, right-wing positions.
Lately, one of my stock explanations of why I'm pro-Kerry has gone something like this:
"People say they'd like to have a beer with bush. Well, I'd like to have a neighbor like Kerry. He seems like he'd be a sturdy, steady, reliable, loyal and protective guy to have living next to you. I mean, if you had a fire, which one do you think would come help you?"
Well, here is just a really great story about Kerry saving the life of a former fellow Senator (Republican by the way) who choked on something in the senatorial version of the mess hall.
What's even better is how the Senators have kept in touch over the years. It's a heart-warming bi-partisan tale.
Thanks InstaPundit for bringing it to my attention.
The LA Times has done a quick survey, so we don't have to:
Here's a link to the graphic.
Suffice to say, Clinton's first 4 years outshine Bush's by a mile. I have to echo Kerry and say: if Bush truly believes this is the best economy ever, and that to say we can do better is pessimistic, than 4 more years of that kind of delusional and cynical thinking is going to kill us!
The figures are called out in the extended entry:
Job growth: annual average (payroll survey):
Clinton: +2,835,000
Bush: -455,000
Economic growth (change in inflation-adjusted gross domestic product):
Clinton: +3.7% per year
Bush: +2.5% per year
Inflation (change in consumer price index):
Clinton: +2.8% per year
Bush: +3.4% per year
Median household income, change:
Clinton: +1.7% per year
Bush: -1.6% per year
Number of Americans in poverty (average change per year):
Clinton: -800,000
Bush: +1.5 million
Number of Americans without health insurance (average change per year):
Clinton: +145,000
Bush: +1,885,000
Federal surplus/deficit (annual average):
Clinton: +$5 billion
Bush: -$350 billion
Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Census Bureau, White House Office of Management and Budget, National Assn. of Realtors.
Doesn't it seem awfully bone-headed for Bush to take his vacation in Crawford now?
Leave aside that one of the criticisms of the guy is that he's been on vacation A LOT since taking office.
He just go the report from the 9/11 Commission. He's trying to act all authoritative and like he's going to take swift, decisive action on it.
Most people would take that more seriously if you weren't on vacation, if you were issuing such action plan statements from your office, not your ranch.
I know all about modern technology. You can get a lot done.
But I also know business. if you're in the middle of a critical product launch, the key players typically forego vacations until it's done. we're in the middle of a war, and this guy feels he is still entitled to a long vacation.
Suck it up Dubya. We here in Silicon Valley can teach you a thing or two about work ethic I think.
"Vote For a Man, Not For a Puppet. Or so says Charley Reese.
Charley Reese was a self-identified "conservative" columnist for the Orlando Sentinel until 2001, and an admitted Bush voter in 2000 (he calls it a stupid move now.) Now he syndicates his column on a blog. How times are changing, huh?
Anyway, I'm not sure I agree Bush is the complete puppet that Reese claims him to be, but I can't argue with Reese's sentiment that it would be good to get a thinking, intelligent man in the White House again.
Read his column that is generating lots of buzz amongst both liberal and conservative folks here.
As you might recall from my voter registration stint at Foothill College, I had an obnoxious Republican visitor to my table first asking me if I was getting paid to register (I said: No democrats feel so strongly about this effort, we will volunteer!) and then asking if he could register as a Republican (I said: of course; here's the form.)
Well, let's all pat our Democratic selves on the back, because apparently Republicans have a different notion of doing your civic duty to further our democracy.
Check out this story about how Republicans register people to vote.
BTW: this is illegal in California!
Comcast has put forth an interesting, and I must say, admirable idea. Here's the item from the iTVt newsletter:
Comcast Offers Presidential Candidates a Free VOD Soapbox
"Comcast is offering George W. Bush and challenger, John Kerry, the opportunity to get their message across free of charge via its VOD platform, Comcast On Demand. Comcast executive vice president, David Cohen, recently told political reporters that the MSO had contacted the Republican and Democratic presidential campaigns with a proposal under which the presidential candidates would each be videotaped answering a series of questions. The resulting videos would be offered to Comcast digital subscribers free of charge. Comcast is attempting to persuade a content partner to team with it on the project: apparently, its overtures to CNN were rejected, and the company is currently in talks with C-Span."
Source: Interactive TV Today
I think it's a great idea. I think it's a great use of technology to serve the public. I think there are two notable omissions in the blurb that I'd like to hear about;
1. How did the candidates respond? I mean Comcast isn't offering them the time to do their own thing. They want them to answer a series of questions. The same questions.
2. Why would CNN reject the idea? I suppose CNN is a part of the Time Warner conglomerate, and Comcast and TW are the #1 and #2 US cable operators respectively. In fact Comcast now owns some programming providers itself, so I think it's interesting of them to offer to partner with a rival.
Anyway, I plan to email some Comcast folks I know and give them my positive feedback on the idea. As a Silicon Valley denizen, it's heartening to see someone out there trying to find creative, positive ways to use technology.
Traditional journalism is supposed to be objective.
I thought that meant objective when examining an issue. I didn't think it mean they couldn't draw any conclusions from their objective analysis.
The mainstream media has rolled over and played dead for the last 4 years. Not questioning. Not challenging. Not investigating. And above all, not daring to take a position.
So I am finding a lot more intelligent analysis and comparisons of the two presidential candidates in the blogging universe. No one's pretending to be objective actually. So they're willing to just come out and lay their cards on the table and take a position.
Here's a blogger who starts by hiking the "Anyone would be better than Bush" trail. (True, but hardly inspiring or galvanizing.) But she concludes with the 'Kerry actually rocks' perspective, which I think we all have to communicate clearly to anyone we talk to.
I have been ranting for some time now that I do not understand anyone who could buy Ralph Nader's line that the two parties, and therefore the two presidential candidates, are almost exactly the same.
I've ranted about it here here as just two examples.
Now Matthew Yglesias gives his own absolutely dead-on take on the topic in this blog entry.
It's time for the remaining (and declinging number of) Nader supporters to start thinking about how they can really help this country and the causes they claim to care about.
I'll hand it, for once, to a mainstream media outlet.
This Washington Post profile of Kerry and Edwards on their "maiden voyage" together on the campaign trail is a nice overview of their message.
And it doesn't spend an inordinate amount of time knocking what they say or interjecting Bush flack's responses every paragraph.
Check it out.
This post was hacked and hijacked by an evil spammer.
I cannot recapture whatever was in this post, but the extended entry still contains the text of an article on the Democratic Party platform.
Check it out:
Democratic Platform Focuses on National Security
By DAVID E. ROSENBAUM and DAVID E. SANGER
Published: July 4, 2004
WASHINGTON, July 3 - The first draft of the Democratic platform that will be presented to the party's convention late this month calls for a wholesale rewriting of President Bush's national security strategy, declares that Mr. Bush's "doctrine of unilateral pre-emption has driven away our allies," and promises far more focus on reforming intelligence agencies and preventing nuclear terrorism.
Almost the entire first half of the draft is devoted to national security, twice as much space and much more prominence than in the last three Democratic platforms. Its authors say that the document, the first occasion that the Democrats have had to present a unified party position since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, is the centerpiece of an effort by Senator John Kerry to distinguish his approach from President Bush's.
"There is consensus in the party that we need to stand against Bush on national security," said Steve Elmendorf, Mr. Kerry's deputy campaign manager. "We think it's important to tell the country we have something to say on this subject and not put up with the old Republican blather that we're weak on defense."
The draft takes direct aim at the central document that defines how Mr. Bush has changed American foreign policy, "National Security Strategy of the United States," published by the White House two years ago. Treading carefully, the Democratic document does not rule out the use of pre-emptive military action. But it describes it as an act of last resort, not a tenet of American foreign policy.
"We will never wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake," it reads, "but we must enlist the support of those we need for ultimate victory."
The draft, prepared by a committee led by Representative Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, will be presented to the party's platform committee at a meeting in Miami next weekend. The final document will be voted on at the party convention in Boston.
"This platform reflects John Kerry," Ms. DeLauro said. "It shows what Democrats believe and what direction the country can go in under a Kerry presidency."
Ms. DeLauro said the draft would surely be amended in Miami and then possibly at the convention. But she said she was confident the basic thrust would remain the same.
In this country, platforms do not carry the same weight as they do in parliamentary democracies. They are not binding documents, not even for the president. Primarily, they are intended to distinguish the party from its political opponents.
In the past, Democrats have sometimes been badly divided, to the point of riots and walkouts, by fights over the platform. This happened over civil rights, for instance, in 1948 and over the war in Vietnam in 1968. But this year, the party appears determined to remain unified to challenge Mr. Bush.
Even the most ardent opponents of the war in Iraq have said they will not bring challenges to the platform's stand in favor of a continuing American military presence in Iraq. That is the case despite the finding in the latest New York Times/CBS News poll that, by a margin of 56 percent to 38 percent, people who call themselves Democrats say the United States troops should "leave Iraq as soon as possible, even if Iraq is not completely stable" rather than "stay in Iraq as long as it takes to make sure Iraq is a stable democracy."
On domestic matters, the platform adopts the standard Democratic positions in favor of raising the minimum wage, guarding Social Security and Medicare against efforts at privatization, enacting new environmental protections, making health insurance available to all and protecting abortion rights. In the same vein, the platform opposes vouchers for private school tuition.
The platform emphasizes what it calls "fiscal discipline" and promises to repeal the Bush tax cuts for Americans with incomes above $200,000. But it stops short of calling for a return to the balanced budgets and surpluses at the end of the Clinton presidency.
On all these issues, Republicans can be expected to take the opposite approach.
For the first time, this platform endorses medical research using embryonic stem cells and calls Mr. Bush's restrictions in this area "wrongheaded."
In the foreign arena, the draft closely echoes themes - and the cri
