Boy, stories of how these liberated Iraqis are responding to our troops over there are awesome and inspiring! It's just like the kind of justice Bush demands of people playng on his team. Or like that British scientist who took care of the problem with his own life under Blair. Like DeLay going after those Democrats trying to thwart his power-play in Texas. Man, baseball games and ice cream can't be far off in Iraq now!
For an Iraqi Family, 'No Other Choice'
Father and Brother Are Forced by Villagers to Execute Suspected U.S. Informant
By Anthony Shadid
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, August 1, 2003; Page A01
THULUYA, Iraq -- Two hours before the dawn call to prayer, in a village still shrouded in silence, Sabah Kerbul's executioners arrived. His father carried an AK-47 assault rifle, as did his brother. And with barely a word spoken, they led the man accused by the village of working as an informer for the Americans behind a house girded with fig trees, vineyards and orange groves.
His father raised his rifle and aimed it at his oldest son.
"Sabah didn't try to escape," said Abdullah Ali, a village resident. "He knew he was facing his fate."
The story of what followed is based on interviews with Kerbul's father, brother and five other villagers who said witnesses told them about the events. One shot tore through Kerbul's leg, another his torso, the villagers said. He fell to the ground still breathing, his blood soaking the parched land near the banks of the Tigris River, they said. His father could go no further, and according to some accounts, he collapsed. His other son then fired three times, the villagers said, at least once at his brother's head.
Kerbul, a tall, husky 28-year-old, died.
"It wasn't an easy thing to kill him," his brother Salah said...
________________________________________________________________
Friday, August 01, 2003
Thursday, July 31, 2003
Billions of dollars to go fight the wrong enemy. But there was the largest supply of easily pumped oil in the world.
Grabbing the Nettle
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
The Pentagon held an all-day meeting a couple of weeks ago seeking ways to restrain North Korea. At the end of it, one expert turned to another and summed it up: "In other words, we're" doomed — except he used a pungent phrase I can't.
It was a fair judgment. North Korea was always more terrifying than Iraq, and now the situation is getting worse...
_______________________________________________________________
Grabbing the Nettle
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
The Pentagon held an all-day meeting a couple of weeks ago seeking ways to restrain North Korea. At the end of it, one expert turned to another and summed it up: "In other words, we're" doomed — except he used a pungent phrase I can't.
It was a fair judgment. North Korea was always more terrifying than Iraq, and now the situation is getting worse...
_______________________________________________________________
Is Dean a leftie? The GOP thinks so and that's how they will tar him with the largest campaign war chest of money ever raised in U.S. history. Nothing less than Kerrry can win this election. Put Clark on the ticket as VP and you're assured a victory as the conservative Democrats, the moderate Republicans and the Independents will vote for them.
Will the Real Howard Dean Please Stand Up?
By Terry M. Neal
Washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Thursday, July 31, 2003; 8:57 AM
Howard Dean is not a liberal – or so say the liberals who know him best in his home state of Vermont.
"He governed from the middle," says former state Sen. Jan Backus.
Ironically, some of Vermont's Democratic Party stalwarts say Dean's centrism sent liberals running from their party to the ultra-liberal Progressive Party -- handing some elected offices to Republicans.
But such things as liberalism and conservatism are, just like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. The centrist Democratic Leadership Council has made Dean a target - as a liberal who could hand the presidential election to Republicans if he were to become the party's nominee.
Republicans are not so divided on the subject. To them, he's just an old-time, unreconstructed leftie.
"The question is through whose prism are you looking," says Vermont Republican chairman James Barnett. "Vermont's Democratic party is far to the left of mainstream Democrats nationally. I mean, this is a state whose congressman is Bernie Sanders. One of the senators is Patrick Leahy, who is one of the most liberal senators. In this state, if you're to the right of Bernie Sanders, then you're a moderate. So I imagine if that's the way you view things, maybe [Dean's] not a liberal."...
______________________________________________________________________
Will the Real Howard Dean Please Stand Up?
By Terry M. Neal
Washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Thursday, July 31, 2003; 8:57 AM
Howard Dean is not a liberal – or so say the liberals who know him best in his home state of Vermont.
"He governed from the middle," says former state Sen. Jan Backus.
Ironically, some of Vermont's Democratic Party stalwarts say Dean's centrism sent liberals running from their party to the ultra-liberal Progressive Party -- handing some elected offices to Republicans.
But such things as liberalism and conservatism are, just like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. The centrist Democratic Leadership Council has made Dean a target - as a liberal who could hand the presidential election to Republicans if he were to become the party's nominee.
Republicans are not so divided on the subject. To them, he's just an old-time, unreconstructed leftie.
"The question is through whose prism are you looking," says Vermont Republican chairman James Barnett. "Vermont's Democratic party is far to the left of mainstream Democrats nationally. I mean, this is a state whose congressman is Bernie Sanders. One of the senators is Patrick Leahy, who is one of the most liberal senators. In this state, if you're to the right of Bernie Sanders, then you're a moderate. So I imagine if that's the way you view things, maybe [Dean's] not a liberal."...
______________________________________________________________________
Duh? Just keep repeating McCarthy and McGovern when you get fired up over Dean's anti-war stands and whatever else he's selling. Is he right? I've been against the war since the beginning but so were McCarthy and McGovern and they got their arses handed to them in a sling by one of the coldest and ugliest politicians in modern U.S. politics. Hello? Disconnect your ears and use your brain to examine the past for five seconds and remember that those that don't remember the past ARE FORCED TO REPEAT IT.
A Sharp Turn Left?
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 31, 2003; 9:03 AM
A civil war has erupted in the Democratic Party.
It's the liberals versus the centrists, the Howard Dean loyalists versus the anti-Dean establishment, the bash-Bush crowd versus those who believe anger alone can't win elections.
This ideological struggle will not only shape the 2004 election, but the shape of the party for years to come...
__________________________________________________________________
A Sharp Turn Left?
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 31, 2003; 9:03 AM
A civil war has erupted in the Democratic Party.
It's the liberals versus the centrists, the Howard Dean loyalists versus the anti-Dean establishment, the bash-Bush crowd versus those who believe anger alone can't win elections.
This ideological struggle will not only shape the 2004 election, but the shape of the party for years to come...
__________________________________________________________________
Feeling the heat, Bush puts on his poker face. On a side note. Yesterday I received an interesting joke in email from a conservative independent friend of mine. The joke was a hoary relic about clocks in heaven whose hands spin around in relationship to their connection's (a famous celebrity) lying. I've seen it many times before using Clinton as the punch line but this time it was Bush's name that sold the joke. Seems like the country (at least those conservative independent SWITCH voters) is beginning to form a negative opinion of Bush going into the election.
Upbeat Tone Belies Downside Risks
Thu Jul 31, 8:58 AM ET
By Dan Balz, Washington Post Staff Writer
His poll ratings are down, his administration's credibility on Iraq has been challenged and the economy continues to limp along, but everywhere he looked yesterday, President Bush saw reasons for optimism.
Whatever the issue, whatever the question that came his way in his first formal news conference since the start of the war in Iraq, the president had essentially the same answer: "We're making progress." But threaded through that display of self-confidence was another, more sobering message that his advisers hope Americans will accept: "This is going to take time."
His upbeat appraisal across a wide range of problems belied the challenges that have confronted his administration in the past month and the political toll they have begun to take on his presidency. If confidence alone produced results, there might be less for him to worry about.
For the first time in months, there are glimmers of optimism among Democrats, based on their sense that Bush may be vulnerable in his bid for reelection. The energy with which Bush's political team has been attacking the Democrats as too far left to be trusted to run the country suggests they understand that the longer the problems in Iraq and at home fester, the more likely it is that Bush will face a genuine fight to win a second term...
______________________________________________________________
Upbeat Tone Belies Downside Risks
Thu Jul 31, 8:58 AM ET
By Dan Balz, Washington Post Staff Writer
His poll ratings are down, his administration's credibility on Iraq has been challenged and the economy continues to limp along, but everywhere he looked yesterday, President Bush saw reasons for optimism.
Whatever the issue, whatever the question that came his way in his first formal news conference since the start of the war in Iraq, the president had essentially the same answer: "We're making progress." But threaded through that display of self-confidence was another, more sobering message that his advisers hope Americans will accept: "This is going to take time."
His upbeat appraisal across a wide range of problems belied the challenges that have confronted his administration in the past month and the political toll they have begun to take on his presidency. If confidence alone produced results, there might be less for him to worry about.
For the first time in months, there are glimmers of optimism among Democrats, based on their sense that Bush may be vulnerable in his bid for reelection. The energy with which Bush's political team has been attacking the Democrats as too far left to be trusted to run the country suggests they understand that the longer the problems in Iraq and at home fester, the more likely it is that Bush will face a genuine fight to win a second term...
______________________________________________________________
Tuesday, July 29, 2003
Blanket of Dread
By MAUREEN DOWD
WASHINGTON
There is no more delightful way to pass a summer's day in Washington than going up to Capitol Hill to watch senators jump ugly on Wolfie.
Many Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee felt they had been snookered by Paul Wolfowitz, and they did not want to be played again.
They waited gimlet-eyed yesterday while Wolfowitz of Arabia shimmied away once more from giving the cost, in lives or troops or dollars, of remaking a roiling Iraq....
_________________________________________________________
By MAUREEN DOWD
WASHINGTON
There is no more delightful way to pass a summer's day in Washington than going up to Capitol Hill to watch senators jump ugly on Wolfie.
Many Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee felt they had been snookered by Paul Wolfowitz, and they did not want to be played again.
They waited gimlet-eyed yesterday while Wolfowitz of Arabia shimmied away once more from giving the cost, in lives or troops or dollars, of remaking a roiling Iraq....
_________________________________________________________
The amazing gall of John Poindexter has no limits.What do you expect from a convicted Iran/Contran criminal?
Poindexter's Follies
NY TIMES EDITORIAL
The time has obviously come to send John Poindexter packing and to shut down the wacky espionage operation he runs at the Pentagon. The latest idea hatched by Mr. Poindexter's shop — an online futures trading market where speculators could bet on the probabilities of terrorist attacks, assassinations and coups — was canceled yesterday by embarrassed Pentagon officials. The next logical step is to fire Mr. Poindexter.
In testimony before Congress yesterday, Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, disowned the futures project. The insensitivity of the idea boggles the mind. Quite apart from the tone-deafness of equating terrorist attacks with, say, corn futures, the plan would allow speculators — even terrorists — to profit from anonymous bets on future attacks. The project's theoretical underpinnings are equally absurd. Markets do not always operate perfectly in the larger world of stocks and bonds. The idea that they can reliably forecast the behavior of isolated terrorists is ridiculous.
The "Policy Analysis Market" would actually have opened for business on Oct. 1 had Senators Ron Wyden and Byron Dorgan not blown the whistle. Despite Mr. Wolfowitz's pledge to kill it, however, the problem of Mr. Poindexter remains. He is a man of dubious background and dubious ideas. A retired rear admiral, he served as Ronald Reagan's national security adviser and helped devise the plan to sell arms to Iran and illegally divert the proceeds to the rebels in Nicaragua. He was sentenced to six months in jail for lying to Congress, a conviction overturned on appeal. He resurfaced under the Bush administration at the Pentagon. His first big brainstorm post-9/11 was a program known as Total Information Awareness, designed to identify potential terrorists by compiling a detailed electronic dossier on millions of Americans.
Congress agreed earlier this year to subject that program to strict oversight and prohibit it from being used against Americans. In light of the revelations about the latest Poindexter scheme, Congress obviously did not go far enough. It should close his operation for good. The Senate recently agreed to do just that, adding an amendment to a Defense Department appropriations bill that would terminate funds for the program. The House must now follow suit.
______________________________________________________
Poindexter's Follies
NY TIMES EDITORIAL
The time has obviously come to send John Poindexter packing and to shut down the wacky espionage operation he runs at the Pentagon. The latest idea hatched by Mr. Poindexter's shop — an online futures trading market where speculators could bet on the probabilities of terrorist attacks, assassinations and coups — was canceled yesterday by embarrassed Pentagon officials. The next logical step is to fire Mr. Poindexter.
In testimony before Congress yesterday, Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, disowned the futures project. The insensitivity of the idea boggles the mind. Quite apart from the tone-deafness of equating terrorist attacks with, say, corn futures, the plan would allow speculators — even terrorists — to profit from anonymous bets on future attacks. The project's theoretical underpinnings are equally absurd. Markets do not always operate perfectly in the larger world of stocks and bonds. The idea that they can reliably forecast the behavior of isolated terrorists is ridiculous.
The "Policy Analysis Market" would actually have opened for business on Oct. 1 had Senators Ron Wyden and Byron Dorgan not blown the whistle. Despite Mr. Wolfowitz's pledge to kill it, however, the problem of Mr. Poindexter remains. He is a man of dubious background and dubious ideas. A retired rear admiral, he served as Ronald Reagan's national security adviser and helped devise the plan to sell arms to Iran and illegally divert the proceeds to the rebels in Nicaragua. He was sentenced to six months in jail for lying to Congress, a conviction overturned on appeal. He resurfaced under the Bush administration at the Pentagon. His first big brainstorm post-9/11 was a program known as Total Information Awareness, designed to identify potential terrorists by compiling a detailed electronic dossier on millions of Americans.
Congress agreed earlier this year to subject that program to strict oversight and prohibit it from being used against Americans. In light of the revelations about the latest Poindexter scheme, Congress obviously did not go far enough. It should close his operation for good. The Senate recently agreed to do just that, adding an amendment to a Defense Department appropriations bill that would terminate funds for the program. The House must now follow suit.
______________________________________________________
The Dean Debate. I've collected some excellent blog bits from Ruy Teixeira at the terrific DONKEY RISING:
July 14, 2003
Is Dean Electable?
That's really the question, isn't it? Now that his boosters are getting over the euphoria of his fundraising numbers and his indisputable status as one of the top tier candidates in the Democratic race, they are (to their credit) starting to engage on the issue of his electability. Yes, indeed, Dean has a reasonable chance of capturing the Democratic nomination. But does he have a reasonable chance of actually beating Bush?
John Judis' piece in Salon.com argues: not really; in fact, he'll probably get clobbered. The essence of Judis' argument is that, while Dean can fairly be said to represent the ethos of the country's increasingly influential professional class, which plays a leading role in today's Democratic coalition, his ability to appeal outside that group and other elements of the Democratic base is likely to be poor. His aggressive antiwar stance and liberalism on issues like gay marriage will turn off swing voters, especially white working class and culturally conservative voters, and especially in swing states the Democrats need to win to build an electoral vote majority.
DR thinks Judis is right. But TAPPED and Jerome Armstrong ( writing in MyDD ) offer some counterarguments that deserve attention. Perhaps their dominant theme is that Judis is contradicting his own thesis in The Emerging Democratic Majority by saying that Dean represents the views of the professional class--which EDM annoints as the ideological leader of the new Democratic coalition--but somehow can't put that coalition together.
DR is pretty familiar with the EDM thesis and can assure TAPPED and MyDD that there is no contradiction. The key point is that political leadership involves building coalitions that reach outside your base and absorb independent and moderate voters who are leaning your way. Clinton's strength was being able to synthesize the views of professionals with those of older elements of the Democratic coalition and present that synthesis in a way that made enough independent and moderate voters feel it was safe to vote Democratic. That includes the white working class and culturally conservative voters Dean is likely to have the most trouble with.
Really, it seems to DR that Dean supporters' main argument has to be that the Dean straight talkin', McCain mojo, aggressive alpha-male thing will obviate any need for the kind of electoral finesse displayed by Clinton. Independents will hear that straight talkin' and they'll rush to sign up, especially as the administration continues to dissemble on Iraq, etc. But DR believes that not all independents are created equal and that Dean's approach and persona is still likely to yield its most success with socially liberal, upscale independents in relatively liberal states.
None of this is to say that Dean couldn't possibly beat Bush in any situation. If the administration gets into enough hot water on Iraq and the economy anything is possible. But, if they get into that kind of hot water, then a more moderate, less polarizing--less purely professional class!--candidate like Kerry or Gephardt is even more likely to be able to beat Bush.
It's all a matter of probabilities. Dean's supporters can make a case that he possibly could beat Bush if enough things went his way. But we need to look at probabilities not possibilities and that's where Dean's candidacy falls short.
posted 1:25 pm
July 16, 2003
The Dean Debate Continues!
Yesterday TAPPED responded to DR's response to TAPPED's response to John Judis' Salon.com article about Dean's (non)electability. It appears we've reached unity on some the problems likely to beset a Dean general election candidacy As TAPPED puts it:
[There is] much that is appealing about Dean, but we'd have to agree that his ability to resonate with moderate voters in center-right swing states will probably be the acid test of whether his straight talk can overcome his geographic undesirability.
Exactly. That is where the case for Dean has to be made. An interesting contribution along these lines was made recently in &c., The New Republic 's blog. The post is essentially a response to a column by The Los Angeles Times ' Ron Brownstein, where Brownstein argues that Ho-Ho's fervent denunciations of Bush play great with Democrats but are probably frightening away centrist voters Democrats need in the general election.
&c. reasonably points out that any successful candidate for the Democratic nomination winds up frightening at least some centrist voters, due to the nature of the process: you're marketing yourself to Democrats not the general electorate. The question therefore is not whether there's damage but how much there is and how fixable that damage is. &c. argues that Dean's liberalism is more tonal (he let's 'em have it!) than based on policy (many of his policies--though not Iraq, which is a big exception--are relatively conservative for a Democrat). And that's good because tonal liberalism is much easier to modify for the general than policy liberalism, which tends to box you in with commitments that are hard to keep if you want to appeal to moderates.
&c. argues further that there are aspects of Dean's aggressive tone that could even help with some moderate voters, especially white men, since many of these voters see Democrats as hopelessly wimpy. Dean may be many things, but wimpy he's not!
There are problems with this argument, but it is crisply put and again focuses us on the central question that has to be convincingly addressed to make the case for Dean's electability: can he really get those moderate voters in the swing states--and can he get them better than the other Democratic candidates?
Well, maybe more on this tomorrow. DR's spies tell him that The New Republic 's two Jonathans (Cohn/pro and Chait/con) will weigh in tomorrow on the Dean electability question and they'll no doubt have new and interesting things to say.
July 17, 2003
Take Two Dean Articles and Call Me in the Morning
The good doctor is on trial today in the pages of The New Republic . Can feisty Ho-Ho (if nominated) actually beat George W. Bush and become President of these United States? Yes, he can! says Jonathan Cohn . Don’t be ridiculous, says Jonathan Chait .
DR urges you to read both of them and then pick your Jonathan. Both are fine articles. Cohn’s is possibly the best defense of Dean’s electability I’ve seen. Chait’s, if a bit over-the-top at times, raises so many good questions about Dean’s electoral viability that honest Dean supporters will be forced to slow down for a minute and ask themselves: gee, could this guy really, really beat Bush?
DR doesn’t entirely agree with either article, but he is inclined to think Cohn is more wrong than right and Chait is more right than wrong.
Cohn’s case is that Dean’s centrism is real and misunderstood and that his appeal to liberals is based mostly on the fact that “he’s as angry as they are� and tells it like it is about Bush and the sins of his administration. Cohn further argues that Dean’s blunt-speaking persona will be just the ticket with voters, including swing voters, who are looking for someone who speaks like a human being and tells you what they really think in clear, short sentences. That authenticity, Cohn argues, will be the key to reaching the political center, even on contentious issues like the Iraq war (where, he reminds us, Dean’s consistent stance against the war looks less far-out with every day that goes by).
Well, maybe. As Cohn himself cogently puts it:
[V]oters will quite properly demand that presidential candidates demonstrate their ability to protect national security. That's a difficult challenge for any governor lacking foreign policy or personal military experience. Make that governor a New Englander, load him up with a few cultural positions (such as pro-civil unions) that some voters interpret as "soft," then have him oppose a war that was widely popular at the time, and what you have--it would seem--is a recipe for disaster.
I’m not sure Cohn ever really extricates Dean from these problems in his article. And Chait’s article sticks this knife in and twists it. The article, ominously (biblically?) subtitled “Howard Dean and the Tempting of the Democrats�, systematically marches through all the ways (like the ones Cohn mentions and then some) in which Dean can easily be portrayed as out-of-step and too liberal for centrist general election voters. As Chait points out, Dean’s heterodoxy on issues like guns and the death penalty is unlikely to help him that much in the general because voters do not carefully examine each candidate’s individual positions. Instead, they go for a broad impression of the man, which Rove and Co. will be happy to supply based on the abundant raw material that a Dean candidacy will supply.
There are some problems with Chait’s article. He spends too much time upbraiding Dean for being unfair to his fellow Democrats (quit lying about their records!) And he never really deals with the energy and mobilization issue, which is surely a strong point of the Dean candidacy. Any Democratic candidate will need energy and mobilization in abundance to be successful and Chait, shall we say, doesn’t really give the devil his due on this one.
No matter. It’s a good article and so is Cohn’s. Read ‘em both and you’ll be up to speed as the Great Dean Debate continues.
July 22, 2003
Once Again on the Dean Question
DR’s posts on the Dean electability question (July 14, 16 and 17) have generated some comment, including most recently this post by MyDD and this post by Demosthenes , in which they hasten to assure me that my misgivings about Dean’s electability are misplaced.
I can’t say I was convinced, any more than I was by Jonathan Cohn’s fine case for the good doctor in The New Republic . But I think their posts are instructive because they reveal some of the assumptions that Dean boosters tend to make when arguing (in essence) that only Democratic wimps, hopeless Establishment types and/or DLCers believe Dean can’t beat Bush.
Assumption #1: Dean’s association with liberal social issues like gay marriage won’t hurt him much—or, at least any more than any other Democrat will be hurt by social liberalism--because he is conservative on other social issues (guns, death penalty). Anyway, the country is becoming more liberal on issues concerning gays (witness the recent Supreme Court decision), so Dean won’t seem nearly so out-of-step as a lot of commentators think.
Problem #1: Yes, all Democrats, including nominal front-runner Kerry, will have to battle social liberalism critiques and hit jobs if nominated. But that’s exactly why you don’t want to present too much of an easy target and Dean does, due to not only the specific issue of gay marriage (still a bridge too far for most of the public, as opposed to legalizing gay sex, which they support), but also his geographic origins and the general profile of his candidacy.
Assumption #2: Dean’s antiwar stance will not hurt him; in fact, it’ll help him, now that Iraq has evolved into a seemingly intractable mess and the public is starting to wonder whether the whole adventure was worth the costs. Dean’s been consistently against the war, while the other candidates, like Kerry, have not and voters will reward that consistency.
Problem #2: Voters do not necessarily reward consistency. They reward those who seem to represent their view of the world and what needs to be done. The fact of the matter is that Kerry’s ambivalence-but-reluctant-support of the Iraq war more fairly represented the public’s view of the war going in than did Dean’s intransigent opposition and Kerry’s current move from ambivalence toward a critique of Bush’s approach also fairly represents how the public mood is evolving. So the inconsistent Kerry is probably in a much better position than the consistent Dean to capture the moderate voters who are becoming disaffected with the war’s aftermath, as well as the administration’s mendacity. And don’t forget: Kerry’s war hero status does matter and will help allay moderate voters’ fears that a critique of Bush comes from Democratic softness on national security, not from a realistic, tough-minded appraisal of what it’ll take to beat terrorists and keep America safe.
Assumption #3: Sure, Dean may have some trouble with some independent voters. But he will do well with independent-leaning members of the public who do not currently vote. In fact, he will bring out enough of these currently nonvoting independents to more than cancel out his losses among today’s independent voters.
Problem #3: This almost never works. The idea you can make up serious losses among existing voters by turning out lots of nonvoters is a very dangerous game indeed. Nonvoters rarely differ enough from voters of similar characteristics to warrant such an approach. (For those who want the long course on why this is so, DR recommends, in all due modesty, The Disappearing American Voter ) Instead, stick to the tried and true: get out your base (the folks you know will vote for you); fight like hell for the swing voters; and hope that an exciting campaign will bring in some new voters that will lean your way. But to vest your hopes in new voters is a serious—albeit common—mistake.
Well, all for now and, as DR is fond of saying: let the debate continue!
Coming soon in DR: The Demographics of Deanism
posted 5:23 pm
__________________________________________________________________
July 14, 2003
Is Dean Electable?
That's really the question, isn't it? Now that his boosters are getting over the euphoria of his fundraising numbers and his indisputable status as one of the top tier candidates in the Democratic race, they are (to their credit) starting to engage on the issue of his electability. Yes, indeed, Dean has a reasonable chance of capturing the Democratic nomination. But does he have a reasonable chance of actually beating Bush?
John Judis' piece in Salon.com argues: not really; in fact, he'll probably get clobbered. The essence of Judis' argument is that, while Dean can fairly be said to represent the ethos of the country's increasingly influential professional class, which plays a leading role in today's Democratic coalition, his ability to appeal outside that group and other elements of the Democratic base is likely to be poor. His aggressive antiwar stance and liberalism on issues like gay marriage will turn off swing voters, especially white working class and culturally conservative voters, and especially in swing states the Democrats need to win to build an electoral vote majority.
DR thinks Judis is right. But TAPPED and Jerome Armstrong ( writing in MyDD ) offer some counterarguments that deserve attention. Perhaps their dominant theme is that Judis is contradicting his own thesis in The Emerging Democratic Majority by saying that Dean represents the views of the professional class--which EDM annoints as the ideological leader of the new Democratic coalition--but somehow can't put that coalition together.
DR is pretty familiar with the EDM thesis and can assure TAPPED and MyDD that there is no contradiction. The key point is that political leadership involves building coalitions that reach outside your base and absorb independent and moderate voters who are leaning your way. Clinton's strength was being able to synthesize the views of professionals with those of older elements of the Democratic coalition and present that synthesis in a way that made enough independent and moderate voters feel it was safe to vote Democratic. That includes the white working class and culturally conservative voters Dean is likely to have the most trouble with.
Really, it seems to DR that Dean supporters' main argument has to be that the Dean straight talkin', McCain mojo, aggressive alpha-male thing will obviate any need for the kind of electoral finesse displayed by Clinton. Independents will hear that straight talkin' and they'll rush to sign up, especially as the administration continues to dissemble on Iraq, etc. But DR believes that not all independents are created equal and that Dean's approach and persona is still likely to yield its most success with socially liberal, upscale independents in relatively liberal states.
None of this is to say that Dean couldn't possibly beat Bush in any situation. If the administration gets into enough hot water on Iraq and the economy anything is possible. But, if they get into that kind of hot water, then a more moderate, less polarizing--less purely professional class!--candidate like Kerry or Gephardt is even more likely to be able to beat Bush.
It's all a matter of probabilities. Dean's supporters can make a case that he possibly could beat Bush if enough things went his way. But we need to look at probabilities not possibilities and that's where Dean's candidacy falls short.
posted 1:25 pm
July 16, 2003
The Dean Debate Continues!
Yesterday TAPPED responded to DR's response to TAPPED's response to John Judis' Salon.com article about Dean's (non)electability. It appears we've reached unity on some the problems likely to beset a Dean general election candidacy As TAPPED puts it:
[There is] much that is appealing about Dean, but we'd have to agree that his ability to resonate with moderate voters in center-right swing states will probably be the acid test of whether his straight talk can overcome his geographic undesirability.
Exactly. That is where the case for Dean has to be made. An interesting contribution along these lines was made recently in &c., The New Republic 's blog. The post is essentially a response to a column by The Los Angeles Times ' Ron Brownstein, where Brownstein argues that Ho-Ho's fervent denunciations of Bush play great with Democrats but are probably frightening away centrist voters Democrats need in the general election.
&c. reasonably points out that any successful candidate for the Democratic nomination winds up frightening at least some centrist voters, due to the nature of the process: you're marketing yourself to Democrats not the general electorate. The question therefore is not whether there's damage but how much there is and how fixable that damage is. &c. argues that Dean's liberalism is more tonal (he let's 'em have it!) than based on policy (many of his policies--though not Iraq, which is a big exception--are relatively conservative for a Democrat). And that's good because tonal liberalism is much easier to modify for the general than policy liberalism, which tends to box you in with commitments that are hard to keep if you want to appeal to moderates.
&c. argues further that there are aspects of Dean's aggressive tone that could even help with some moderate voters, especially white men, since many of these voters see Democrats as hopelessly wimpy. Dean may be many things, but wimpy he's not!
There are problems with this argument, but it is crisply put and again focuses us on the central question that has to be convincingly addressed to make the case for Dean's electability: can he really get those moderate voters in the swing states--and can he get them better than the other Democratic candidates?
Well, maybe more on this tomorrow. DR's spies tell him that The New Republic 's two Jonathans (Cohn/pro and Chait/con) will weigh in tomorrow on the Dean electability question and they'll no doubt have new and interesting things to say.
July 17, 2003
Take Two Dean Articles and Call Me in the Morning
The good doctor is on trial today in the pages of The New Republic . Can feisty Ho-Ho (if nominated) actually beat George W. Bush and become President of these United States? Yes, he can! says Jonathan Cohn . Don’t be ridiculous, says Jonathan Chait .
DR urges you to read both of them and then pick your Jonathan. Both are fine articles. Cohn’s is possibly the best defense of Dean’s electability I’ve seen. Chait’s, if a bit over-the-top at times, raises so many good questions about Dean’s electoral viability that honest Dean supporters will be forced to slow down for a minute and ask themselves: gee, could this guy really, really beat Bush?
DR doesn’t entirely agree with either article, but he is inclined to think Cohn is more wrong than right and Chait is more right than wrong.
Cohn’s case is that Dean’s centrism is real and misunderstood and that his appeal to liberals is based mostly on the fact that “he’s as angry as they are� and tells it like it is about Bush and the sins of his administration. Cohn further argues that Dean’s blunt-speaking persona will be just the ticket with voters, including swing voters, who are looking for someone who speaks like a human being and tells you what they really think in clear, short sentences. That authenticity, Cohn argues, will be the key to reaching the political center, even on contentious issues like the Iraq war (where, he reminds us, Dean’s consistent stance against the war looks less far-out with every day that goes by).
Well, maybe. As Cohn himself cogently puts it:
[V]oters will quite properly demand that presidential candidates demonstrate their ability to protect national security. That's a difficult challenge for any governor lacking foreign policy or personal military experience. Make that governor a New Englander, load him up with a few cultural positions (such as pro-civil unions) that some voters interpret as "soft," then have him oppose a war that was widely popular at the time, and what you have--it would seem--is a recipe for disaster.
I’m not sure Cohn ever really extricates Dean from these problems in his article. And Chait’s article sticks this knife in and twists it. The article, ominously (biblically?) subtitled “Howard Dean and the Tempting of the Democrats�, systematically marches through all the ways (like the ones Cohn mentions and then some) in which Dean can easily be portrayed as out-of-step and too liberal for centrist general election voters. As Chait points out, Dean’s heterodoxy on issues like guns and the death penalty is unlikely to help him that much in the general because voters do not carefully examine each candidate’s individual positions. Instead, they go for a broad impression of the man, which Rove and Co. will be happy to supply based on the abundant raw material that a Dean candidacy will supply.
There are some problems with Chait’s article. He spends too much time upbraiding Dean for being unfair to his fellow Democrats (quit lying about their records!) And he never really deals with the energy and mobilization issue, which is surely a strong point of the Dean candidacy. Any Democratic candidate will need energy and mobilization in abundance to be successful and Chait, shall we say, doesn’t really give the devil his due on this one.
No matter. It’s a good article and so is Cohn’s. Read ‘em both and you’ll be up to speed as the Great Dean Debate continues.
July 22, 2003
Once Again on the Dean Question
DR’s posts on the Dean electability question (July 14, 16 and 17) have generated some comment, including most recently this post by MyDD and this post by Demosthenes , in which they hasten to assure me that my misgivings about Dean’s electability are misplaced.
I can’t say I was convinced, any more than I was by Jonathan Cohn’s fine case for the good doctor in The New Republic . But I think their posts are instructive because they reveal some of the assumptions that Dean boosters tend to make when arguing (in essence) that only Democratic wimps, hopeless Establishment types and/or DLCers believe Dean can’t beat Bush.
Assumption #1: Dean’s association with liberal social issues like gay marriage won’t hurt him much—or, at least any more than any other Democrat will be hurt by social liberalism--because he is conservative on other social issues (guns, death penalty). Anyway, the country is becoming more liberal on issues concerning gays (witness the recent Supreme Court decision), so Dean won’t seem nearly so out-of-step as a lot of commentators think.
Problem #1: Yes, all Democrats, including nominal front-runner Kerry, will have to battle social liberalism critiques and hit jobs if nominated. But that’s exactly why you don’t want to present too much of an easy target and Dean does, due to not only the specific issue of gay marriage (still a bridge too far for most of the public, as opposed to legalizing gay sex, which they support), but also his geographic origins and the general profile of his candidacy.
Assumption #2: Dean’s antiwar stance will not hurt him; in fact, it’ll help him, now that Iraq has evolved into a seemingly intractable mess and the public is starting to wonder whether the whole adventure was worth the costs. Dean’s been consistently against the war, while the other candidates, like Kerry, have not and voters will reward that consistency.
Problem #2: Voters do not necessarily reward consistency. They reward those who seem to represent their view of the world and what needs to be done. The fact of the matter is that Kerry’s ambivalence-but-reluctant-support of the Iraq war more fairly represented the public’s view of the war going in than did Dean’s intransigent opposition and Kerry’s current move from ambivalence toward a critique of Bush’s approach also fairly represents how the public mood is evolving. So the inconsistent Kerry is probably in a much better position than the consistent Dean to capture the moderate voters who are becoming disaffected with the war’s aftermath, as well as the administration’s mendacity. And don’t forget: Kerry’s war hero status does matter and will help allay moderate voters’ fears that a critique of Bush comes from Democratic softness on national security, not from a realistic, tough-minded appraisal of what it’ll take to beat terrorists and keep America safe.
Assumption #3: Sure, Dean may have some trouble with some independent voters. But he will do well with independent-leaning members of the public who do not currently vote. In fact, he will bring out enough of these currently nonvoting independents to more than cancel out his losses among today’s independent voters.
Problem #3: This almost never works. The idea you can make up serious losses among existing voters by turning out lots of nonvoters is a very dangerous game indeed. Nonvoters rarely differ enough from voters of similar characteristics to warrant such an approach. (For those who want the long course on why this is so, DR recommends, in all due modesty, The Disappearing American Voter ) Instead, stick to the tried and true: get out your base (the folks you know will vote for you); fight like hell for the swing voters; and hope that an exciting campaign will bring in some new voters that will lean your way. But to vest your hopes in new voters is a serious—albeit common—mistake.
Well, all for now and, as DR is fond of saying: let the debate continue!
Coming soon in DR: The Demographics of Deanism
posted 5:23 pm
__________________________________________________________________
Let me give you some names.
Eugene McCarthy. George McGovern. Great men. But they had the pants beat off them by Nixon. Nixon! During a very unpopular war that eventually the U.S. was forced out of. McCarthy and McGovern were right about the war but they couldn't make it happen politically in their election bids.
Michael Dukakis. Even Bush the First beat him. Remember the ridicule over the tank photo op of Dukakis? The revolving door commercial of Willie Horton?
Ralph Nader. Imagine if those that had supported him had worked for Gore from the beginning of the struggle to get elected and voted for him. Think about how close the election was. How a few more votes in Florida could have turned the tide.
John McCain. Republican candidate for President. A certified decorated war hero and Viet Nam P.O.W. (five years, six months). Bush's attack machine smeared him in the primaries and the people that worked for him (with the recorded telephone help of Pat Robinson in South Carolina!). Get something straight my wide-eyed fellow un-Bushites. Bush and his political machine and its warchest of money and dirty tricks will stop at nothing. They will run over their own grandmother with a tank if she gets in the way of electing Bush president again. And they mean to lock the whole government under their control forever. Got that?
Bill Clinton. Kicked the first Bush out of the White House despite his winning the Gulf War. Won the election for President twice. And despite the brutal and obsessed money and forces of a united GOP political attack machine. Think about what it takes to do that and the kind of person who is smart enough and has the politically savy required to pull it off. This ain't tiddlely-winks, folks.
The poll reported on below (and the article under it) illustrates why Dean can't win and Kerry can. Especially if Kerry convinces Wesley Clark to join him on the ticket. The election will be lost on losing the older conservative Democratic base AND the younger moderate Republicans who will not vote for Dean because of his McGovern stance on Iraq. The war was wrong to be fought for the reasons given but only a candidate like Kerry will be trusted by the voters mentioned above to sweep house while keeping a strong military in place.
Regardless of how you feel, do the math on the voters with the evidence provided.
Bush's Political Wizard of Oz and the head of the vicious political smear machine, Karl Rove, is on public record of stating he'd love to have Dean to run against in the election. Read the poll and two brief article excerpts below and see why.
Poll Finds Democrats Lack Crucial Support to Beat Bush
Party Must Strongly Reposition Itself to Regain White Male Voters' Support, DLC Advised
By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 29, 2003; Page A03
PHILADELPHIA, July 28 -- Dramatic erosion in support among white men has left the Democrats in a highly vulnerable position and unless the party strongly repositions itself, President Bush will be virtually impossible to beat in 2004, according to a new poll commissioned for the centrist Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).
The gloomy prognosis came despite evidence in the poll and in the assessments of Democratic elected officials attending the DLC's "national conversation" here that the economy alone makes Bush vulnerable for reelection. But Mark J. Penn, who conducted the poll, said that the party's image has regressed since former president Bill Clinton left office and that those weaknesses put Democrats in a weakened position.
Penn said his polling indicates that since Clinton left office in 2001, more Americans believe Democrats are the party of big government and higher taxes and he said Bush's handling of the war on terrorism has opened up a huge gap with Democrats on who is more trusted on issues of national security.
"If Democrats can't close the security gap, then they can't be competitive in the next election," said Penn, who polled for Clinton in his second term and who is the pollster for the presidential campaign of Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.).
The poll showed Bush's vulnerabilities. Fewer than half of those surveyed (48 percent) think he deserves to be reelected and 53 percent said the economy is heading in the wrong direction.
But Penn said Democrats must make a concerted effort to appeal to white voters, particularly men and married women, to make the 2004 race competitive. He said just 22 percent of white men identified with the Democratic Party in his poll, and he said younger men are even more strongly Republican in their leanings...
Centrist Democrats Warn Party Not to Present Itself as 'Far Left'
Tue Jul 29, 8:55 AM ET
By ADAM NAGOURNEY The New York Times
PHILADELPHIA, July 28 The moderate Democratic group that helped elect Bill Clinton to the White House in 1992 warned today that Democrats were headed for defeat if they presented themselves as an angry "far left" party fighting tax cuts and opposing the war in Iraq.
The warning, by the Democratic Leadership Council, an organization of moderate Democrats that helped move the party to the center 10 years ago, was largely a response to the popularity enjoyed in early presidential primary states by Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont.
Dr. Dean has attracted wide notice for his criticism of the Democratic Party for supporting the Iraq war and some of President Bush's tax cuts.
Neither Dr. Dean nor any other presidential candidate attended the two-day conference of the leadership council, which ended today.
But the group's leaders said their concerns went beyond Dr. Dean and reflected what they feared was an emerging perception of the entire Democratic presidential field as supportive of liberal policies that the council rejected long ago.
"It is our belief that the Democratic Party has an important choice to make: Do we want to vent or do we want to govern?" said Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, chairman of the organization. "The administration is being run by the far right. The Democratic Party is in danger of being taken over by the far left."
When a reporter asked a panel of council leaders whether Democratic woes were a result of Republican attacks or Democratic mistakes, Senator Bayh responded with a curt two-word answer that silenced the room.
"Assisted suicide," he said...
KERRY MEET-UP
JOHN KERRY FOR PRESIDENT
_________________________________________________________________
Eugene McCarthy. George McGovern. Great men. But they had the pants beat off them by Nixon. Nixon! During a very unpopular war that eventually the U.S. was forced out of. McCarthy and McGovern were right about the war but they couldn't make it happen politically in their election bids.
Michael Dukakis. Even Bush the First beat him. Remember the ridicule over the tank photo op of Dukakis? The revolving door commercial of Willie Horton?
Ralph Nader. Imagine if those that had supported him had worked for Gore from the beginning of the struggle to get elected and voted for him. Think about how close the election was. How a few more votes in Florida could have turned the tide.
John McCain. Republican candidate for President. A certified decorated war hero and Viet Nam P.O.W. (five years, six months). Bush's attack machine smeared him in the primaries and the people that worked for him (with the recorded telephone help of Pat Robinson in South Carolina!). Get something straight my wide-eyed fellow un-Bushites. Bush and his political machine and its warchest of money and dirty tricks will stop at nothing. They will run over their own grandmother with a tank if she gets in the way of electing Bush president again. And they mean to lock the whole government under their control forever. Got that?
Bill Clinton. Kicked the first Bush out of the White House despite his winning the Gulf War. Won the election for President twice. And despite the brutal and obsessed money and forces of a united GOP political attack machine. Think about what it takes to do that and the kind of person who is smart enough and has the politically savy required to pull it off. This ain't tiddlely-winks, folks.
The poll reported on below (and the article under it) illustrates why Dean can't win and Kerry can. Especially if Kerry convinces Wesley Clark to join him on the ticket. The election will be lost on losing the older conservative Democratic base AND the younger moderate Republicans who will not vote for Dean because of his McGovern stance on Iraq. The war was wrong to be fought for the reasons given but only a candidate like Kerry will be trusted by the voters mentioned above to sweep house while keeping a strong military in place.
Regardless of how you feel, do the math on the voters with the evidence provided.
Bush's Political Wizard of Oz and the head of the vicious political smear machine, Karl Rove, is on public record of stating he'd love to have Dean to run against in the election. Read the poll and two brief article excerpts below and see why.
Poll Finds Democrats Lack Crucial Support to Beat Bush
Party Must Strongly Reposition Itself to Regain White Male Voters' Support, DLC Advised
By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 29, 2003; Page A03
PHILADELPHIA, July 28 -- Dramatic erosion in support among white men has left the Democrats in a highly vulnerable position and unless the party strongly repositions itself, President Bush will be virtually impossible to beat in 2004, according to a new poll commissioned for the centrist Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).
The gloomy prognosis came despite evidence in the poll and in the assessments of Democratic elected officials attending the DLC's "national conversation" here that the economy alone makes Bush vulnerable for reelection. But Mark J. Penn, who conducted the poll, said that the party's image has regressed since former president Bill Clinton left office and that those weaknesses put Democrats in a weakened position.
Penn said his polling indicates that since Clinton left office in 2001, more Americans believe Democrats are the party of big government and higher taxes and he said Bush's handling of the war on terrorism has opened up a huge gap with Democrats on who is more trusted on issues of national security.
"If Democrats can't close the security gap, then they can't be competitive in the next election," said Penn, who polled for Clinton in his second term and who is the pollster for the presidential campaign of Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.).
The poll showed Bush's vulnerabilities. Fewer than half of those surveyed (48 percent) think he deserves to be reelected and 53 percent said the economy is heading in the wrong direction.
But Penn said Democrats must make a concerted effort to appeal to white voters, particularly men and married women, to make the 2004 race competitive. He said just 22 percent of white men identified with the Democratic Party in his poll, and he said younger men are even more strongly Republican in their leanings...
Centrist Democrats Warn Party Not to Present Itself as 'Far Left'
Tue Jul 29, 8:55 AM ET
By ADAM NAGOURNEY The New York Times
PHILADELPHIA, July 28 The moderate Democratic group that helped elect Bill Clinton to the White House in 1992 warned today that Democrats were headed for defeat if they presented themselves as an angry "far left" party fighting tax cuts and opposing the war in Iraq.
The warning, by the Democratic Leadership Council, an organization of moderate Democrats that helped move the party to the center 10 years ago, was largely a response to the popularity enjoyed in early presidential primary states by Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont.
Dr. Dean has attracted wide notice for his criticism of the Democratic Party for supporting the Iraq war and some of President Bush's tax cuts.
Neither Dr. Dean nor any other presidential candidate attended the two-day conference of the leadership council, which ended today.
But the group's leaders said their concerns went beyond Dr. Dean and reflected what they feared was an emerging perception of the entire Democratic presidential field as supportive of liberal policies that the council rejected long ago.
"It is our belief that the Democratic Party has an important choice to make: Do we want to vent or do we want to govern?" said Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, chairman of the organization. "The administration is being run by the far right. The Democratic Party is in danger of being taken over by the far left."
When a reporter asked a panel of council leaders whether Democratic woes were a result of Republican attacks or Democratic mistakes, Senator Bayh responded with a curt two-word answer that silenced the room.
"Assisted suicide," he said...
KERRY MEET-UP
JOHN KERRY FOR PRESIDENT
_________________________________________________________________
Paint a "Duh" across the heads of those going the McGovern route. It's not going to win the more conservative Democrats and the moderate Republicans. All it will do is allow Karl Rove and Bush to laugh like drunken rednecks during another four years of raping the nation.
Centrist Democrats Warn Party Not to Present Itself as 'Far Left'
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
PHILADELPHIA, July 28 — The moderate Democratic group that helped elect Bill Clinton to the White House in 1992 warned today that Democrats were headed for defeat if they presented themselves as an angry "far left" party fighting tax cuts and opposing the war in Iraq.
The warning, by the Democratic Leadership Council, an organization of moderate Democrats that helped move the party to the center 10 years ago, was largely a response to the popularity enjoyed in early presidential primary states by Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont.
Dr. Dean has attracted wide notice for his criticism of the Democratic Party for supporting the Iraq war and some of President Bush's tax cuts.
Neither Dr. Dean nor any other presidential candidate attended the two-day conference of the leadership council, which ended today.
But the group's leaders said their concerns went beyond Dr. Dean and reflected what they feared was an emerging perception of the entire Democratic presidential field as supportive of liberal policies that the council rejected long ago.
"It is our belief that the Democratic Party has an important choice to make: Do we want to vent or do we want to govern?" said Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, chairman of the organization. "The administration is being run by the far right. The Democratic Party is in danger of being taken over by the far left."
When a reporter asked a panel of council leaders whether Democratic woes were a result of Republican attacks or Democratic mistakes, Senator Bayh responded with a curt two-word answer that silenced the room.
"Assisted suicide," he said.
Al From, the founder of the organization and an ally of Mr. Clinton, invoked the sweeping defeats of George McGovern in 1972 and Walter F. Mondale in 1984 as he cautioned against a return to policies — including less emphasis on foreign policy and an inclination toward expanding the size of government — that he said were a recipe for another electoral disaster.
"There are some in our party who would take us back to our pre-Clinton days, who refuse to learn the lessons of President Clinton's success," Mr. From, the group's chief executive, said after being introduced as "the man who led our party out of the wilderness once before."...
_______________________________________________________________
Centrist Democrats Warn Party Not to Present Itself as 'Far Left'
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
PHILADELPHIA, July 28 — The moderate Democratic group that helped elect Bill Clinton to the White House in 1992 warned today that Democrats were headed for defeat if they presented themselves as an angry "far left" party fighting tax cuts and opposing the war in Iraq.
The warning, by the Democratic Leadership Council, an organization of moderate Democrats that helped move the party to the center 10 years ago, was largely a response to the popularity enjoyed in early presidential primary states by Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont.
Dr. Dean has attracted wide notice for his criticism of the Democratic Party for supporting the Iraq war and some of President Bush's tax cuts.
Neither Dr. Dean nor any other presidential candidate attended the two-day conference of the leadership council, which ended today.
But the group's leaders said their concerns went beyond Dr. Dean and reflected what they feared was an emerging perception of the entire Democratic presidential field as supportive of liberal policies that the council rejected long ago.
"It is our belief that the Democratic Party has an important choice to make: Do we want to vent or do we want to govern?" said Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, chairman of the organization. "The administration is being run by the far right. The Democratic Party is in danger of being taken over by the far left."
When a reporter asked a panel of council leaders whether Democratic woes were a result of Republican attacks or Democratic mistakes, Senator Bayh responded with a curt two-word answer that silenced the room.
"Assisted suicide," he said.
Al From, the founder of the organization and an ally of Mr. Clinton, invoked the sweeping defeats of George McGovern in 1972 and Walter F. Mondale in 1984 as he cautioned against a return to policies — including less emphasis on foreign policy and an inclination toward expanding the size of government — that he said were a recipe for another electoral disaster.
"There are some in our party who would take us back to our pre-Clinton days, who refuse to learn the lessons of President Clinton's success," Mr. From, the group's chief executive, said after being introduced as "the man who led our party out of the wilderness once before."...
_______________________________________________________________
Monday, July 28, 2003
Here's why Bush is going to lose to Kerry in the next election.
Study: 1 in 5 Laid Off During Recession
By LINDA A. JOHNSON, AP Business Writer
TRENTON, N.J. - Serge Kher had never been unemployed until his job as general manager of a car dealership in Virginia Beach, Va., was eliminated in March.
After sending out 107 resumes, trolling Internet job sites and looking into different fields, the 48-year-old father of four had only one interview.
"I'm starting to go crazy," he said last week in a telephone interview. "There are days when I feel that I'm worthless."
Kher, now a stay-at-home dad, got one month's severance pay and is collecting $300 per week in unemployment benefits. His family went without health benefits for two months until his wife found a job offering the insurance.
Still, he's received more aid than most Americans laid off since 2000, according to a new study by researchers at Rutgers University and the University of Connecticut.
Two-thirds of workers laid off in the last three years received no severance package or other compensation from their employer, according to the survey titled "The Disposable Worker: Living in a Job-Loss Economy."
The study found that one in five, or 18 percent, of those interviewed had been laid off during the 2000-2003 period. The study randomly targeted 1,015 working-age adults...
____________________________________________________________________
Study: 1 in 5 Laid Off During Recession
By LINDA A. JOHNSON, AP Business Writer
TRENTON, N.J. - Serge Kher had never been unemployed until his job as general manager of a car dealership in Virginia Beach, Va., was eliminated in March.
After sending out 107 resumes, trolling Internet job sites and looking into different fields, the 48-year-old father of four had only one interview.
"I'm starting to go crazy," he said last week in a telephone interview. "There are days when I feel that I'm worthless."
Kher, now a stay-at-home dad, got one month's severance pay and is collecting $300 per week in unemployment benefits. His family went without health benefits for two months until his wife found a job offering the insurance.
Still, he's received more aid than most Americans laid off since 2000, according to a new study by researchers at Rutgers University and the University of Connecticut.
Two-thirds of workers laid off in the last three years received no severance package or other compensation from their employer, according to the survey titled "The Disposable Worker: Living in a Job-Loss Economy."
The study found that one in five, or 18 percent, of those interviewed had been laid off during the 2000-2003 period. The study randomly targeted 1,015 working-age adults...
____________________________________________________________________
It's not just Bush, the whole White House is filled with an army of Nixons.
George W. Nixon
WASHINGTON, July 24, 2003
Chuck Colson, the keeper of Nixon's enemies list, would be so proud.
(CBS) President Bush is often compared to Ronald Reagan and George Bush the Elder. In his latest Against the Grain commentary, CBSNews.com's Dick Meyer says think Nixon...
____________________________________________________________
George W. Nixon
WASHINGTON, July 24, 2003
Chuck Colson, the keeper of Nixon's enemies list, would be so proud.
(CBS) President Bush is often compared to Ronald Reagan and George Bush the Elder. In his latest Against the Grain commentary, CBSNews.com's Dick Meyer says think Nixon...
____________________________________________________________
Sunday, July 27, 2003
DROP BUSH, NOT BOMBS
Click on the link to see the QuickTime movie that drops Bush like a bomb. It's a 3.6 MB film but well worth it (and you can download it, too, if you know how to find the QT temp file on your computer OR if you have QT Pro).
_________________________________________________________________
Click on the link to see the QuickTime movie that drops Bush like a bomb. It's a 3.6 MB film but well worth it (and you can download it, too, if you know how to find the QT temp file on your computer OR if you have QT Pro).
_________________________________________________________________
Spend. Spend. Spend. Tax cuts for the rich. Tax cuts for the rich. Tax cuts for the rich. Add it up. You do the math. Bush is running the country into the ground.
Sen. Lugar Says White House Hiding Iraq Costs
Sat Jul 26, 8:17 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration should publicly acknowledge that Iraqi rebuilding efforts will cost American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars over the next few years, a key Senate Republican said in a radio interview on Saturday.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar of Indiana said on National Public Radio that the White House understands there is a big price tag for rebuilding Iraq. "But they do not wish to discuss that," Lugar said.
Asked by NPR whether rebuilding Iraq will cost tens of billions of dollars, Lugar responded, "Yes. We are talking about that. And that's what needs to be talked about now as opposed to one surprise after another" in funding requests to Congress.
Lugar supported the war in Iraq but has said U.S. post-war planning was inadequate. During the interview, Lugar said the White House should lay out a 4-year budget plan for providing security, humanitarian aid and other expenses related to rebuilding Iraq after the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein.
Lugar mentioned a possible cost of $30 billion.
On Tuesday, Lugar's committee will review U.S. progress in Iraq. High-ranking Pentagon and White House budget officials are expected to testify.
In the interview, Lugar also said top Bush administration officials were underestimating what is needed to get the security situation under control in Iraq.
Referring to recent statements by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that progress was achieved with the hiring of 30,000 Iraqi policemen, Lugar said, "Almost all estimates are that 70,000 are required. That's tough to get."
________________________________________________________________
Sen. Lugar Says White House Hiding Iraq Costs
Sat Jul 26, 8:17 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration should publicly acknowledge that Iraqi rebuilding efforts will cost American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars over the next few years, a key Senate Republican said in a radio interview on Saturday.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar of Indiana said on National Public Radio that the White House understands there is a big price tag for rebuilding Iraq. "But they do not wish to discuss that," Lugar said.
Asked by NPR whether rebuilding Iraq will cost tens of billions of dollars, Lugar responded, "Yes. We are talking about that. And that's what needs to be talked about now as opposed to one surprise after another" in funding requests to Congress.
Lugar supported the war in Iraq but has said U.S. post-war planning was inadequate. During the interview, Lugar said the White House should lay out a 4-year budget plan for providing security, humanitarian aid and other expenses related to rebuilding Iraq after the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein.
Lugar mentioned a possible cost of $30 billion.
On Tuesday, Lugar's committee will review U.S. progress in Iraq. High-ranking Pentagon and White House budget officials are expected to testify.
In the interview, Lugar also said top Bush administration officials were underestimating what is needed to get the security situation under control in Iraq.
Referring to recent statements by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that progress was achieved with the hiring of 30,000 Iraqi policemen, Lugar said, "Almost all estimates are that 70,000 are required. That's tough to get."
________________________________________________________________
Condi Rice is a very intelligent person but she's proving to be a very unconvincing liar. She's certainly no Dick Cheney. George Bush's only response to a cruel world beating him up over his lying is to whimper and say "I was out of the loop" and it was (insert the latest player's mea cupa) fault, just like his Poppy.
Iraq Flap Shakes Rice's Image
Sun Jul 27, 1:19 PM ET
By Dana Milbank and Mike Allen, Washington Post Staff Writers
Just weeks ago, Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national security adviser, made a trip to the Middle East that was widely seen as advancing the peace process. There was speculation that she would be a likely choice for secretary of state, and hopes among Republicans that she could become governor of California and even, someday, president.
But she has since become enmeshed in the controversy over the administration's use of intelligence about Iraq (news - web sites)'s weapons in the run-up to war. She has been made to appear out of the loop by colleagues' claims that she did not read or recall vital pieces of intelligence. And she has made statements about U.S. intelligence on Iraq that have been contradicted by facts that later emerged.
The remarks by Rice and her associates raise two uncomfortable possibilities for the national security adviser. Either she missed or overlooked numerous warnings from intelligence agencies seeking to put caveats on claims about Iraq's nuclear weapons program, or she made public claims that she knew to be false.
Most prominent is her claim that the White House had not heard about CIA doubts about an allegation that Iraq sought uranium in Africa before the charge landed in Bush's State of the Union address on Jan. 28; in fact, her National Security Council staff received two memos doubting the claim and a phone call from CIA Director George J. Tenet months before the speech. Various other of Rice's public characterizations of intelligence documents and agencies' positions have been similarly cast into doubt.
"If Condi didn't know the exact state of intel on Saddam's nuclear programs . . . she wasn't doing her job," said Brookings Institution foreign policy specialist Michael E. O'Hanlon. "This was foreign policy priority number one for the administration last summer, so the claim that someone else should have done her homework for her is unconvincing."...
_________________________________________________________________
Iraq Flap Shakes Rice's Image
Sun Jul 27, 1:19 PM ET
By Dana Milbank and Mike Allen, Washington Post Staff Writers
Just weeks ago, Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national security adviser, made a trip to the Middle East that was widely seen as advancing the peace process. There was speculation that she would be a likely choice for secretary of state, and hopes among Republicans that she could become governor of California and even, someday, president.
But she has since become enmeshed in the controversy over the administration's use of intelligence about Iraq (news - web sites)'s weapons in the run-up to war. She has been made to appear out of the loop by colleagues' claims that she did not read or recall vital pieces of intelligence. And she has made statements about U.S. intelligence on Iraq that have been contradicted by facts that later emerged.
The remarks by Rice and her associates raise two uncomfortable possibilities for the national security adviser. Either she missed or overlooked numerous warnings from intelligence agencies seeking to put caveats on claims about Iraq's nuclear weapons program, or she made public claims that she knew to be false.
Most prominent is her claim that the White House had not heard about CIA doubts about an allegation that Iraq sought uranium in Africa before the charge landed in Bush's State of the Union address on Jan. 28; in fact, her National Security Council staff received two memos doubting the claim and a phone call from CIA Director George J. Tenet months before the speech. Various other of Rice's public characterizations of intelligence documents and agencies' positions have been similarly cast into doubt.
"If Condi didn't know the exact state of intel on Saddam's nuclear programs . . . she wasn't doing her job," said Brookings Institution foreign policy specialist Michael E. O'Hanlon. "This was foreign policy priority number one for the administration last summer, so the claim that someone else should have done her homework for her is unconvincing."...
_________________________________________________________________
So I guess in three decades we can expect some guilty-minded aide to step forward to spill the beans on how Bush and his whole cabinet knew everything was a lie when they manipulated the country into this war with Iraq. Bush is even using his dad's old stand-by line, "I was out of the loop" to cover-up what he knew and let others take the blame on the "cancer" growing on the White House. Expect some interesting pardons the last day that Bush leaves office.
Ex-Aide Says Nixon Ordered Break-In
Sun Jul 27, 7:56 AM ET
By JENNIFER C. KERR, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Coming forward three decades after Watergate, a former top aide to President Nixon now contends that Nixon ordered the break-in that would lead to his resignation.
Jeb Stuart Magruder previously had gone no further than saying that John Mitchell, the former attorney general who was running the Nixon re-election campaign in 1972, approved the plan to break into the Democratic Party headquarters at the Watergate office building near the White House and bug the telephone of the party chairman, Larry O'Brien.
Magruder, in a PBS documentary airing Wednesday and in an Associated Press interview last week, says he was meeting with Mitchell on March 30, 1972, when he heard Nixon tell Mitchell over the phone to go ahead with the plan.
The break-in occurred 2 1/2 months later, on June 17, 1972...
__________________________________________________________________
Ex-Aide Says Nixon Ordered Break-In
Sun Jul 27, 7:56 AM ET
By JENNIFER C. KERR, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Coming forward three decades after Watergate, a former top aide to President Nixon now contends that Nixon ordered the break-in that would lead to his resignation.
Jeb Stuart Magruder previously had gone no further than saying that John Mitchell, the former attorney general who was running the Nixon re-election campaign in 1972, approved the plan to break into the Democratic Party headquarters at the Watergate office building near the White House and bug the telephone of the party chairman, Larry O'Brien.
Magruder, in a PBS documentary airing Wednesday and in an Associated Press interview last week, says he was meeting with Mitchell on March 30, 1972, when he heard Nixon tell Mitchell over the phone to go ahead with the plan.
The break-in occurred 2 1/2 months later, on June 17, 1972...
__________________________________________________________________
What do you expect from a bunch of wealthy, country club elitist, white people with as many racist ties as those in this White House? To be fair, Bush's handlers know he could never manage to sit down with articulate power brokers "of color" and hold his own. They would carve him up like white meat on a Thanksgiving turkey because, well, he is a turkey. So while Bush can meet with racist members of his own party like Lott and Thurmond and have Cheney hold "secret" meetings with his corporate energy financial supporters, it's impossible for him to make time for the leaders of a top political organization that represents people of color in America.
This is not only disgusting it also shows how just how small a person Bush is in regards to his lack of humanity.
NAACP Still Seeking Meeting With Bush
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Since the days of Warren G. Harding, presidents have met at the White House with leaders of the NAACP. Not President Bush — at least not yet.
More than halfway through his presidency, Bush has yet to receive the nation's oldest civil rights group or the Leadership Conference of Civil Rights, an umbrella organization.
The president met with the Congressional Black Caucus (news - web sites) for just an hour or so during his first month in office, but has not responded to a half-dozen subsequent requests to meet again.
While Bush, who got only 9 percent of the black vote in 2000, has shunned sit-downs with established black groups, he has reached out to carefully chosen minority audiences and to civil rights advocates less critical of his policies. One example is the National Urban League, whose annual conference in Pittsburgh Bush is addressing on Monday.
NAACP president Kweisi Mfume said he requested meetings with Bush in 2001 and 2002, and "was told politely, in writing, that he'd love to meet, but his schedule just didn't allow it."
"That may be the difference between Bush and his father," Mfume said. "While we certainly did not agree on many issues, you can never accuse George H.W. Bush of not taking time to reach out and to listen. He wasn't aloof like this president."...
___________________________________________________________
This is not only disgusting it also shows how just how small a person Bush is in regards to his lack of humanity.
NAACP Still Seeking Meeting With Bush
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Since the days of Warren G. Harding, presidents have met at the White House with leaders of the NAACP. Not President Bush — at least not yet.
More than halfway through his presidency, Bush has yet to receive the nation's oldest civil rights group or the Leadership Conference of Civil Rights, an umbrella organization.
The president met with the Congressional Black Caucus (news - web sites) for just an hour or so during his first month in office, but has not responded to a half-dozen subsequent requests to meet again.
While Bush, who got only 9 percent of the black vote in 2000, has shunned sit-downs with established black groups, he has reached out to carefully chosen minority audiences and to civil rights advocates less critical of his policies. One example is the National Urban League, whose annual conference in Pittsburgh Bush is addressing on Monday.
NAACP president Kweisi Mfume said he requested meetings with Bush in 2001 and 2002, and "was told politely, in writing, that he'd love to meet, but his schedule just didn't allow it."
"That may be the difference between Bush and his father," Mfume said. "While we certainly did not agree on many issues, you can never accuse George H.W. Bush of not taking time to reach out and to listen. He wasn't aloof like this president."...
___________________________________________________________
Ha ha! Shelby isn't trying to run a campaign to get re-elected President but he's damn right about releasing the blacked-out material in the 9/11 report. I hope Bush and his team continue to stonewall on this issue. It all adds up to that they are afraid of telling the truth.
White House Criticized for Censoring Sept. 11 Report
Sun Jul 27, 1:34 PM ET
By Randy Fabi
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A leading Republican senator on Sunday called on the Bush administration to release most of the classified portions of a congressional report on the Sept. 11 attacks, saying the sections were withheld only to avoid harming relations with other countries.
Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, who helped spearhead last year's probe into the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, said the administration wrongly blanked out 27 pages dealing with suspected foreign support of those responsible for the attacks.
"I think they're classified for the wrong reason," Shelby said on NBC's Meet the Press program. "My judgment is 95 percent of that information should be declassified, become uncensored, so the American people would know."
Shelby said the section was classified because it "might be embarrassing to some international relations."...
______________________________________________________________
White House Criticized for Censoring Sept. 11 Report
Sun Jul 27, 1:34 PM ET
By Randy Fabi
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A leading Republican senator on Sunday called on the Bush administration to release most of the classified portions of a congressional report on the Sept. 11 attacks, saying the sections were withheld only to avoid harming relations with other countries.
Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, who helped spearhead last year's probe into the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, said the administration wrongly blanked out 27 pages dealing with suspected foreign support of those responsible for the attacks.
"I think they're classified for the wrong reason," Shelby said on NBC's Meet the Press program. "My judgment is 95 percent of that information should be declassified, become uncensored, so the American people would know."
Shelby said the section was classified because it "might be embarrassing to some international relations."...
______________________________________________________________
This "recovery" is playing out almost exactly as when Bush the First was in office. Meaning that bodes of much ill wind blown Bush 2's way by election time.
U.S. Recovery Cold Comfort for Unemployed
By Andrea Hopkins
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - If you believe the experts, the U.S. economy is starting to regain momentum. But ask Murray Kieffer, laid off in May 2001 from his sales manager job in Minneapolis, and you get a very different answer.
"I certainly haven't seen any major change," said Kieffer, a 47-year-old father of two who spends seven hours a day job-hunting...
_________________________________________________________
U.S. Recovery Cold Comfort for Unemployed
By Andrea Hopkins
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - If you believe the experts, the U.S. economy is starting to regain momentum. But ask Murray Kieffer, laid off in May 2001 from his sales manager job in Minneapolis, and you get a very different answer.
"I certainly haven't seen any major change," said Kieffer, a 47-year-old father of two who spends seven hours a day job-hunting...
_________________________________________________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)