|
|
|
Demagoguery |
|
|
|
"Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Friday, August 13, 2004 |
|
|
|
Harper's and Election 2004
A recent edition of Harper's Index reminds us of .... Why women should be pissed off and eager to vote: Number of publications on women's rights that the Labor Department has removed from its website since 1999 : 25 Why all of us should be pissed off and want to vote: Weeks the Patriot Act allowed the government this year to delay the ACLU's announcement of a suit over the Act itself : 3 Why the major political parties should want us to vote: Number of states where a shift of no more than three seats this fall could change party control of a legislative chamber: 23 Why our votes might not count: Seconds it took a Maryland consultant last winter to pick a Diebold voting machine's lock and remove its memory card : 10
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 4:16 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contrasting Mea Culpas: Clinton & McGreevey
Last night on C-SPAN, I watched a re-run of New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey's speech, announcing he was gay, that he'd had an extramarital affair and that he would resign his office on Nov. 15.
I began to reflect on the speech that President Clinton gave on August 17, 1998, acknowledging that he'd had an affair with Monica Lewinsky. The contrasts in those speeches go far beyond the objects of their affection -- one male, the other female. Consider, for example, the words used by McGreevey to describe his extramarital affair: ... because of the pain and suffering and anguish that I have caused to my beloved family, my parents, my wife, my friends, I would almost rather have this moment pass.
For this is an intensely personal decision, and not one typically for the public domain. Yet, it cannot and should not pass.
I am also here today because, shamefully, I engaged in (an) adult consensual affair with another man, which violates my bonds of matrimony. It was wrong. It was foolish. It was inexcusable. Those are pretty strong words of self-rebuke. Although Clinton opened his speech by saying he "must take complete responsibility for all my actions, both public and private," his nationally televised address seemed only marginally remorseful. Contrast the McGreevey excerpt with Clinton's words: Indeed, I did have a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible.
I know that my public comments and my silence about this matter gave a false impression. I misled people, including even my wife. I deeply regret that.
... this matter is between me, the two people I love most -- my wife and our daughter -- and our God. I must put it right, and I am prepared to do whatever it takes to do so. McGreevey said he "shamefully" had an "adult consensual affair with another man" that "violates my bonds of matrimony" and was "foolish."
Clinton said he had "a relationship" that was a "critical lapse in judgment" and was "not appropriate."
The language the president chose was quite formal and legalistic -- not the way normal people talk. For example: "While my answers were legally accurate, I did not volunteer information." To most viewers, even me, this sounded like another way of him saying he withheld information. The Right was determined to hound Clinton from the very moment he took office, no question about it. Nevertheless, Clinton did not help his own cause with statements that were so obscure and conditionalized. It made most people (including myself, someone who voted for Clinton) think back to his "but I didn't inhale" remark -- an early version of Clinton's yes-but-no response.
Although Clinton did say he was "solely" responsible for his misdeed, this statement was largely neutralized by subsequent remarks. For example, when Clinton later referred to "innocent people" who have been "hurt," he was referring not to his extramarital affair and the lie he told about it; instead, he was referring to the independent counsel.
Clinton may have had plenty of reasons for taking a verbal shot at the independent counsel's office, but doing so in this particular speech made Clinton appear to be throwing the blame for his Lewinsky affair on someone else.
This is not meant to issue great praise for McGreevey. Like any politician, he is capable of choosing words more to reflect the public's feelings than to reflect his own. But Clinton was definitely easier on himself (at least in public) in issuing his mea culpa.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 2:53 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Speak a Little Louder, Congressman
From the "Names & Faces" column in yesterday's Washington Post:Rep. Porter Goss may regret being interviewed for Michael Moore's Bush-bashing headliner of the summer, "Fahrenheit 9/11," and not just because the movie flashed his office phone number across the screen.
Wouldn't you know it, the man whom President Bush just nominated as CIA director touched on his CIA involvement -- past and future -- during an interview with Moore's production crew (sans Moore) in March. If you don't recall seeing that in the movie, that's because you didn't. The clip was edited out. (We bet Moore's kicking himself now.)
According to the transcript obtained from Moore's camp, Goss, when asked about his past in the CIA, responded: "It is true I was in CIA from approximately the late '50s to approximately the early '70s. And it's true I was a case officer, clandestine services office, and yes, I do understand the core mission of the business." Perhaps he should have stopped yakking there.
Alas, the Florida Republican continued: "I couldn't get a job with CIA today. I am not qualified. I don't have the language skills. I, you know, my language skills were Romance languages and stuff. We're looking for Arabists today. I don't have the cultural background, probably. And I certainly don't have the technical skills, uh, as my children remind me every day: 'Dad, you got to get better on your computer.' Uh, so, the things that you need to have, I don't have."
When we asked Goss's office about the honest answer, spokeswoman Julie Almacy told us: "When he was a case officer, the language and technical requirements were different. So, the statement is correct in the context of the guidelines for a new hire of a case officer."
Ohhh, now we get it. Luckily for Goss, "case officer" is a completely different job from "director."
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 2:35 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daily Darfur
As the death and suffering continue in Darfur, BBC News reports:
A force of 150 Rwandan troops are expected to arrive in Sudan over the weekend to protect African Union (AU) ceasefire monitors in Darfur. Good news, eh? Keep reading ....
Rwandan Foreign Minister Charles Murigande said their mandate did not include the protection of civilians. But the deployment of 2,500 AU peacekeepers is being considered, UN special envoy Jan Pronk said. Unfortunately, the Sudanese government has publicly rejected calls for a larger peacekeeping force. Until a larger force -- from AU or elsewhere -- is in place, civilians in Darfur remain quite vulnerable.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
In his recent article in The New Republic, David L. Englin outlines the strategies that should guide a U.S. or U.N.-led force as it enters Sudan against the Khartoum government's will. Englin writes that Sudan's military "is openly bracing for" a possible military intervention to halt the Darfur genocide and the Sudanese government has branded the U.N. resolution a "declaration of war on Sudan." While he does not see the challenge as prohibitive, Englin identifies potential obstacles to intervention:
While establishing a no-fly zone would be essential, it would be a mistake to underestimate Sudan's ability to defend the sovereignty of its airspace. Although its population remains horribly impoverished, Sudan has used its substantial oil revenues to more than double the size of its air force since 2000. Over the past four years, Sudan has purchased at least 34 new fighter jets from China ... Russia has already supplied Sudan with a large number of MiG-24 Hind helicopter gunships, and it recently sold Sudan a dozen fourth-generation MiG-29 fighter jets, which are considered to be on par with the most advanced U.S. fighters. Both China and Russia have supplied Sudan with modern radar stations for command and control. ... this is not an air force to be taken lightly. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Yesterday, this post contained excerpts from an editorial in one of Nigeria's largest newspapers, complaining that "it is hard to see what African leaders, through the African Union, [have] done to stem the blood-letting .... Once again, it is the West that appears most concerned ..."
Today brings more evidence that African nations are unable or unwilling to step up to the plate. The African Union has been trying to secure commitments from its member nations for a peacekeeping force. Tanzania, for example, was asked to supply 100 troops, by all measures a relatively small contingent. Although Tanzania received this request weeks ago, the Associated Press reports that the country's deputy foreign minister has said that Tanzanian officials "have yet to finalize how [many troops] we can send."
No rush, sir, but the sikc and malnourished people in Darfur would appreciate it if you could summon an answer before October.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Save Darfur Coalition has designated August 25 as a "Sudan: Day of Conscience." The National Council of Churches and other religious organizations are planning to hold interfaith activities to raise public awareness about the desperate situation in Darfur and to demand international action to end the death and suffering.
A mother and child who fled Darfur and in a makeshift refugees camp across the border in Chad.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 11:08 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thursday, August 12, 2004 |
|
|
|
America's Worst College
An excellent article by Timothy Noah was posted earlier this week on Slate: The best possible outcome for the 2004 presidential election would be for John Kerry to lose the popular vote but win in the Electoral College. Obviously it would satisfy a primitive hunger for payback to thwart Republicans in the most significant way that Democrats were thwarted in 2000.
But there's a high-minded reason, too: It would give both parties a common interest in abolishing the Electoral College and establishing the popular vote as the means by which presidents are chosen. ... The sheer idiocy of the Electoral College is a subject that got appallingly little attention amid the chad-obsessed frenzy surrounding the 2000 election. There's a bit more discussion of the problem now ... Concern, I'm happy to report, spreads across the ideological spectrum.
In a June 14 cover package, Business Week ran two separate stories arguing for the Electoral College's elimination. In a July 4 review of Hendrik Hertzberg's superb new anthology, Politics, Richard Brookhiser, a conservative ... predicted [that] "the calls for change will be deafening." Perhaps, but only if the GOP candidate is on the short end of that stick. Even so, isn't it rather depressing to think that it would take the coronation of yet another second-place vote-getter to make that happen? * * * * * * * * * * * * Speaking of electoral votes, there is a move afoot in Colorado to change the state from a winner-take-all system to one in which electoral votes (EVs) are awarded on a proportional basis. The supporters of the "Make Your Vote Count" initiative want to adopt the approach used by Nebraska and Maine --the winner of the popular vote gets two EVs, and the rest would be awarded based on which candidate wins the popular vote within each congressional district.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 5:17 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NJ Gov. Resigns, Admits He Is Gay
The Associated Press reports:In a stunning declaration, Gov. James E. McGreevey acknowledged that he had an extramarital affair with another man and announced his resignation Thursday. "My truth is that I am a gay American," he said.
"Shamefully, I engaged in adult consensual affairs with another man, which violates my bonds of matrimony," the married father of two said. "It was wrong, it was foolish, it was inexcusable."
The Democrat said his resignation would be effective Nov. 15. McGreevey said he would step down because his secret -- both his sexuality and his affair -- leaves the governor's office vulnerable.
The former suburban mayor took office 2-1/2 years ago, and despite inheriting a $5 billion budget deficit, he steadfastly refused to boost income taxes for most New Jerseyans, instead raising taxes on millionaires, casinos and cigarettes. But he has been dogged by several scandals involving fund-raising. And the website of the Newark Star-Ledger offers this report:In an empassioned statement delivered live on national TV, McGreevey, 47, said he resigned because his conduct left the governor's office vulnerable to political attacks. McGreevey's wife was at his side and family were in attendance.
"I am a gay American," was the statement that followed several minutes of McGreevey describing (at a news conference) the soul-searching he said he has been doing since childhood.
The governor said the fact of his being gay should have no impact on his being governor, but he conceeded that the political realities of his office and his adultery left him open to attack, and that resigning was "the right thing to do."
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 4:55 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timing Is Everything in Anti-Terror War
As I mentioned in my last post, columnist George Will warned the White House "not to inadvertently foment" suspicions that politics is driving Homeland Security alerts and other anti-terror activities. But the more I thought about the allegations that Will cited -- derived from reports by The New Republic -- the more it all smells.
Will noted that TNR had reported that the Bush administration was pressuring Pakistan to deliver a "high-value target" (HVT) in time for the November election -- preferably on the very week of the Democratic convention (with the obvious goal of trumping the Dems' message).
Was this HVT none other than Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, the senior al Qaeda operative? Will writes:... the arrest four days earlier of a senior al Qaeda figure ... (was announced) at midnight (July 29) in Pakistan. That was afternoon in Boston, where convening Democrats were suspicious. So, as it turns out, the announcement of this al Qaeda official's capture was made at perhaps the most desirable time if you're the White House. That way, this successful capture of an HVT gets media play during the hours preceding John Kerry's acceptance speech.
Was it sheer coincidence? Perhaps. But why would Pakistani authorities make such an announcement at midnight, as opposed to the normal hours of governmental operation? Because they were anxious to let the world know they had just snagged such a high-level al Qaeda? But they hadn't just captured this guy. The Pakistanis had him in their custody for four days. They sit on this announcement for four days and then suddenly decide to announce it at midnight on July 29th? Something definitely smells.
The original TNR article (July 29) is here.
The follow-up TNR article (Aug. 8) is here.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 1:51 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Will Is a Soft Touch
In September 2000, then-Republican nominee George W. Bush blasted the Clinton administration’s announcement that it would release oil from the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve to ease rising domestic energy costs.
“The White House is playing politics with the issue,” Bush said, “just to help get Al Gore elected.” Other GOP officials and activists eagerly seconded candidate Bush’s complaint.
Four years later, however, the Bush administration appears to be guilty of what its patriarch accused Bill Clinton of doing -- basing policy on electoral politics. Even if one believes that Clinton’s decision was politically motivated, the actions of Bush officials are arguably much worse for they concern not simply the execution of foreign policy, but the all-important war on terror.
In today’s Washington Post, conservative columnist George Will refers to allegations that were first published by The New Republic: … Regarding the war on terrorism, a sizable minority believes that the government's words and deeds merit deep skepticism. The hard core of this minority is the Michael Moore-Howard Dean cohort of fanatics, but the minority is much larger than that …
Writing in the New Republic, three non-fanatics -- John Judis, Spencer Ackerman and Massoud Ansari -- note that last month the magazine reported that the Bush administration was pressuring Pakistan to deliver a "high-value target" (HVT) in time for the November election. A Pakistani intelligence official says a colleague was told during a spring visit to the White House that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven or twenty-eight July" -- during the Democratic convention.
A spokesman for the National Security Council says the New Republic's story is not confirmed by Pakistan's announcement on the 29th, the day of John Kerry's acceptance speech, of the arrest four days earlier of a senior al Qaeda figure. The announcement was made at midnight in Pakistan. That was afternoon in Boston, where convening Democrats were suspicious. And for good reason. But, except for writing that the Bush administration “should say so” when terrorism alerts are based on information that is three years old, this is as close as Will can bring himself to chastising this White House. He continues: Such suspicions are hardly self-validating. However, the government should take care not to inadvertently foment them. Will does warn the Bushies that fighting the war on terror will be made more difficult “if today's cynicism is aggravated by government insensitivity to suspicions that already are rampant …” Effectively stated. But why doesn’t Will go further (as he surely would have if this president’s surname were Clinton)?
After all, these are serious allegations. If true, they would demonstrate that the Bush administration is willing to put politics ahead of domestic security. America should focus on capturing HVTs any day and any time it can, instead of encouraging our allies to delay or divert a capture to fit into the appropriate "media cycle."
If the allegations about White House instructions to the Pakistanis are true, this would be incredibly reckless, and George Will -- to borrow his own advice -- "should say so."
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 1:19 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daily Darfur
Given the name of our blog, it is fitting that this edition of “Daily Darfur” opens with the reckless accusations of a shameful demagogue -- the thug who heads the Sudanese government in Khartoum. According to Reuters: Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir on Thursday accused Western nations of interfering in its troubled western Darfur region to try to exploit Sudan's gold and oil resources. … Bashir on Thursday said Western nations, especially Britain, were inflaming the Darfur fighting to destabilize wider Sudan.
"There is an agenda to seek for petrol and gold in the region," he told a women's union meeting on Darfur in Khartoum on Thursday.
"This highlife that they (the West) enjoy now is a result of the theft of the colonies and their riches and peoples," he added with specific reference to Britain, which granted Sudan independence in 1956.Ah, yes -- when all else fails, when the world no longer believes you have any desire to end the genocidal massacres in Darfur, take a cue from Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe and play the “colonialism” card.
In addition to this demagoguery, the Sudanese government continues to enforce some restrictions on aid flights into the country, resulting in what U.N. officials have called "major delays" in the deployment of relief workers. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I neglected to mention in yesterday’s edition of “Daily Darfur” that on the day before an op-ed column by Senate Majority Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) called the Darfur genocide a “regional” issue that would have to be solved by Africans, BBC News was reporting that the Sudanese foreign minister had refused to allow a proposed contingent of African Union peacekeepers to enter the country.
So what now, Senator Frist? Is this still a crisis that Africa will solve on its own? * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The P.M. News, a newspaper based in the Nigerian capital of Lagos, decries the fact that African leaders have taken only tepid steps to address the unfolding genocide in Darfur. In an editorial published Wednesday, the newspaper urges Africans to create the equivalent of a NATO-style, rapid-response force to address such crises: The events in Darfur Province of Sudan constitute a major concern for the international community, yet it is hard to see what African leaders, through the African Union (AU), [have] done to stem the blood-letting. The rebel forces have tightened their control of Northern Sudan, while government officials control the South. The country is politically unstable, with the economy clearly on a nosedive.
Once again, it is the West that appears most concerned, especially about the shameful slaughter of men and women.
It is estimated that if things do not stabilise in Darfur, over a million people could be lost to blood-letting and starvation in six months.
… Right now no garrisoning or disarming of rebels is taking place. African leaders are simply reluctant to send in troops.
The practical solution is clear. Africa ought to have a swift intervention force that can be called up at any time to deal with a serious situation such as the ethnic cleansing taking place in Darfur, Sudan.
… whenever there is a threat of catastrophe on the continent they can move in quickly to avert it or mitigate the crisis. Of course they will need to be backed by diplomats adept at winning the peace. It would be the African version of NATO.
… What this means is that every time crisis breaks out in Africa we will not be looking forward to a George Bush sacrificing the lives of American soldiers to end it. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RESOURCES:
Sacha Westerbeek, who works for the U.N. children’s aid agency called Unicef, is in southern Darfur and is keeping a diary on her experiences in the violence-torn region. Her diary passages can be read here.
London’s BBC News created this Q & A that offers a good, concise look at the situation in Darfur and how this tragedy was precipitated.
An Arab Janjaweed militiaman. This militia group has raped and killed thousands in Darfur.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 10:42 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oops ... Better Expand That Felons List
In the Sunshine State, things are looking rather cloudy at the moment for the Bush-Cheney re-election effort. There's a lot of campaigning yet to be done, and the GOP convention may produce a bounce for the president. But, for now at least, John Kerry has taken a lead in Florida that is beyond the statistical margin of error. The Associated Press reports:Kerry and running mate John Edwards had the backing of 47 percent, Bush and Vice President Cheney had the support of 41 percent and independent Ralph Nader and his running mate Peter Camejo had 4 percent in the Quinnipiac University poll (which was released Thursday).
Bush and Kerry were deadlocked in Florida at 43 percent each in a Quinnipiac poll in late June. The August poll found Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, the president's younger brother, getting tepid reviews from Floridians. They were evenly split on whether they approve or disapprove of the job the second-term governor is doing.
The survey also found fewer than half, 47 percent, were "very confident" that their vote would count. Only one in five said the same about new touch-screen voting machines that will be used this year in 15 of the state's largest counties. Jeb the governor must be getting a little nervous. He had to pull his big brother's feet out of the fire four years ago (with an able assist from the Supremes). But can he do it again?
I wonder if tens of thousands of law-abiding black residents are going to wake up on election day, go to the polls and suddenly find themselves on a felons list. People For the American Way is one of the groups that is keeping a close eye on elections in Florida and several other states.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 10:15 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, August 11, 2004 |
|
|
|
(Still) No Intellectual Ammo
It's no surprise that Human Events' Stephen Baskerville gives a gushing review of Peter Sprigg's new book, Outrage: How Gay Activists and Liberal Judges Are Trashing Democracy to Redefine Marriage. (Incidentally, Sprigg is director of the Center for Marriage and Family Studies at the Family Research Council.) Baskerville writes:Peter Sprigg begins his new book on same-sex marriage, Outrage, with a paradox: Most Americans oppose it, "yet in terms of political action, the pro-family, pro-marriage majority has been strangely muted." Sprigg attributes this to a lack of intellectual ammunition and aims to remedy that deficiency with this book. I totally concur with Baskerville (and Sprigg) on that point: the attacks on same-sex marriage have been intellectually empty. All too often, you hear opponents (citizens or politicians) simply restate the obvious -- "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman."
Believe? There's no "believe" about it. In every state but Massachusetts, that is the law that defines marriage. The question that is never really answered by the anti-gay marriage crusaders is why this should remain the law and continue to deny same-sex couples benefits that straight couples take for granted.
Yet, even as Baskerville tries to convince us that Sprigg has broken new intellectual ground on the anti-gay marriage side, his words are less than reassuring. For example, he writes:[Sprigg] counters what he regards as his opponents' strongest argument: that gay marriage is a "civil right," a suggestion he says is positively insulting to those who have experienced the brutal denial of true civil rights.
He shows that the African-American community, where acute family deterioration precludes the luxury of indulging in fashionable social experiments, opposes same-sex marriage by a larger margin than whites. I haven’t read Sprigg’s book. It's quite possible that there is intellectual ammo within its pages. But, assuming that Baskerville is accurately characterizing the author’s rebuttal, what Sprigg is offering is every bit as empty as the rhetoric we’ve been hearing from the “no” side of this debate. Based on what Baskerville tells us, Sprigg doesn’t seem to provide any legal or constitutional analysis to counter the civil right argument.
Instead, Sprigg is apparently offering an emotional response, not an intellectual one. He simply brands the civil right argument “insulting” to those who have been denied their civil rights. But whether this argument happens to insult certain people or not doesn’t respond to the essential question: Is gay marriage a civil right?
As for Sprigg’s contention that black Americans are more likely than whites to oppose gay marriage, so what? Is this what passes as intellectual discourse? History provides numerous examples of how the oppressed (Puritans et al) are more than capable of exhibiting their own intolerances.
For all I know, the great-grandfather of Fox TV commentator Bill O’Reilly arrived with the rest of the 19th century potato famine refugees and saw the same “Irish Need Not Apply” signs that many of his fellow countrymen did. Does this somehow make O’Reilly immune from prejudice or bigotry?
Please. Surely, opponents can come up with better rhetoric than that.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 3:44 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hawkeye vs. Braveheart
An op/ed in today's New York Post by Duncan Maxwell Anderson claims that this election season is really about "manhood":
Why does manhood matter? Because we're at war. What kind of leader do you want when armed lunatics are trying to kill you and your family? Do you need a master of nuance or a leader of men? Do you want Alan Alda or Braveheart? Let's think about that last question for a second. Braveheart, a.k.a. Sir William Wallace, was a Scottish noble who battled the British in the late 13th century. His army beat back an English force in 1298, only to be soundly defeated a year later. Then, Wallace turned tail and ran...to France of all places! He was eventually tried for treason and executed. He even wore makeup for chrissakes! Lots of it.
Then, there's Alan Alda. His most famous role is that of Capt. Benjamin Franklin Pierce (patriotic name, that), a.k.a. Hawkeye. Hawkeye served at a Mobile Army Surgical Hospital (or M*A*S*H) during the Korean War. There, he proved to be cool under pressure and an excellent surgeon who saved countless lives. Moreover, he was adept at cutting through bureaucracy and red tape and good at exposing shoddy intelligence (ref. Col. Flagg). These would be welcome traits in a Commander-in-Chief. Finally, although the Korean conflict ended in a draw, it was not the complete rout that Braveheart experienced.
It seems to me that the choice is clear.
posted by
Noam Alaska at 11:42 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revival of Promise Keepers
After its October 1997 rally drew at least 800,000 conservative men to the nation's capital, the group Promise Keepers sort of fell off the public's radar screen -- partly due to financial problems that PK incurred. But, as Bill Berkowitz reports at AlterNet.org, PK is seeking a much higher profile, beginning with a series of rallies this summer that many Religious Right activists believe will pay political dividends in November for President Bush:Karl Rove, the president's chief political advisor, is looking to the GOP's traditional base -- fundamentalist evangelical Christians -- to put Bush over the top this year. Will a revivified and politically-focused men's movement from the 1990s bail Bush Out?
... "Promise Keepers has always been disingenuous about politics," Fred Clarkson, author of "Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy," said in an e-mail exchange. "While always claiming to be apolitical, many PK rallies (although not all) in its heyday featured prominent conservative politicians and overt political and even electoral content. Denunciations of abortion and homosexuality were routine. It was just a matter of time before PK developed an overt public policy agenda."
... In early June of this year, nearly 10,000 men hooked up at the Pepsi Arena in Albany, New York for the year's first Promise Keeper event. Each year's events have a specific theme; this year PK events are called "UPRISING: The Revolution of a Man's Soul."
... "Karl Rove complained after the 2000 election that Bush got about 4 million fewer votes from conservative evangelicals than he had expected," said Clarkson, who has reported extensively on the Promise Keepers movement.
"The political mobilization of the Promise Keepers, if that's what this is, could help pick up the slack. It seems to have a more ambitious season of rallies planned for this year which suggests a possible election year up-tick in activity combined with a more overt political agenda," Clarkson added. "PK has not gotten much attention from the media and the political community, which tend to have the nasty habit of failing to pay attention to trends on the Christian Right."
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 11:18 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MSNBC's Verbal Sleight of Hand
The MSNBC cable channel is defending Joe Scarborough's high-profile appearance yesterday at a Bush-Cheney re-election campaign event in Florida. The New York Times reports: ... (MSNBC officials said that the) channel has different rules for news anchors and what it called opinion anchors. Joe Scarborough, host of the nightly "Scarborough Country'' program, could be seen on news reports on Tuesday standing and applauding numerous times during the president's speech.
Mr. Bush even cited him in his speech, saying he appreciated Mr. Scarborough's presence in the district he once served as a Republican congressman. "I'm glad he did it,'' said Rick Kaplan, the president of MSNBC, of Mr. Scarborough's appearance. "It was good for the profile of the show to remind people he has an inside view of politics." Mr. Kaplan said the channel had separate standards for what it considered its news anchors, who include all four others who lead prime-time programs on the channel: Chris Matthews, Dan Abrams, Deborah Norville and Keith Olbermann. How interesting. For the first time, MSNBC is acknowledging that is has only one primetime "opinion" program. And that program is anchored by none other than Scarborough, whose votes during one session of Congress earned him a 96% "correct" rating from the American Conservative Union and 100% rating from the Christian Coalition.
In this column written last year, Scarborough himself whined about the "liberal agenda" of CBS. But if Scarborough controls the only opinion program on MSNBC's primetime schedule, what does that say about MSNBC's agenda?
Kaplan's line about how Scarborough's appearance is "good" because it reminds views that "he has an inside view of politics" was an exercise in verbal finesse. For MSNBC's sake, it sounded much better than the truth, which would have sounded more like this: It was good for the profile of the show to remind people he has his head so far up the president's ass that it's likely to pop out of Bush's belly-button any day now.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 10:40 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daily Darfur
In an op-ed in today's Washington Post, Senate Majority Bill Frist -- having just returned from a visit to the death and misery that is Darfur -- once again uses the G-word:
Unless the genocide in Darfur is halted immediately, tens of thousands more will die before the end of the year. But Frist's prescription for ending the genocide seems unrealistic. As many do, he calls for an African-based peacekeeping force, but Frist wants Khartoum to supply troops to this peacekeeping force -- yes, the same Khartoum that Frist himself accuses of "dilatory and diversionary tactics to complete its final solution."
Yet, in the very next breath, Frist tries to punt the ball by suggesting that the U.S. has no greater role than the one it has played so far. He writes:
The crisis in Darfur is a regional problem that demands an African remedy. It requires forces capable of providing security in a timely and credible manner. Such a remedy is available. Forces led by the African Union (AU) are already deploying to the region. They can be complemented by troops from Khartoum and the Sudanese People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), which stands ready to provide thousands of well-trained soldiers to protect the people of Darfur. Someone needs to tell Frist that the Genocide Convention was signed to ensure that genocide was no longer viewed as a "regional" issue -- i.e., someone else's problem. Author and lecturer Samantha Power explained the purpose of the Genocide Convention in her book, "A Problem From Hell":
The treaty would enshrine a new reality ... Interfering in a genocidal state's internal affairs ... was not only authorized but required by the convention. If a government committed or permitted genocide, signatories would have to take steps to prevent, suppress, and punish the crime ... And the United States (as Frist well knows) happens to be one of the treaty's signatories. Also, as I alluded to earlier, how can a genuine peacekeeping force be "complemented" by "troops from Khartoum" that have inflicted at least some of the ongoing brutality on the people of Darfur?
Depending on the Khartoum government to play any constructive role also seems particularly absurd given the angry statement issued today by U.N. officials, accusing Sudanese military forces of launching helicopter attacks on those in Darfur. According to Reuters, the Khartoum government denied the allegations by the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
International aid and human rights groups say that the helicopter attacks, combined with raids on refugee camps and rapes perpetrated by Sudanese forces and the Janjaweed militia, have intensified the crisis. (The term Janjaweed is derived from Arabic words meaning "devils on horseback.") Instead of disarming the Janjaweed -- as Khartoum had promised -- the government has simply begun absorbing Janjaweed militia into its own military forces, according to Human Rights Watch.
In a report today, Human Rights Watch said that new evidence of atrocities shatters claims by the Sudanese government that the situation in the country's western region was stablizing:
Rape and other forms of sexual violence against Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa women and girls from the displaced communities is taking place on a daily basis in Darfur.
... Even when displaced women and girls remain in or around the government-controlled towns, they continue to be regularly raped and often brutally beaten. As the genocide continues, Denver Post cartoonist Mike Keefe voices the frustration that many of us feel ...
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 9:52 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, August 10, 2004 |
|
|
|
O'Reilly vs. Krugman
For those of you who didn't catch the O'Reilly-Krugman debate on CNBC's Tim Russert last weekend, you really missed a treat. During the program, Fox News' second-best-blowhard (Hannity is still the reigning champ) compared the New York Times columnist to terrorists and Media Matters' David Brock to white supremacists and communist dictators. Meanwhile, Krugman stuck with the facts. Here's a sample exchange, after Krugman confronted O'Reilly regarding remarks O'Reilly made (and Media Matters transcribed) about Michael Moore:
O'REILLY: And where did you get that little “evil” quote, by the way? You don't listen to The Radio Factor. KRUGMAN: Oh, no, but I get—but they have video clips. They have, they have a clip. O'REILLY: Oh, who—well, who gave it to you? KRUGMAN: Yeah, it is Media Matters. O'REILLY: Media Matters! Oh, I see! A real objective web site! KRUGMAN: Hey, wait a second— O’REILLY: Hey, Mr. Propaganda, you ought to take and do your own research, pal, and stop taking the left-wing garbage and throwing it out there for the folks. KRUGMAN: What have I said that’s false? O'REILLY: Do your own research! KRUGMAN: Come on. O'REILLY: That's out of context, and you know it. KRUGMAN: It helps me. It is not. O'REILLY: It helps you, baloney! KRUGMAN: They've got the clip. You guys can listen to it. O'REILLY: You are about the most unobjective person on the face of the—Media Matters! KRUGMAN: Oh, come on. O'REILLY: Why don't you just call Fidel? Call him up and have at it. He'll tell you what’s going on. KRUGMAN: Oh, wonderful. Now that we got the great (unintelligible) ends up being a Communist. O'REILLY: Media Matters! Oh, my. That's like me calling some Klan operation. KRUGMAN: Hey. O'REILLY: Why don't I call the Ku Klux Klan? The Daily Howler has the blow-by-blow. And, here is what Fidel & Co. had to say about the encounter. Meanwhile, Donald Luskin, Krugman's stalker at the National Review, offers a different take, arguing that O'Reilly "squashed" Krugman. We report, you decide.
posted by
Noam Alaska at 5:13 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Examining Our American Psyche
A nice piece on the complex, contradictory nature of America's relationship with its own wealth and guilt-laden materialism.
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 3:41 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Mutual Fund Voters
I may disagree with his political ideology, but I think John LeBoutillier, the former Republican congressman from NY, makes a good point in this column on NewsMax. LeBoutillier, the man who once compared House Speaker Tip O'Neill to the federal budget ("big, fat and out of control") argues that the worst economic number for the Bush campaign this past week was not the job growth number.A cornerstone of the Bush campaign was the claim that "we have turned the corner" economically and we are on the right path. But these new numbers undercut that claim and give powerful new ammunition to the Kerry campaign.
... The corresponding 300-plus point drop in the Dow Jones Thursday and Friday also points out the fragile nature of today's markets. Worry about the "recovery" still motivates traders. Politically, this drop could not come at a worse time, as a big chunk of today's Bush voters are members of the 'investor class.' Thus, economic troubles such as these cut right into Bush's base.
If they feel it in their portfolios, their intensity to support Bush may drop off a bit while Kerry's supporters are white-hot with the desire to remove Bush from office at all cost. I think LeBoutillier's on to something. Although there are many Americans who may not fear the loss of their job, many of these individuals are watching their savings quite closely. I'm not talking about the high-end investors who have portfolios in the millions of dollars. But many middle- and upper-middle class Americans have at least some savings (for retirement, their kids' college, etc.) whose value is tied to the stock market. An estimated 95 million Americans own shares in at least one mutual fund.
Given that these people are highly likely to vote, LeBoutillier's point is compelling. A major surge or noteworthy fall by Wall Street during the next 8-9 weeks could have a major impact in moving some of these "mutual fund voters."
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 3:14 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Armchair Campaign Managing II
Yesterday I wrote that I didn't think Obama should legitimize Keyes' candidacy by debating him and now I see, via Pandagon, that Obama just might limit the number of debates Democrat Barack Obama said Monday he will engage in fewer than the six debates he previously agreed to in the U.S. Senate race -- prompting newly minted GOP rival Alan Keyes to accuse Obama of running scared and cowering 'in timidity' at the prospect of facing him."
"That suggests doesn't it -- if right now they're scaling back -- a certain lack of confidence that there's any substance there," Keyes said of Obama.
Obama insisted he had no fear of facing the former radio and television personality from Maryland, but said he would not abide by the deal he reached with Republican Jack Ryan before the Wilmette investment banker dropped out of the race in June.
"That was a special for in-state residents," Obama quipped. I'd like to see him scale back the number of debates to zero, but it looks like he is willing to agree to at least three.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 12:53 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bad Answer, Mr. Kerry
Yesterday in Arizona, Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry gave an answer to a question that President Bush had recently asked: would Kerry still have voted to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq even if he had known that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. His answer? Yes. "I believe it's the right authority for a president to have." But that answer doesn't seem to square with this statement from Kerry's acceptance speech last month: "I will be a commander in chief who will never mislead us into war." The implication is that Bush misled us into war. This statement is consistent with Kerry's original vote in 2002 to support authorizing the president to order an invasion; after all, it wasn't clear then that the administration had twisted, overstated and distorted the intelligence data. But now Kerry says that even if he knew that there were no WMDs in Iraq, he still would have given the president the authority to wage a pre-emptive war against a country that did not present a serious, imminent threat to us or its neighbors.
Is Kerry forgetting about these well-received lines from his acceptance speech in Boston? "... as President, I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: the United States of America never goes to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to.
"Before you go to battle, you have to be able to look a parent in the eye and truthfully say: 'I tried everything possible to avoid sending your son or daughter into harm's way. But we had no choice. We had to protect the American people, fundamental American values from a threat that was real and imminent.' So, lesson one, this is the only justification for going to war." Kerry's answer really baffles me, and I fear it will give Nader and his ilk valuable fodder to appeal to anti-war liberals.
But Kerry's response is even more baffling because, now, his votes on the two Iraq wars seem to reflect no sound or prudent standard that I can see. Scenario A: Iraq -- 1991
Brutal dictator whose military forces had just invaded a neighboring country without provocation? Yes.
An Iraqi regime that had firm control of its border and could move its military forces at will? Yes.
Active production and stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction? Yes. In fact, coalition forces expected the Iraqis to use chemical weapons.
The administration (Bush I) displayed a willingness and ability to seek multilateral action? Yes.
Kerry's vote: AGAINST the Iraq I resolution Now, consider the second scenario: Scenario B: Iraq -- 2002
Brutal dictator whose military forces had just invaded a neighboring country without provocation? No.
An Iraqi regime that had firm control of its border and could move its military forces at will? No; the no-fly zones rendered most of the country off limits to Saddam's air force.
Active production and stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction? No. (Remember, Kerry said that even if he knew this in 2002, he'd have voted for the resolution)
The administration (Bush II) displayed a willingness and ability to seek multilateral action? No.
Kerry's vote: FOR the Iraq II resolution The two positions, when taken together, leave me confused as to what motivates (and motivated) John Kerry's thinking. It just doesn't make sense to me.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 12:13 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HS Students Expect Draft to Resume
According to the Associated Press:Most U.S. high-school students believe the government will restart the military draft during their lifetimes, and shrinking numbers are optimistic about the country's future, a new poll finds.
Among teenagers, 55 percent say young Americans will be required to serve in the military, up from 45 percent last year, according to "The State of Our Nation's Youth,'' an annual survey by the Horatio Alger Association.
... Former President Nixon halted the draft in 1973. Pentagon leaders and numerous generals and admirals have said it should not be resumed because the volunteer military is more efficient. Critics including Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry have accused the Pentagon of engaging in a "backdoor draft" to compensate for manpower shortages in Iraq with wholesale mobilizations National Guard and Reserve units and other retention tactics.
In the poll, respondents were asked their views of a mandatory military service requirement of two years, and 70 percent of students were opposed.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 12:04 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Party Swapping
The Carpetbagger has a good post on Rep. Rodney Alexander's last minute defection from the Democrats to the GOP.
It is undoubtedly outrageous that Alexander claimed for months that he would not switch parties and then waited until 15 minutes before the state's filing deadline to switch his affiliation, ensuring that Democrats had no time run anyone against him. As the Carpetbagger points out, lots of Democrats are understandably outraged, calling Alexander all sorts of names and the DCCC is even demanding that Alexander return "$70,000 that Democratic Members of Congress have given him based upon his fraudulent claim that he was a Democrat running for Congress."
That is entirely understandable, but the DCCC is also demanding that Mr. Alexander reimburse the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) for the $193,000 the committee used to help him win this seat in the 2002 general and run-off elections. This I don't understand. Alexander served the last 2 years as a Democrat, although not a very good one, so why does he have to give back that $193,000? The DCCC got what it paid for, at least for this session.
Also, this makes me think about Jim Jeffords' defection from the Republican Party in May 2001. According to Jeffords' bio, he is "currently serving in his third term in the U.S. Senate, where he was first elected in 1988." That means that he was re-elected to the Senate in 2000 as a Republican, only to declare himself an independent 6 months later, thereby handing over control of the Senate to the Democrats.
It may be an insult to your supporters and voters to wait until the last minute to switch party affiliation, but at least voters in Louisiana still have the opportunity to voice their displeasure at the ballot box. But what Jeffords did seems even worse - running and getting elected as a Republican only to defect 6 months into a 6 years term - and had far greater consequences for the Republican party.
Did Jeffords' return the money he used to get elected in 2000? If Democrats think they have a legitimate gripe against Alexander, I'd imagine that Republicans could make an even more pressing case against Jeffords.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 11:44 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daily Darfur
An EU fact-finding mission says it has found no evidence of genocide but proof of widespread violence. But they also say it is up to the UN to decide if what is happening in Darfur is genocide.
Bill Frist says it is genocide and also says that sanctions are not going to be enough to get the government to rein in the Janjaweed.
The African Union says that the JEM and SLA rebels and the government have tentatively agreed to meet for peace talks in Nigeria on Aug. 23.
Sudan disputes estimates that tens of thousands have died, saying that the death toll is no more than 5000.
The Scotsman reports that Janjaweed are being recruited into the police force that the government has sent to the region to disarm and reign in the Janjaweed.
The African Union has delayed plans to send peacekeepers to Darfur after Sudan rejected a proposal to deploy some 2,000 troops to the region.
Civilians in Darfur say they are being imprisoned and harassed for talking to outsiders about the situation.
Outbreaks of hepatitis E are plaguing refugee camps.
Reuters Foundation AlertNet has a good section on developing news on Darfur.
Finally, The Toronto Star has this story Hawa Bashi's new home is the shade beneath a thorny little tree the locals call katera, where she holds her 2-year-old son, Hari, close.
The pair, with Bashi's two other children, is among tens of thousands who fled black African villages in the Darfur region when Sudan's army and the Janjaweed Arab militias arrived to destroy them. While many went to refugee camps across the Chad border, others, including Bashi and her fading infant, ran only as far as a nearby valley.
Today she and her neighbours beneath the trees - 25 children and seven women in all - got lucky. Soldiers from the rebel Sudanese Liberation Army controlling the area distributed a quarter sack of maize flour to each family. Still, the help might be too little, too late for Hari.
He can no longer walk and has trouble sitting upright. He is severely malnourished and has lost almost all interest in food. He is so weak he can't even wave off the flies that nest in the corners of his eyes. Bashi's older daughters are cooking go, a paste made of maize flour served with sami, a local spice.
"He won't eat more than two spoons," his mother explains, smiling sadly. "I don't know what to do."
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 9:58 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monday, August 09, 2004 |
|
|
|
Legal Memo to Russert, Novak, and Time
Atrios reports that a federal judge ordered Tim Russert and Time's Matt Cooper to testify in the Intimigate investigation. Atrios also mentions a cute dialog between Russert and Robert Novak about whether Novak could face jail time if he refused to disclose who told him Robert Wilson's wife Valerie Plame was a CIA operative. I say "cute" because Russert pretends not to know what the law has to say, even though his own recent experience of being ordered to testify (and apparently complying with the order) must have refreshed his understanding of these issues.
For the rest of us whose memories haven't been jogged recently, I did a post a couple of months ago explaining why Novak probably can be forced to tell the grand jury who outed Plame, assuming that it was indeed a crime to do so. For bonus Demagogue value, here's another tidbit about how special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald should be (but won't be) insulated from the administration's usual slime-and-defend tactics should the grand jury return an embarrassing indictment.
By the way, the item to which Atrios links says that the Time reporter refused to testify and is appealing the order. What the D.C. Circuit does with this appeal should shed considerable light on what it would do if Novak were put in a similar position.
Update:
The judge's order (pdf) to Novak and Cooper agrees with the analysis in my earlier post about why the reporters in the Plame case can be compelled to testify. The court also finds as a matter of fact that the two main conditions that I had mentioned have been met: (1) there is reason to think that the disclosure was a crime; and (2) the prosecutor doesn't have alternative means to get the information other than asking the reporters. Unless the D.C. Circuit reverses, I think Mr. Novak should be expecting a subpoena in the fullness of time.
A second interesting point is how the judge characterizes the evidence that Cooper and Russert are expected to provide. He says they're going to be asked about conversations they had with "a specified Executive Branch official," whom Atrios (and the news reports on which he relies) identify as Scooter Libby. The judge concludes:The information requested from Mr. Cooper and Mr. Russert is very limited, all available alternative means of obtaining the information have been exhausted, the testimony sought is necessary for the completion of the investigation, and the testimony sought is expected to constitute direct evidence of innocence or guilt. "Direct evidence of innocence or guilt" means, I believe, that the prosecutor thinks Libby's conversations with Cooper and Russert constituted crimes. In other words, it isn't that what Libby told the reporters is information that will help the grand jury investigate whether someone committed a crime; it is that Libby himself committed a crime by telling the reporters what the prosecutor thinks he told them. All of which means that we could be nearing the endgame--if these two reporters have testified or soon will testify as the prosecutor expects, the grand jury will have enough information for an immediate indictment of Scooter Libby. The indictment might not be forthcoming right away, if the prosecutor thinks he can show that others were also culpable (remember that Novak's column said two senior officials told him that Plame recommended Wilson for the mission, and the grand jury might be interested in whether Libby was acting on someone else's orders when he blabbed), but we've reached at least the beginning of the end.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 6:49 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You Can Expect Payment Sometime in 2020
From the Chicago Tribune As late as 2000, his 1992 Senate campaign owed creditors $54,000, though Keyes ultimately settled the debt by paying a percentage of what the campaign owed. He still owes creditors a total of $524,000 for his 1996 and 2000 presidential campaigns, according to federal campaign filings. But he told the State Central Committee that he is taking care of that debt, Syverson said. Not only is Keyes a hypocrite and a carpetbagger, he is also deadbeat candidate who can't, or won't, pay off his debts.
Things just keep looking better and better.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 4:41 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I Know You Are, But What Am I?
The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have made a number of outrageous claims. They say that John Kerry lied about his wounds and his medals, that he "lacks the capacity to lead," that "when the chips were down, you couldn't count on John Kerry," etc. But, what is the real outrage here? According to this political cartoon published on David Horowitz's web site, it's the terrible way that Kerry is treating the Swift Boat Veterans.
There are a lot of hacks out there this political season, but this sets new boundaries for the lunatic fringe.
posted by
Noam Alaska at 4:30 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cocky Texans, Befuddled Illinoisans
When he agreed to appear on NBC's "Meet the Press" this past Sunday, House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) had a good reason to expect at least one or two tough questions from host Tim Russert. But judging from Hastert's lame and wandering answers, either he didn't see these questions coming or he got a 20-year-old intern to prepare his talking points. RUSSERT: In your book, you write this about President Bush: "You have to get through a little Texas cocky, but other than that we have a good relationship." What does that mean, "a little Texas cocky"?
REP. HASTERT: Yeah, I think there's something about Texas. I mean, they have a pride in their state and Texas sometimes comes through. I have a great relationship with Tom DeLay, but I think he's a little Texas cocky once in a while, too.
RUSSERT: You think the president's too cocky?
REP. HASTERT: No. I said a little Texas cocky, you just need to get through it.
RUSSERT: Is he a little too cocky?
REP. HASTERT: No. You just "need to get through it" -- whatever it is, but it's not cocky. It's just Texas cocky. Is everyone clear on that?RUSSERT: ... Why should, why did the Republican Party of Illinois say, "We can't find any Republicans in our state to run for the Senate. We had to go to Maryland to find somebody"?
REP. HASTERT: Well, it's kind of like New York going to Arkansas, I guess, to find a U.S. senator, but anyway, let's -- look, look, look.
RUSSERT: But it's interesting you said that because Alan Keyes ... was asked to run for the Senate in New York the same year Hillary Clinton ran in 2000 and this is what Alan Keyes had to say. "I deeply resent the destruction of federalism represented by Hillary Clinton's willingness to go into a state she doesn't even live in and pretend to represent people there. So I certainly wouldn't imitate it ..."
REP. HASTERT: You know, I reminded Alan when I talked to him for the first time the other day about that statement, and I said, "You know, I guess we all regret things we've said in the past." And I think he probably will, too. But, you know, the fact is Hillary Clinton was elected to the U.S. Senate in New York, and now she's talked about being a potential U.S. presidential candidate in the future. So it really hasn't hurt her too much or New York, from what I see. The point is: How do we get there? .... I spent five weeks trying to find good people, everywhere from a good state senator that we had by the name of Steve Rauschenberger, who I thought he could have...
RUSSERT: But you're drafting someone from another state.
REP. HASTERT: But wait. Wait. Well, let me go down through the process. And, you know, he didn't have enough money. I talked to Mike Ditka, and I decided maybe he made a good decision. I talked to a guy name Gary Fenzig, who was a great star, Harvard-Yale, star for the Chicago Bears. He couldn't. And the problem in Illinois, you've got to have $10 million to run; $6 million or $7 million of that has to be done for name I.D. I got down last week to interviewing a 70-year-old guy, who was a great farm broadcaster in Illinois. He decided since his health problems, he couldn't do it. You know, we were down -- we needed to find somebody to run, somebody who wanted to run. And, you know, Alan Keyes wants to run, and I hope he's a good candidate. The Illinois GOP sure set a high standard for itself -- find anyone "who wanted to run." I guess that explains why Hastert was interviewing ex-jocks and a 70-year-old "great farm broadcaster."
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 4:26 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meanwhile, in Oklahoma ....
The U.S. Senate race in Illinois has been center-stage lately. But, shifting gears to Oklahoma, Carpetbagger (how appropriate, eh?) reports on that state's GOP Senate nominee -- someone who is running to the right of Phyllis Schlafly.
Ask Republican Senate candidate Tom Coburn to name "the greatest threat to our freedom that we face today," and you may be shocked to hear his answer.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 4:12 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Backfire!
NPR ran a piece this morning on how the 9/11 Commission managed to produce its unanimous report in this era of rampant partisanship. Inspiration, it seems, came from a rather unpredictable source Former Republican Senator [and commission member] Slade Gorton revealed that one key factor was Attorney General John Ashcroft's surprise attack on Jamie Gorelick, the only woman on the commission.
Gorton: "The summary was that Jamie Gorelick ended up with nine brothers."
And those brothers, he said, didn't buy into Ashcroft's effort to undermine her credibility during a hearing when he released a classified memo Gorelick had written as Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton administration. The memo dealt with the separation of law enforcement and intelligence operations, a critical part of the panel's investigation.
But Ashcroft's maneuver boomeranged.
Gorton: "It had a unifying impact on members of the commission, Republicans and Democrats alike." Nice work, John.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 2:08 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Privet Edjewkashun Iz Better
Public schools come under frequent criticism -- some deserved, some undeserved. Although private schools convey an image to many Americans of ivy-covered buildings and scholarly learning, there is another, rather ugly, side to what passes as "private education." This is underscored by the news late last week that California's attorney general has ordered a chain of 30 private schools there to stop handing out diplomas.
The chain, the California Alternative High School, was teaching a mostly Latino student body erroneous lessons in history and civics. State Attorney General Bill Lockyer took the action after authorities seized the assets of California Alternative High School. The company charged its students between $450 and $1,450 each for a 10-week course.
According to Reuters, the workbook that accompanied the course "was riddled with errors" -- including these interesting lessons: An 'Alternative' View of Civics, History and the Arts
1. Congress is made up of two houses -- the Senate for Democrats and the House for Republicans.
2. The U.S. is made up of 53 states. Our flag was not updated to reflect the addition of Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico to the "original" 50 states.
3. The federal "administrative" branch oversees the Treasury Department.
4. World War II occurred from 1938 to 1942.
5. One of the great works of drama is the play, "Death of a Traveling Salesman."
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 1:20 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56 Words of Mush
Political verbiage reached its muddled, incoherent heights when conservative firebrand Alan Keyes was asked in an interview this weekend to explain why he became the GOP's Senate candidate in Illinois:My decision to accept the challenge of the Illinois Republican Party is based on deep issues of national principle that are the sort of issues that require we put our allegiance to state sovereignty second to our allegiances to the national principles that make us a free people and are actually the basis of our union. These 56 words are a pathetic attempt by Keyes to spin why political carpetbagging is only deplorable when it's done by Hillary Clinton.
This is 2004, not 1864, but you'd almost think it were the latter judging from this bizarre comment by Keyes, who seems to be suggesting that the union will be dissolved unless he is elected in November:... [Keyes] said the people of Illinois need his help in making sure that someone who holds principles contrary to those of Abraham Lincoln is not elected. "You have to ask yourself: Are we in a position where if I do nothing the principles of national union will be sacrificed?" he said. Of course, Keyes is fast becoming an expert at sacrificing principles, as this Post editorial reminds us:Mr. Keyes loves the limelight and to hear himself speak ... So it comes as no surprise that he would drop everything and hustle out to Illinois where he has never lived, to run for an office he can't win, and for a cause -- his own -- that deserves to lose. But that Mr. Keyes would allow himself to be drafted because of his skin color is beyond anything we would have expected, given his own long-standing vocal opposition to race-conscious decision making.
Who out there believes for one second that the Illinois Republican Party would have reached halfway across the country for a candidate with Mr. Keyes's losing track record if the Democratic candidate were not African American? That Mr. Keyes succumbed to their blandishments is a sad commentary on the needs of his ego ... Many of us who recoil at right-wing rhetoric never cared for Keyes. But, if there was one thing we might have been willing to grant, it was the fact that Keyes seemed to be a straight-shooter who wasn't guilty of the same hypocrisy and gamemanship that has long corrupted American politics. So much for that.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 11:21 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Armchair Campaign Managing
Now that Alan Keyes has announced his candidacy for a senate seat from a state in which he has never lived, all the talk seems to be about how Keyes really sees this as an opportunity to spread his conservative message while sharing Obama's spotlight.
If I were on Obama's staff, I'd encourage him to make sure that doesn't happen, mainly by refusing to take Keyes' candidacy seriously and refusing to hold any debates with him. As the Sun Times reports With the fire of a general ordering his troops into the valley of death, Keyes promised "a battle like this nation has never seen," and an ongoing debate unequalled since Lincoln vs. Douglas. Keyes knows that he is not going to win and is merely using this as an opportunity to slam the Democrats on everything from guns to abortion. Keyes is counting mainly on going face-to-face with Obama, but I see no reason why Obama should agree to this. We all know that Keyes' greatest strength is his oratory and debating skills and, while I don't think Obama would lose any debates or even be hurt too badly by them, I don't think they are going to help.
But more importantly, I don't think Keyes deserves to be taken seriously. Considering that he parachuted into the state less than three months before the election, Keyes' candidacy is totally illegitimate - even if it is perfectly legal.
I think Obama would be better off treating Keyes' campaign as the joke that it is and refuse to debate him or even engage him on the issues. Maybe if Obama makes it clear that Keyes is a fundamentally illegitimate candidate, the media will no longer feel compelled to pretend that Keyes actually deserves press coverage and I won't have to spend the next three months reading about this farce.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 11:07 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More Proof That the UN is a Joke
From the Telegraph A Rwandan sacked from the United Nations after being accused of war crimes is entitled to compensation for lost earnings, a UN employment tribunal has ruled.
The decision has enraged senior UN staff and investigators who tried - and failed - to have the man charged with genocide.
It has caused particular disgust because Callixte Mbarushimana, an ethnic Hutu assigned to protect UN staff during the 1994 genocide in his country, is alleged to have participated in the killing of 32 Tutsis, including some of his UN colleagues.
[edit]
An indictment against Mbarushimana, based on accounts from 24 witnesses, was drawn up but set aside after the Security Council decided to pursue only the most senior planners of the genocide.
Mbarushimana went on to hold UN posts for several more years, in Angola and Kosovo, before being dismissed after media reports named him as a killer. The New York Times has more.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 9:58 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daily Darfur
The Arab League says it opposes sanctions against Sudan because they will "only result in negative effects for the whole Sudanese people and complicate the crisis in Darfur."
Passion of the Present has a good post on how Sudan is waging its propaganda war regarding Darfur and also highlights a recent speech given by Sudanese President Omor Hassan el-Bashir He accused what he termed as "ill-intentioned circles" with a "secret agenda" of fabricating reports of marginalisation, ethnic cleansing, genocide and rape in Darfur and bringing the problem to the corridors of the UN. Passion of the Present also reprints a Sunday Times article entitled "Demons of Darfur admit their orders came from Sudanese leaders."
The Washington Post ran this op-ed from CARE's security director over the weekend A day in Darfur is as close as you'll ever get to walking back and forth through the looking glass. In Darfur you might, as I did, witness an eight-pound 3-year-old who will be dead in a few hours; then the next day you're back in the United States, where 60 percent of the population is overweight.
This is something few can grasp even if they see it. I spent a troubled period recovering from injuries received in the Vietnam War. After that I believed I was immune to personal tragedies. I'm not. Darfur is as close to hell on earth as we can imagine. Bill Frist traveled to Darfur over the weekend and said the killing is genocide.
CNN has a good resource called "Crisis In Sudan" which includes this article Dr. Jonathan Spector is at war with malnutrition -- Darfur's biggest killer.
Dr. Spector is midway through a stint for the aid group Medecins Sans Frontieres in Al-Geneina, the capital of western Darfur.
He is a long way from his pediatric practice back in Boston.
"In a developed country this child would be in intensive care, he would be on monitors, oxygen a ventilator," he says, as he examines an infant.
"He doesn't actually meet the malnutrition criteria for our camp because he's not severely malnourished. He's moderately malnourished." CNN also offers some sobering footage of starving children in the refugee camps in Darfur but, for some reason, they require you to pay to access it. Personally, I'd rather donate the $10 a month they require to actually helping the people of Darfur rather than watching CNN's coverage of their slow deaths.
And finally, we all know the press corps is lazy but they continue to report that, since the conflict began 18 months ago, an estimated 30,000 people have been killed. That 30,000 number first came into wide use back in April and surely many more have been killed since then. And secondly, this 30,000 only seems to represent the number actually killed by the Janjaweed - USAID estimates that another 50,000 have died of malnutrition and disease. Considering that the 30,000 number hasn't been updated in four months, it is probably safe to assume that more than 100,000 people have died during this genocide. It would be nice if the press would start making that clear.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 9:19 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|