Image
Demagoguery
"Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth."

Franklin D. Roosevelt


Regular Reads
Eschaton
Tapped
Daily Kos
The Liquid List
Matthew Yglesias
Talking Points Memo
Slacktivist
James Wolcott
Michael Berube
Political Animal
How Appealing
MaxSpeak, You Listen!
Tbogg
TalkLeft
Rittenhouse Review
Neal Pollack
Suckful
Cursor
John Moltz
Southern Appeal
Nathan Newman
The Poor Man
NRO's "The Corner"
Pandagon
Wonkette
Legal Fiction
Sugar, Mr. Poon?
Carpetbagger Report
Balkinization
Happy Furry Puppy Story Time w/ Norbizness
This Is Not Over


Contact Us
Eugene Oregon
Noam Alaska
Helena Montana
Frederick Maryland
Zoe Kentucky
Arnold P. California


Mutual Admiration Society
DCCC's The Stakeholder
Abolish the Death Penalty
Busy Busy Busy
Uggabugga
New American Empire
Staunch Moderate
A La Gauche
The Moderate Voice
The Sneaky Rabbit
Bluegrassroots
Political Strategy
Cutting to the Chase
Acrentropy
The Blue Bus
American Monkey
Restless Mania
Your Right Hand Thief
Naked Furniture
Dimmy Karras
The Department of Louise
Torvus Futurus
HellaFaded
Live From the Nuke Free Zone
Proof Through the Night
No More Apples
Slapnose
PoliGeek
Irrational Bush Hatred
The Slugging Southpaw
I Voted for George
Nosey Online
Donna's Place
Schadenfreude
Resource.full
wordsimageslife
The Bully Pulpit
Lying Socialist Weasels
TJ Griffin
To The Barricades
Omni-Curious
Eat Your Vegetables
Stoutdem
Suddenly Routine
The Story So Far
Skimble
Marstonalia
The Lefty Directory
ZipSix
ReachM High Cowboy Network
John Hoke's Personal Asylum
Riba Rambles
The Bone
Fables of the Reconstruction
The Modulator
Planet Swank
Scoobie Davis Online
Single-Minded
World Phamous
The Good Life
Something's Got To Break
Upside-down Hippopotamus
Damfacrats 2004
The Fulcrum
BeatBushBlog
archy
Yankee From Mississippi
It's A Crock!
Red Wheelbarrow
Apropos of Nothing
Political Parrhesia
The Mahablog
Mousemusings
Restlessgeist
Galois
Muise in Gradland
American Leftist
Political Blog Directory
Boiled Meat
John Costello
Skydiver Salad
The Game & How We Played It
Soupie's BBQ and Daycare
Odd Hours
Nebraska Liberal
The American Street
Approximately Perfect


If you have linked to us and don't see your name, please send us an e-mail and we'll add you.


Recommendations
















Archives:


-- HOME --



This page is powered by Blogger. Why isn't yours?
Friday, October 22, 2004


Does He Deserve the Benefit of the Doubt?

John Kerry's campaign issued a brief statement about the disclosure made by televangelist Pat Robertson earlier this week related to the Iraq war. But I think the Kerry campaign is being too gentle about this recent disclosure. Although a Kerry spokesman told CNN that the president should declare whether Robertson's recollection is true or false, the spokesman added: "We believe President Bush should get the benefit of the doubt here."

For those few people who may have missed Robertson's statements:
The evangelical broadcaster Pat Robertson set off a partisan firefight Wednesday after telling a television interviewer that President Bush had serenely assured him (in March 2003) that, "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties" in the invasion of Iraq.

... Robertson, a former Marine who ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 1988, said he had had "deep misgivings" about the war but that the president looked "like a contented Christian with four aces," as Robertson put it, using a quotation from Mark Twain.

"I mean, [Bush] was just sitting there like, 'I am on top of the world,' " Robertson said
Not surprisingly, the White House vehemently denied Robertson's story:
"The president never made such a comment," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.

Senior Bush campaign adviser Karen Hughes, a longtime confidant of the president, said she was "certain" Bush would not have said anything like that to Robertson.

"Perhaps he misunderstood, but I've never heard the president say any such thing," Hughes said on CNN's "Inside Politics."
But Hughes' "perhaps he misunderstood" response ignores the fact that this isn't just a case of what Robertson heard, but it's also about what Robertson perceived -- a president who was, in Rev. Pat's words, "just sitting there like, 'I am top of the world.' "

So why should the Kerry camp (or Americans) give Bush the benefit of the doubt on this conversation? Why would Robertson, described by CNN as "an ardent Bush supporter," lie about such a statement? Robertson may be a complete kook, but kooks are not necessarily liars; they're just kooks.

Frankly, if I had to judge Robertson and Bush solely by the standard of veracity, Robertson would come out on top.


posted by Frederick Maryland at 6:36 PM




Hotel Rwanda

The trailer is now available on line (click "Enter Site" and then click on "Trailer".)

The film opens December 22nd.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 4:26 PM




Junk Lawsuits: Bad

This Carpetbagger Report Post: Good

posted by Eugene Oregon at 12:09 PM




Because He Cares About Others

Flu shots are in short supply, but that didn't stop some members of Congress from getting them.

And, as Slate's Timothy Noah puts it
You knew Tom DeLay had to be one, right?
Here's the World's Biggest Asshole's justification
"'The House doctor recommended that members get the flu shot because they would be in a position of carrying or passing along the virus,' DeLay spokesman Jonathan Grella said. 'Particularly in this season of (campaign) visits to nursing homes and senior centers, we can't afford to take that risk.'"
So very noble.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 11:50 AM




Hail to You, Oh Unnamed Heroes

Officially, I do not approve of this sort of behavior. But ... well ...

From the AP
Columnist Coulter hit with custard pies
2 men arrested after attack at University of Arizona

The Associated Press
Updated: 8:34 a.m. ET Oct. 22, 2004

TUCSON, Ariz. - Two men ran onstage and threw custard pies at conservative columnist Ann Coulter as she was giving a speech at the University of Arizona, hitting her in the shoulder, police said.

University police arrested the men but did not release their identities.

In her half-hour speech Thursday night, Coulter trashed Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry and derided liberals and Democrats while saluting conservative students who attended her speech.

Coulter writes a column for Universal Press Syndicate. Her appearance was sponsored by the UA College Republicans.


posted by Eugene Oregon at 11:02 AM




The Complete Degradation of Colin Powell

When Bush named Powell as his Secretary of State, many of us assumed (or at least hoped) that he would serve as a voice of reason in Bush's reckless, neo-con cabinet. But, over the last four years, Powell has revealed himself to be nothing but a partisan whore.

And yesterday, as if to solidify that reputation in the annals of history, he added his voice to the "terrorists want Kerry to win" refrain
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell warned yesterday that terrorists in Iraq are stepping up their insurgency in hopes voters will remove President Bush from office but that Americans are "wise enough" not to give in to the provocation.

[edit]

Secretary Powell, speaking at the State Department, noted that casualties in Iraq have increased in recent months and that the situation probably will become "more difficult" as Nov. 2 draws closer.

But "the American people will not shrink from the task that is before us, and the American people are wise enough to put this into their calculation as to who they want to elect as president," he said.
So there you have it; the degradation of Colin Powell is now officially complete.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:34 AM




Daily Darfur

This doesn't make me feel too confident in the AU's ability to aid in Darfur
The African Union recommended a four-day postponement of peace talks over Sudan's Darfur region on Thursday after a transport mix-up left delegates stranded across the continent.
The UN fears that fighting will flare up as soon as the rainy season ends.

Sudan has reportedly drawn up a list of charges against rebels in Darfur that it intends to present to the UN.

The U.S. is set to begin airlifting Rwandan peacekeepers into Darfur in the coming weeks.

The World Food Program says that dozens of its aid trucks have been attacked in the past week and continued insecurity has forced the closure of some roads, hampering food deliveries.

Sudan's Ambassador takes issue with the Washington Post's coverage of the genocide.

The White House is praising its own efforts and calling on the rest of the world to do more.

Knight Ridder is running this article
As she ran across the powdery soil toward her flimsy hut, praying her rapist wouldn't give chase, Awatif Abdallah's face was bloody, her left eye swollen and her clothes tattered, according to witnesses and a medical report.

She felt shame. She felt fear. But instead of keeping silent, she took a path that countless violated women in Sudan's war-torn Darfur region rarely take: She sought justice.
CorpWatch reports
Rwandan and Nigerian soldiers will arrive in western Sudan this week as the first deployment of a five nation 4,500 strong peacekeeping force dispatched from the African Union headquarters in Addis Ababa to stem the violence in Darfur. Providing logistical support for the mission will be two private contractors from California, both of whom have mixed records carrying out similar enterprises in the past.

[edit]

Lieutenant-Colonel Michael Bittrick, the deputy director of regional and security affairs for Africa at the State Department, flew to Addis two months ago to hammer out an agreement to support African Union troops by committing to provide housing, office equipment, transport, and communications gear. This will be provided via an "indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity" joint contract awarded to Dyncorp Corporation, and Pacific Architects & Engineers (PAE) worth $20.6 million.

The two companies are already recruiting new staff to send to the region. A "resourceful retired military officer who has a through understanding of logistics" is being sought for $85,000 a year as well as security chief to lead "40-60 personnel daily" at a salary of $53,750 a year.

The State Department has assigned the work to DynCorp even as the same agency officially rebuked the company last week for its employees "aggressive behaviour" doing guard duty for Afghan leader Hamid Karzai and despite PAE's record of allegedly overcharging the United Nations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.


posted by Eugene Oregon at 9:53 AM


Thursday, October 21, 2004


Bush Supporters Undaunted by "Facts"

From PIPA
Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.

Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions.
And they appear to be living in a bubble
This tendency of Bush supporters to ignore dissonant information extends to other realms as well. Despite an abundance of evidence--including polls conducted by Gallup International in 38 countries, and more recently by a consortium of leading newspapers in 10 major countries--only 31% of Bush supporters recognize that the majority of people in the world oppose the US having gone to war with Iraq. Forty-two percent assume that views are evenly divided, and 26% assume that the majority approves. Among Kerry supporters, 74% assume that the majority of the world is opposed.

Similarly, 57% of Bush supporters assume that the majority of people in the world would favor Bush's reelection; 33% assumed that views are evenly divided and only 9% assumed that Kerry would be preferred. A recent poll by GlobeScan and PIPA of 35 of the major countries around the world found that in 30, a majority or plurality favored Kerry, while in just 3 Bush was favored. On average, Kerry was preferred more than two to one.


posted by Eugene Oregon at 1:31 PM




Daily Darfur

Sudan is complaining that it is being harassed by the United Nations over the Darfur crisis because the UN is powerless to change the situation in Iraq or the Palestinian territories.

The African Union has agreed to boost the number of "peacekeepers" in Darfur to 3,320 in the coming weeks. The one-year mission will be made up of 2,241 troops, of whom 450 will be military observers and 815 civilian police, as well as 164 support staff.

It should be noted here that Romeo Dallaire predicts that, if the AU/UN want to actually deal with the situation in Darfur, it would require 44,000 troops. At a minimum, it'll require 24,000 troops just to protect and maintain the delivery of humanitarian aid.

The New York Times looks at the Janjaweed with this "Rare Glimpse Inside Militia's Stronghold in Sudan."

The NewsHour continues its in-depth coverage of the crisis.

And if you ever wondered why most Americans don't have any real understanding of the crisis in Darfur, I think this little article from the Wichita Eagle speaks volumes. Buried between the news that the Miss America Pageant has lost its TV contract and human beings have less genes than previously thought is 100 words AU deployment to Sudan.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 9:41 AM




Say It Ain't So, Jack

Today I received this "Open letter signed by 24 Olympians and Professional Athletes" from the Bush campaign
The fight against terrorism takes decisiveness. It takes continued support for our troops and first responders. But most importantly, it takes courage and inspirational leadership in the White House. In these critical times, our President has had the courage to stand up and do what's right.

For that and for his unwavering character, we choose George W. Bush as our President for the next four years. He is a leader we can depend on to make the tough decisions and the right decisions. Please join us in supporting a candidate of courage, President Bush--a leader who backs our troops defending our nation and shares our values.
It is signed by the likes of Ernie Banks, John Elway, Karl Malone, Nolan Ryan and most disappointingly, Jack Nickalus.

Just for that, I am now going to be rooting for Tiger in every major championship from here on out, just so he breaks your record.

But I do take solace in the fact that it was also signed by Matt Hasselbeck. I can only hope his support for Bush is a lot like his prediction during last year's Wild Card game against the Packers when the Seahawks won the toss in overtime and he boasted "We want the ball. We're going to score." He proceeded to quickly throw a pass that was picked off by Al Harris and returned 52 yards for a touchdown, ending the game.



posted by Eugene Oregon at 9:17 AM




A Reminder from Alison Bechdel

Yeah, the people on the other side are a bunch of immoral, unprincipled, gullible idiots, but let's not get personal about it.


posted by Arnold P. California at 6:35 AM




Reason Enough to Vote Against Bush

Compare this with this.

(And, regarding the first item, another judge joins the list of heroes of judicial independence.)


posted by Arnold P. California at 5:37 AM




Did You Know that Babe Ruth's Real Name Was George?




The chap on the right is Harry Frazee, whose decision-making as President of the Red Sox was just about as effective as George W. Bush's decision-making as President of the United States.

Some Bush supporters, with scant evidence to support them, think God prefers their man in this election. I suggest that the historic--some would say miraculous--events of the past week point in the other direction.

Welcome to the 21st century, Bronx Bombers. Welcome to the Curse of Dubya.


posted by Arnold P. California at 4:20 AM


Wednesday, October 20, 2004


Help, oh communications God

Here's a nice, soothing brainstorm from my friend Pandora Ohio:

Zoe,

I know it's late in the campaign day, but I've been mulling this one since
the last debate. We all knew that Bush was going to dust off the old "tax
and spend liberal" charge, but Kerry didn't have a good comeback. I have a
comeback, I had it at the time, and I think it's better to be late *before*
the election than after. Here it is:

"Credit Card Conservative"

It's simple, it's accurate, it's catchy, it's something that everyone in
this country can understand and cringe at. It will make the morning news
clipshows.

Example:

My opponent calls me a "tax and spend liberal." I believe that we should pay
for what we get; it's called fiscal responsibility. My opponent, on the
other hand, is a credit card conservative, "spend now, pay later." And we
will pay. So far he's spend $# of our money on special interests and
boondoggles that we'll pay for, and our children will pay for, for years to
come.

Any idea how to start seeding a phrase like this?

-Pandora Ohio

Yup, I have an idea about how to plant this phrase in the liberal ether...or at least a starting point.

posted by Zoe Kentucky at 4:39 PM




Isn't the Internet Great?

Suppose you were related by blood to George W. Bush, and you knew other 'W' relatives who -- like you --were strongly opposed to Bush's policies and were supporting John Kerry for president. Then, you might create a website like this.


posted by Frederick Maryland at 1:38 PM




Kids for Kerry

The Associated Press:
Democrat John Kerry is the winner, and the rest of the country should pay attention because the vote on Nickelodeon's Web site has correctly chosen the president of the United States in the past four elections.

Nearly 400,000 children and teens voted, and the results were released Wednesday. Kerry received 57 percent of the vote; President Bush got 43 percent.
Clearly, the president's re-election campaign hasn't done enough to explain the Department of Homeland Security's color-coded alert system to children. If it had, these kids (like some of their parents) might have been frightened into supporting for the status quo.


posted by Frederick Maryland at 1:29 PM




Perhaps Cheney Forgot About This Quote

Yesterday, Dick Cheney stumped in southern Ohio and continued the GOP's tactic of hammering away at John Kerry's so-called "nuisance" comment. According to today's Cincinnati Post:

The vice president seized on a statement Kerry recently made about returning to a time when terrorism was just a nuisance. "It said to me that he didn't understand the scope and nature of the problem," Cheney said. "When was it that terrorism was ever a nuisance?"

But, this morning, I stumbled upon a quote (July 9, 2002) from Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, responding to CNN's Greta Van Susteran, who had asked, "how will we know when the war (against terror) is over?"

Wolfowitz's remark was strikingly similar to what Kerry said. First, here's Kerry's quote, published originally in the New York Times:
"We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance."
Now, here is an excerpt of Wolfowitz's response to Van Susteran's question:
"...victory is going to be measured by what doesn't happen as opposed to what does happen. When Americans can go to malls and shopping centers and not have to worry about being hit by terrorists, and we don't think that on any moment there might be a suicidal airplane attack, then we'll know that we've dealt with it."
Bear in mind, this last quote is coming from the administration's prime uber-hawk. Unless I missed something, nobody's ever accused Wolfowitz of being soft on terrorism.

Kerry's and Wolfowitz's remarks carry the same theme -- namely, that our nation should aim for a time when terrorism is not a constant source of worry for the American people. Neither of them said that government leaders and security experts should stop worrying and planning; their hope, it seems, is that there would come a day when ordinary citizens were not constantly preoccupied with a fear of terrorism.

Why is this such a bizarre notion to the Bush-Cheney camp? Perhaps the GOP's presidential campaign slogan should be: "Killing the Terrorists, but Preserving the Fear."


posted by Frederick Maryland at 11:42 AM




Daily Darfur

The UN says the ceasefire is not holding. Tell us something we don't know.

Pamela Shifman, a NICEF adviser on violence and sexual exploitation, says she heard dozens of accounts of sexual assaults - including numerous reports of gang-rapes - when she visited IDPs in Darfur
"Rape is used as a weapon to terrorize individual women and girls, and also to terrorize their families and to terrorize entire communities. No woman or girl is safe. It is a very effective tool of war. It is a war crime," UN News quoted her as saying.
CorpWatch reports that the move to get companies to suspend their commercial activities with Sudan, pending the end of the genocide in Darfur and completion of a peace accord in the south, is gaining steam.

Nicholas Kristof dedicates another column to Darfur.

Eric Reeves made this statement in his analysis piece yesterday
These realities make fully clear the answer to any question about whether there will be a robust international humanitarian intervention tasked with saving hundreds of thousands of vulnerable civilians: there will not. This acquiescent decision has been made by political leaders at the UN, in the European Union, and in Washington. Though there has been no fully honest acknowledgement of this decision, it has all too clearly been made.

Certainly if present genocidal horrors are not sufficient cause for intervention, then it is impossible to imagine some future galvanizing development in Darfur that might be the final spur to action. 300,000 have died, and mortality rates are obscenely high; more than 2 million have been displaced within Darfur and into Chad; more than 2.5 million people are now directly affected by the conflict and in need of humanitarian assistance, and this number only grows. The Janjaweed continue their "reign of terror" in the rural areas and in the camps; many of these war criminals have now been recycled into the ranks of "police." Agricultural production is coming ever more fully to a halt, and food is becoming scarcer all the time. The social and cultural destruction of the African tribal groups of Darfur steadily increases, even as camps for the displaced look more and more like human warehouses.

And yet this is not enough to justify humanitarian intervention. That this is so, that massive, deliberate human destruction---animated by ethnic/racial hatred---is insufficient cause for intervention, must be stated fully and explicitly, rather than allowed to slip by as tacit acquiescence in genocide by a morally bereft "international community." Such abysmal failure cannot be judged by history alone: we must say it to ourselves, now.
Darfur in pictures

A child suffering from malnutrition where it is being treated at the therapeutic feeding centre run by Doctors Without Borders, a non-governmental organization based in Belgium.


posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:23 AM




Evil Endorses Bush

Heh. So much for the Republican argument that terrorists or supporters of terrorists prefer Kerry. Iran has officially endorsed Bush for President. Even better than that, are their reasons why.
The head of Iran's security council said Tuesday that the re-election of President Bush was in Tehran's best interests, despite the administration's axis of evil label, accusations that Iran harbors al-Qaida terrorists and threats of sanctions over the country's nuclear ambitions.

Historically, Democrats have harmed Iran more than Republicans, said Hasan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council, Iran's top security decision-making body.

"We haven't seen anything good from Democrats," Rowhani told state-run television in remarks that, for the first time in recent decades, saw Iran openly supporting one U.S. presidential candidate over another.

Though Iran generally does not publicly wade into U.S. presidential politics, it has a history of preferring Republicans over Democrats, who tend to press human rights issues. [bold mine]
Now if only North Korea's Kim Jong Il were to endorse Bush...it's hard not to choke on the irony.


posted by Zoe Kentucky at 9:48 AM




Terrorism as a Business

Following up on newly formed Iraq-al Qaeda link Frederick wrote about yesterday, I see today that Zarqawi's organization has officially merged with al Qaeda.

This sounds a lot like a corporate merger
Tawhid and Jihad, the Iraqi militant group of terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, apparently has changed its name two days after announcing its merger with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida organization.

An Internet statement released Tuesday under the purported new name, al-Qaida of Jihad in the Land of Two Rivers, claimed responsibility for an attack on a U.S. military convoy west of the Iraqi city of Fallujah the same day. The two rivers in the new name refers to the Euphrates and Tigris rivers in Iraq.
I hope we can expect the same great service from this new entity as we've received from them separately in the past.

Hooray for synergy and strategic partnerships.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 9:26 AM




The Curse of Dubya

Those bastards. I'm speaking, of course, of my beloved Red Sox. They could have just rolled over in Game 4. But no, they have to find yet another way to come as close as possible and then break our hearts. As always, they do just enough to sucker us into thinking that this time, they'll really make it. It's like Lucy pulling the football away; we Red Sox fans are Charlie Brown, gullible in the end in spite of ourselves.

That, of course, assumes that they lose Game 7, as they always do. If they don't, then everyone repeat after me: THE CURSE OF DUBYA. Becoming the first team ever to blow a 3-0 lead, having Mariano Rivera blow saves two days in a row--that's Red Sox-like conduct, not the way of the Yankees.

(If any more proof is needed, consider the umpires' correct calls on Mark Bellhorn's home run and Alex Rodriguez's interference last night. In previous years, the Red Sox were victimized by blown calls--indeed it's fair to say that the 1999 ALCS was ruined by two critical calls that the umpires later admitted had been wrong.)


posted by Arnold P. California at 5:51 AM




Prior Restraint

I'm probably not current on the Sinclair fuss, and I'm sure someone must have mentioned this somewhere, unless I'm totally on the wrong track, but:

The dissident Sinclair stockholders reportedly plan to seek an injunction against Sinclair's airing its anti-Kerry program. Can anyone explain to me how this would not be an unconstitutional prior restraint? Indeed, can anyone explain how from point of view of protecting the stockholders' interests--which are ostensibly financial--money damages wouldn't compensate for any harm caused to the corporation (assuming they have adequate directors' and officers' ("D & O") insurance); why, in other words, an injunction would be available even if there weren't any First Amendment issues?


posted by Arnold P. California at 5:40 AM




For the Sake of Kids--Kids Whose Daddies Own Big Corporations, That Is

I'll let the Brennan Center's "Court Pester" summarize this article.
Article reports that And For the Sake of the Kids, the interest group running ads attacking incumbent West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Warren McGraw for being soft on crime, has revealed that it collected $2.5 million from 12 donors between Aug. 20 and Sept. 30, 2004. One of the largest donations came from Don Blakenship, the chief executive officer of Massey Energy Co., who gave $1.7 million. Commenting on his donation, Blakenship said that the current Supreme Court is scaring away business and jobs from the state. He did not mention the sex offender case for which And For the Sake of the Kids has criticized Justice McGraw. According to the article, Massey Energy Co. is facing a number of lawsuits that could end up before the West Virginia Supreme Court, leading Justice McGraw supporters to claim that business interests are trying to buy a seat on the state Supreme Court.
This is a classic technique of corporate interests trying to influence state judicial elections: run ads that don't talk about what you really want--getting rid of judges who hold you liable for environmental damage, harming consumers, etc.--but attack them on hot-button issues like crime or abortion. I first saw this when several liberal California Supreme Court justices were defeated for retention after a huge amount of insurance-industry money paid for ads attacking the justices' death-penalty rulings (to be fair, the ads were accurate in portraying the justices as very hostile to the death penalty). I can't remember the name the insurance companies gave their front organization, but you can bet the ads didn't say, "Paid for by Connecticut Companies Out to Screw Californians."

This isn't exactly illegitimate. As long as the ads are truthful, there's nothing wrong with telling voters information they'd like to know, such as judges' records in criminal cases. And there's certainly nothing wrong with being in favor of so-called tort reform or reducing the regulation of business. That is, you might disagree with these ideas on their merits, but they are legitimate policy positions. Yet there's something that feels not quite right about moneyed interests hiding their real agenda when running truthful ads, even if the agenda itself is one they could quite properly pursue openly. In fact, it was for just this reason that a major piece of McCain-Feingold was passed, to ensure that when "Republicans for Clean Air" runs an attack ad against McCain, the public can at least find out where the money is coming from.

(There's also a big issue in judicial elections about how misleading a truthful ad might be, since the reasons for a judicial decision can include lots of technical and procedural items that have little or nothing to do with the issue the public cares about. Just announcing the result--"Judge X authored a ruling that reversed the conviction of our state's worst-ever pedophile"--can easily be misleading. Ads can also be truthful but misleading in executive- and legislative-branch races, too, of course, but the danger is particularly great with judges since their work involves technical matters that most lay people don't know about and since they are often unwilling or unable to defend themselves.)


posted by Arnold P. California at 5:07 AM




The Ninth Circuit Strikes Down a "Free Expression Zone"

Here (pdf). From a very quick skimming of the opinion, it seems to be pretty fact-based. In other words, it has to do with the specifics of the site in question, how many protestors have shown up in the past, and so on, rather than any general skepticism about "free speech zones" in general. In fact, the court acknowledges that restrictions on free speech around the entrances to public buildings can be legal if necessary for the safety and free movement of people with business in the buildings.


posted by Arnold P. California at 5:02 AM




The Election Follies

Junkies who want to keep up with all of the litigation and wrangling in various states over various election-administration issues can go here. The link is to the page about Florida, but from there you can get to pages on other swing states. This is a good place to go to stay current on provisional-ballot litigation, Colorado's Amendment 36, and Ken Blackwell's latest shenanigans.


posted by Arnold P. California at 4:49 AM


Tuesday, October 19, 2004


The Al Qaida Link: It's Finally There

The Bush administration spent so many months -- flying in the face of the prevailing evidence -- trying to convince the public that Iraq was the nesting ground for al-Qaida terrorists. Well, what the president insisted was true then is true now. The Associated Press reports:
The militant group led by terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, believed to be behind many deadly attacks in Iraq, has declared its allegiance to Osama bin Laden, citing the need for unity against "the enemies of Islam."

The declaration, which appeared Sunday on a Web site used as a clearinghouse for statements by militant groups, said al-Zarqawi's Tawhid and Jihad group and al Qaida had been in communication eight months ago and "viewpoints were exchanged" before the dialogue was interrupted.

"God soon blessed us with a resumption in communication, and the dignified brothers in al Qaida understood the strategy of Tawhid and Jihad," said the statement, whose authenticity could not be confirmed.

The statement ran a Quranic verse encouraging Muslim unity and said al-Zarqawi considered bin Laden "the best leader for Islam's armies against all infidels and apostates."
Apparently, the Bushies were so determined to find an Iraqi-al Qaida link that they were willing to wage a war that may well have helped to create this link.


posted by Frederick Maryland at 3:04 PM




Just in Time for Shavuot

The provincial archive in Tilburg recently received a diary that had been in private hands since World War II. The author, Helga Deen, was an 18-year-old Jewish girl who was put on a kindertransport in 1943 and died at Sobibor. Her experience differed from Anne Frank's: while the Frank family went into hiding, the Deen family, like most other Dutch Jews, continued with daily life and dutifully reported for transport when ordered.

The archivist reported feeling chills when reading the diary. Deen wrote: "If my will dies, I will die also." She also said, one month after being transported and two weeks before being murdered with her entire family: "What we have experienced in recent months is indescribable, and, for anyone who has not experienced it himself, unimaginable." (My own translation, and therefore not to be trusted).

The diary will be put on public display at the end of the month and published next May, coinciding with the 60th anniversary of V-E Day. I imagine an English translation will follow.

Update: I've now seen an English news article on the new diary. Among other things, I can now say that my translation wasn't far off.


posted by Arnold P. California at 2:51 PM




How Does Bush Show his Love and Support for the Troops?

By cutting their benefits, that's how. A new study reveals that there were almost 1.7 million uninsured vets in 2003.
Many of the 1.694 million uninsured veterans in 2003 were barred from VHA care because of a 2003 Bush Administration order that halted enrollment of most middle income veterans. Others were unable to obtain VHA care due to waiting lists at some VHA facilities, unaffordable co-payments for VHA specialty care, or the lack of VHA facilities in their communities. An additional 3.90 million members of veterans’ households were also uninsured and ineligible for VHA care.
...
David U. Himmelstein, M.D., study author and Harvard Medical School Associate Professor, commented: “This administration professes great concern for veterans, but it’s all talk and no action. Since President Bush took office the number of uninsured vets has skyrocketed, and he’s cut VA eligibility, barring hundreds of thousands of veterans from care. Our president has put troops in harm’s way overseas and abandons them and their families once they get home.


posted by Zoe Kentucky at 1:36 PM




Something Kerry Should Talk More About...

the connection between abortion, health care insurance, jobs and marriage. Little known fact-- since 2001 the number of abortions has increased and the number of new marriages has decreased.

Who noticed this trend? A pro-lifer. (Courtesy of Suddenly Routine.)
When President Bush took office, the nation's abortion rates were at a 24-year low, after a 17.4% decline during the 1990s. This was an average decrease of 1.7% per year, mostly during the latter part of the decade. (This data comes from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life using the Guttmacher Institute's studies).

Enter George W. Bush in 2001. One would expect the abortion rate to continue its consistent course downward, if not plunge. Instead, the opposite happened.

I found three states that have posted multi-year statistics through 2003, and abortion rates have risen in all three: Kentucky's increased by 3.2% from 2000 to 2003. Michigan's increased by 11.3% from 2000 to 2003. Pennsylvania's increased by 1.9% from 1999 to 2002. I found 13 additional states that reported statistics for 2001 and 2002. Eight states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6% average increase), and five saw a decrease (4.3% average decrease).

Under President Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates appears to have reversed. Given the trends of the 1990s, 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been expected before this change of direction.

How could this be? I see three contributing factors:

First, two thirds of women who abort say they cannot afford a child (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Web site). In the past three years, unemployment rates increased half again. Not since Hoover had there been a net loss of jobs during a presidency until the current administration. Average real incomes decreased, and for seven years the minimum wage has not been raised to match inflation. With less income, many prospective mothers fear another mouth to feed.

Second, half of all women who abort say they do not have a reliable mate (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life). Men who are jobless usually do not marry. Only three of the 16 states had more marriages in 2002 than in 2001, and in those states abortion rates decreased. In the 16 states overall, there were 16,392 fewer marriages than the year before, and 7,869 more abortions. As male unemployment increases, marriages fall and abortion rises.
Third, women worry about health care for themselves and their children. Since 5.2 million more people have no health insurance now than before this presidency - with women of childbearing age overrepresented in those 5.2 million - abortion increases.
...
What does this tell us? Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative. Rhetoric is hollow, mere tinkling brass, without health care, health insurance, jobs, child care, and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need policies that provide jobs and health insurance and support for prospective mothers.

So, while Kerry favors the right to abortion remaining a legal option, under Bush the conditions that contribute to women choosing abortion have worsened. All because of economic problems that Bush practically denies exist.

So who is more likely to decrease the number of abortions in this country? Kerry brings up the importance of deeds, not words, a lot. Bush's own words about "protecting marriage" and restricting abortion rights are meaningless if he supports policies that lead to more abortions and fewer marriages.

posted by Zoe Kentucky at 1:03 PM




Five Nightmare Election Scenarios

Yesterday, Slate's Richard L. Hasen wrote:
"The chances of post-election litigation affecting the outcome of this election are in fact small -- probably well under 10 percent. It is not that Election Day problems are unlikely -- I think they are guaranteed -- but they would have to occur in a place where the resolution of the problem could affect the outcome of the election. Think battleground states like Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Colorado. We should hardly find that statistic comforting: Even a small probability of a big disaster is worth concern."
Hasen offered these "five nightmare scenarios" that could delay the announcement of a presidential winner for days or even weeks.


posted by Frederick Maryland at 1:02 PM




Rick Perlstein Writes Good Articles

And I link to them. We make a hell of a team.

His latest: "The End of Democracy: Losing America's Birthright, the George Bush Way."


posted by Eugene Oregon at 12:49 PM




The Line Must Be Busy

Earlier this week, crude oil prices hit a record high, surpassing $54 a barrel and prompting one news bureau to report:
"The high price of oil seems set to last and economic leaders now acknowledge that it is beginning to weigh on the world economy by lowering growth forecasts for next year."
Four years ago, when oil prices had risen to levels well below where they are now, George W. Bush said he had the solution:
"What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots .... And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price."
I wonder if Bush has gotten around to placing that phone call yet.


posted by Frederick Maryland at 10:40 AM




Take Credit for What You Once Opposed

My, how time flies.

One year and seven months ago, a reporter asked then-White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer "why does the White House continue to resist the idea of making the Office of Homeland Security a Cabinet-level department with its own budgetary authority and its own responsibility to Congress?"

Naturally, Fleischer danced his way around the question. Fast-forward to today, and the White House turns Bush's signing of the DHS appropriations bill into a convenient photo-op:
Today, President Bush signed the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2005 to provide much-needed funds for our Nation's homeland security activities. ... This bill reflects the President's commitment to defend America ..."



posted by Frederick Maryland at 10:26 AM




How To Get Re-Elected

Step One: Fail miserably during your four years in office.

Step Two: In doing so, suffer a devastating attack and respond by starting an unnecessary war.

That seems to be the gist of this Wall Street Journal article
Mr. Bush's hardened rhetoric comes as polls give mixed signals about the mood of the electorate. With a little more than two weeks to go before the election, polls show dissatisfaction with Mr. Bush's handling of domestic affairs; the president's approval rating hovers below 50%. The latest Time magazine survey found only 49% of Americans approved of Mr. Bush's job performance. Although that normally would mean trouble for an incumbent, Mr. Bush either is tied with Mr. Kerry or slightly ahead of him in most national polls -- including Time's -- emphasizing how voter concerns about Iraq and terrorism are scrambling traditional election calculations and playing to the president's advantage at a crucial time.
Bush's low approval rating would surely spell doom were it not for the boost he is getting from the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism.

If not for the fact that one of the worst tragedies in US history happened on his watch, Bush would have most likely been thrown out of office after one term and joined the ranks of Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, Warren Harding and James Buchanan as one of the worst presidents in US history.

Instead, it just might ensure that he gets re-elected.

Explain that.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:16 AM




Daily Darfur

President Bush has ordered the Pentagon to make two U.S. transport planes and $20.5 million in logistical assistance available to AU peacekeeping forces being sent to Darfur. You can read the White House statement here.

Passion of the Present shares notes from last night's event on Darfur at Harvard, as does Ethan Zuckerman. The Harvard Crimson reports on the event. You can see video of the event here.

The ICRC says Darfur faces an "unprecedented food crisis."

Eric Reeves continues to provide on-going analysis of the crisis.

Emily Wax continues to cover the situation in the Washington Post.

Knight Ridder reports that, in addition to seeing their villages destroyed and their houses burned, many Darfurians are being further devastated by the theft and looting of their livestock, which is the "tribal equivalent of embezzling savings accounts, pension plans and inheritances."

Sudan is accusing JEM and SLA rebels of drawing fire and aerial bombardment on Darfur villages by using them as cover and as bases for military operations. That may or may not be true, but it is quite plausible, as Scott Anderson explained in the New York Times magazine recently
In a revealing illustration of just how complicated the situation has become, American diplomats now harbor almost as much rancor for the rebels in Darfur as they do for the government in Khartoum. In recent months, the S.L.A. has repeatedly stalled peace talks being brokered by the African Union by setting unrealistic preconditions or quibbling over such details as where the talks should be held; for its part, the Justice and Equality Movement faction had, until recently, boycotted the talks altogether.

''The first notion anyone's got to disabuse themselves of,'' the same State Department official said, ''is that there are any good guys in this. There aren't. The S.L.A. started this war, and now they and the Justice and Equality Movement are doing everything possible to keep it going. The S.L.A. has never stood up to the army the way the S.P.L.A. did in the south. Instead, they've been very content to sit back, let the village burnings go on, let the killing go on, because the more international pressure that's brought to bear on Khartoum, the stronger their position grows.''


posted by Eugene Oregon at 9:14 AM




The Hague, City of Diplomacy

Home to the International Court of Justice (housed in the Peace Palace), the Yugoslavia war crimes tribunal, and countless organizations devoted to the peaceful resolution of disputes, The Hague also has a soccer team, called ADO Den Haag ("Den Haag" being Dutch for "The Hague"--if anyone really cares, I'll explain how a city came to have a name starting with "The").

This past weekend, ADO played the Dutch league leaders, PSV Eindhoven.
Referee Rene Temmink suspended play 10 minutes before full-time with PSV leading 2-0 in The Hague after the local fans took up a chorus calling for him to be gassed and accusing his wife of being a "whore".

City mayor Wim Deetman then ordered the match to be abandoned, news agency nu.nl reported.
The ADO fans don't seem to be too creative. The song (which I heard on TV last night) about the referee's wife's being a whore wasn't new.
The Premier Division club had only just reached a settlement with the Dutch soccer association KNVB after problems were reported at the 12 September ADO-Ajax Amsterdam clash, in which ADO fans continually chanted that the referee's girlfriend was a whore.
The other chant, about gassing the referee, is a little harder to comprehend. It originated in an infamous incident between archrivals Feyenoord Rotterdam and Ajax Amsterdam. For reasons too complicated and bizarre to go into now, Ajax fans revel in being a "Jewish" club, even though none of its players and few of its supporters are Jews. The fans wave Israeli flags, and I've seen graffiti in Amsterdam supporting Ajax with the club's name and a Star of David. Really weird.

Anyhow, some Feyenoord fans started a chant at a game against Ajax: "Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas." Sick, but at least logical, in a twisted way. But the use of the chant by ADO fans against the referee, Temmink, was nonsensical.

Temmink decided to end the match in the 80th minute. "I was associated with an illness under which very many people suffered and died. 'Hamas, Hamas, Temmink to the gas' was also unacceptable."

Seems like a bit of an understatement. I suspect the "illness" in question was AIDS, though the article doesn't specify.

Meanwhile, right-thinking people have rallied against hooliganism.

The referee said later that he refused to put up with such abuse. "If you don't have guts and you don’t dare to intervene, you only make it more difficult. Football is a beautiful game and so many people enjoy it. But this beautiful game will be destroyed by something like that," he said.

[snip]

The KNVB [Royal Dutch Football Association] wholeheartedly backed Temmink's decision, with association director Henk Kesler saying it was completely in line with the new protocol. "The KNVB applauds this," he said.

The chairman of the ADO board of commissioners, Ruud de Boer, said that he could "totally understand" Mayor Deetman's decision to abandon the match.

By the way, there's a very interesting book that examines Dutch society through the lens of soccer, discussing such things as the Dutch aptitude for architecture, the "polder model" of political consensus and compromise, and why Ajax is a "Jewish club." It's called Brilliant Orange: the Neurotic Genius of Dutch Football. Highly recommended for soccer fans and anyone interested in knowing more about the Netherlands in general.



posted by Arnold P. California at 3:59 AM


Monday, October 18, 2004


When Bush Teased Us

On December 13, 2000, Al Gore gave a speech in which he officially conceded the presidency to Gov. George W. Bush. Then it was then Bush's turn to address the nation. Remember these lines from W's speech?
"I was not elected to serve one party, but to serve one nation."

"The president of the United States is the president of every single American, of every race and every background. Whether you voted for me or not, I will do my best to serve your interests, and I will work to earn your respect."
Yeah. Right.


posted by Frederick Maryland at 7:00 PM




Dems Out-Register GOP in Swing States

According to the Associated Press:
The Democrats appear to be gaining the upper hand in the battle to sign up new voters in the all-important swing states, an Associated Press analysis suggests.

The AP analysis of the most up-to-date figures from across the country found that, in every state where complete data is available, the Democrats have registered more new voters than Republicans. They have the edge in Arizona, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada and New Hampshire.

Only in Florida is the story different. Registration tallies from more than half the counties show that the Republicans and the Democrats are virtually tied in the race to increase their share of voters in the state that decided the presidential election four years ago. In those counties, the Republicans have signed up just a few thousand more.

As for the two other big prizes among the swing states -- Pennsylvania and Ohio -- Pennsylvania's numbers are too scant to draw any conclusions, and Ohio does not register voters by party.



posted by Frederick Maryland at 6:42 PM




Since Clerics Don't Use Cheney-Language ....

... you'll never hear one say, "Go f*** yourself." The Rev. Frank T. Griswold, presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church U.S.A. found a much more dignified way of telling an Anglican Church commission that the report it issued today won't change the U.S. church's view that it was perfectly appropriate to ordain a gay bishop. First, here's what the Anglican Commission's report said:
An Anglican Church commission issued a report in London today that sharply rebukes the Episcopal Church U.S.A. for ordaining an openly gay bishop in New Hampshire and for blessing same-sex unions. The report calls for a moratorium on both practices "until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges."

The commission asked the Episcopal Church, the American branch of Anglicanism, to apologize for creating pain and division in the global Anglican Communion. With 77 million members in about 164 countries, the Communion is the second-largest church body in the world.

The report also calls for the bishops who consecrated V. Gene Robinson a bishop in New Hampshire a year ago to consider withdrawing from Anglican "functions" until they offer "an expression of regret."

... The report issued today says that given the "widespread unacceptability" of Bishop Robinson's ministry in provinces around the world, the Archbishop of Canterbury should "exercise very considerable caution in inviting or admitting him to the councils of the Communion."
Now, then, the Rev. Griswold's response:
"I can regret the effects of [Robinson's ordination], but at the same time be clear about the integrity of what I've done," Bishop Griswold said.



posted by Frederick Maryland at 6:02 PM




I Love this Country

The Netherlands Cyclists' Association is lobbying the Dutch government to use its influence to seek a new EU regulation requiring external air bags on new cars for the protection of bicyclists.


posted by Arnold P. California at 3:03 PM




Bush and Putin, Sitting in a Tree...



Hmmm...I've heard some of these talking points somewhere else before. Oh, but where?
Russian President Vladimir Putin says terrorist attacks in Iraq are aimed at preventing the re-election of U.S. President George W. Bush and that a Bush defeat "could lead to the spread of terrorism to other parts of the world."
...
"Any unbiased observer understands that attacks of international terrorist organizations in Iraq, especially nowadays, are targeted not only and not so much against the international coalition as against President Bush," Putin said.

"International terrorists have set as their goal inflicting the maximum damage to Bush, to prevent his election to a second term.

"If they succeed in doing that, they will celebrate a victory over America and over the entire anti-terror coalition," Putin said.

"In that case, this would give an additional impulse to international terrorists and to their activities, and could lead to the spread of terrorism to other parts of the world."

Putin noted that American voters will not decide the election just on Iraq.

"Because of this we must take a realistic approach and be prepared for any development of events," he said. "We respect any choice the American people will make."
They remind me of President Cheney's heartfelt concern about the election:
"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice. Because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States."


posted by Zoe Kentucky at 2:08 PM




Stop Scaring Us!

George Bush, today
President Bush on Monday accused Democratic rival Sen. John Kerry of "shameless scare tactics" by suggesting that the president would jeopardize Social Security for older Americans and bring back the military draft for young people.

Bush, in an Associated Press interview, said of Kerry, "He's trying to scare our seniors. It is wrong to try to scare people going into the polls."
Dick Cheney, one month ago
[I]t's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice. Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us.
Bush complaining that Kerry is trying to scare people with talk to Social Security privatization and a draft: priceless.

His own vice president telling Americans that they'll probably be killed if they vote for Kerry: shameless.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 1:59 PM




What Is It?

The Blogosphere has been all atwitter with speculation about the bulge beneath President Bush's jacket during the debates.

Kevin Drum had a good overview last week and now today I see that it is still being discussed in the pages of the New York Times
New pictures on the Internet last week showed protuberances under Mr. Bush's T-shirt at his ranch and again under his coat at the second and third debates. Some theories had the bulge as a bulletproof vest or a tracking device to help the Secret Service locate Mr. Bush should he be kidnapped.

The White House flatly denied it all, and continued to insist that the bulge wasn't there, or that it amounted to nothing.

"I think it is about the most ridiculous story of the campaign,'' said Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary.

"Listen, I'm there when he puts his coat on, I'm there when he takes it off, I've never seen it,'' said Mark McKinnon, Mr. Bush's chief media adviser.

"I know that the Internet claims it was all different things, but to my knowledge, it was just a poorly tailored suit,'' said Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff.

"The box was one of those shock collars,'' said Ken Mehlman, Mr. Bush's campaign manager, who was joking.
The strange thing about this is that the White House essentially refuses to even admit that there is any such bulge, despite the fact that it obviously exists and, as such, requires an explanation.

Now compare their response to the bulge issue to this response to something Cheney did during the VP debate
But now there's a new mystery that some eagle-eyed viewers noticed just after the debate between Vice President Cheney and Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.). It happened while the families were up on the stage, congratulating and hugging their candidates and then wandering about desperately pretending they don't despise one another.

Cheney, we're told, reached into his pocket and appeared to pull out a pill and swallow it. Given his ticker ailments, might this be a nitroglycerin pill for his heart? Tums? A jelly bean? The bloggers doubtless were gearing up for Pillgate.

A Cheney campaign spokeswoman said Friday it was a "breath mint."
You see, it is relatively simple to quash these burgeoning conspiracy theories by merely explaining what happened.

Question: Cheney popped something into his mouth. What was it?
Response: A breath mint
Result: End of story.

versus

Question: What is that bulge beneath the president's jacket?
Response: There is no bulge, dismiss the question as crazy or make a joke.
Result: Rampant speculation that is only fueled by their bizarre refusal to even acknowledge what everyone can plainly see.

There very well may be some perfectly reasonable and innocent explanation for the bulge, but the more the White House refuses to admit it even exists, the more suspicious we become.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 11:46 AM




Remember Why the House Isn't Really in Play

I've seen election coverage reminder readers/viewers that not only is the presidency at stake in this election, but control of the Senate and the House is up for grabs as well.

The odds are against the Democrats' gaining a majority in the Senate, though it's conceivable that they'll get either 51 seats or 50 + Edwards if Kerry wins the election. But the House is another matter. Gerrymandering has been a bipartisan sport over the years, and the Dems have been the screwers as often (or more) as they've been the screwees. This decade, it's clear that the Republicans have won the redistricting game. Several large states (Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan) are grotesquely slanted toward the GOP. Moreover, in states where neither party controls the process completely, the compromise usually results in creating a bunch of safe seats for both parties, so that there are few competitive districts (perhaps 35 to 40 nationwide, or less than 10% of the House).

What sealed it for the GOP was the Texas re-redistricting, another project of the World's Biggest Asshole (so much for federalism). My favorite piece of evidence from the ensuing litigation was the e-mail from a Republican staffer on the Hill saying something like: "This should ensure the GOP maintains control no matter the changes in the national mood." (This is, I think, a nearly verbatim quote, although it is from memory). It's not impossible for the Democrats to win a majority in the House, but given recent voting patterns, it would require a lot more than 50% of the electorate to prefer a Democratic candidate, and the GOP can retain a majority even if only a minority of voters want it to.

Anyway, today the Supreme Court remanded the case to the three-judge federal court that had upheld the Texas re-redistricting. Rick Hasen's blog, as usual, has a good first take on today's action, though the discussion may be a bit "inside baseball" for people who aren't election lawyers. What's odd, as Rick points out, is that the three-judge court basically pleaded for the Supreme Court to explain what the rules are for partisan gerrymandering claims, saying that the current Supreme Court authority was so vague as to be useless. After the court threw up its hands and decided not to strike down the Texas plan, the Supreme Court decided the Vieth case, which came from the Pennsylvania GOP gerrymander. But Vieth didn't do anything to clarify the rules at all, yet the Supreme Court is now telling the three-judge panel to redo the case in light of Vieth. So judges who couldn't (and I'm not blaming them) figure out what an unconstitutional gerrymander would be based on the then-existing precedent have been ordered to try again without any substantive guidance from the Supreme Court.

The one thing that's changed is that we now know who the lower court has to satisfy with any test that it comes up with: Justice Kennedy. Four of his colleagues said the courts just can't hear partisan gerrymandering claims (the four other conservatives). Kennedy couldn't bring himself to say that, but he also couldn't accept any of the tests that had been proposed for determining when a gerrymander is unconstitutional. So what's going to happen now is lower courts and plaintiffs trying out new theories that weren't presented to Kennedy in Vieth until Kennedy either thinks they've come up with something useful or gives up and decides the claims aren't justiciable--or, more likely, until the personnel on the Court change.

For now, though, the damage is done. This year's elections will use the GOP gerrymander, and it will be hard to restore the status quo ante. Republicans claimed that the first map was a Democratic gerrymander, which it sort of was, but not really. It was based on a Dem gerrymander in the previous decade, but as things stand now in Texas, the data suggest that it actually had a slight bias in favor of the GOP. The reason that the Texas delegation still has "too many" Dems is because Republican voters in some West Texas districts decided to keep voting for Democratic incumbents. The new map is much more heavily slanted toward the GOP, and it moved all of those West Texas Dems into new districts where their current (mostly Republican) constituents don't live.


posted by Arnold P. California at 11:02 AM




In Praise of High-Minded Debate

Jon Stewart was on Crossfire on Friday lamenting Paul Begala's and Tucker Carlson's incessant partisan hackery and ended with this remark to Carlson
You're as big a dick on your show as you are on any show.


posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:20 AM




Mainstream Media Rant

This morning on my way to work I passed by a USA Today box displaying the very prominent top headline "Poll: Eight-Point Lead for Bush." It's a jarring headline. It's especially jarring when you know it's not entirely true. All of the other major polls have Bush and Kerry within a 4 point range. No one else has Bush with such a big lead. So why would the paper promote what is clearly an outlier poll? Well, perhaps because it is their own poll? USA Today gets to conduct an outlier poll and make their own sensational headline to sell more papers. How nice for them. Especially when their battleground tracker map shows Kerry and Bush evenly split. Doesn't that make their big, splashy headline more than a little misleading?

However, if one actually takes the time to average the top ten polls they'd find that nationally Bush is at 48.7% and Kerry has 45.4%. My own personal political bias aside, that's just sloppy journalism. It reminds me of the great Jon Stewart video going around, the one where he rants against the mainstream media and calls Tucker Carlson a "dick" on live tv. Mr. Stewart says, both in jest and in earnest, "stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America." If only USA Today would listen.

posted by Zoe Kentucky at 10:03 AM




Daily Darfur

If you are in the Boston area, tonight the Carr Center for Human Rights will be hosting a forum entitled "DARFUR: How to Respond to Genocide" featuring Romeo Dallaire, John Prendergast, Samantha Power and Michael Ignatieff. Or you can watch the web cast here.

Sudan is denying recent UN reports that the death toll has reached 70,000, insisting that the real number is no more than 7,000.

The UN says it continues to receive fresh reports of attacks against refugees.

Kofi Annan blames the war in Iraq for the international community's reluctance to send troops into Sudan.

Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Chad and Nigeria, meeting for an Africa Summit, said the crisis in Darfur should be resolved within the framework of the African Union.

The New York Times Magazine had an article on Darfur this weekend.

The American Prospect is running an article entitled "Sudan's SOS: The genocide continues to unfold. Here's how to stop it."

Nicholas Kristoff has another column on Darfur.

John Kerry released this statement yesterday
"Months ago, I urged the president to call the crisis in Darfur, Sudan, by its rightful name: genocide. The Bush Administration finally did so in September, but shamefully it has done nothing effective to halt this genocide. Words without deeds are meaningless - especially when people are dying every day.

"Rarely have the costs of the Bush Administration's inaction and failed leadership been clearer. Attacks on innocent civilians continue. The death toll in Darfur is quickly mounting. At least 70,000 civilians are already dead. Close to 1.5 million people have been displaced, and nearly 300,000 have been forced to flee to refugee camps in neighboring Chad. More than 200,000 people were forced from their homes last month alone. This week, the deteriorating security situation forced the United Nations' World Food Program to scale back its critical relief operation. A senior USAID official recently warned that 'the crisis has not yet peaked. We have not yet seen the worst,' and acknowledged that another 250,000 innocent civilians may die before the end of the year.

"What has been President Bush's response? Toothless U.S.- sponsored UN Security Council resolutions. These empty threats serve mainly to embolden the Khartoum government and underscore the Administration's loss of international moral authority. The Bush Administration's lofty praise for the African Union amounts to little without providing it the financial and other support it needs, right now, to deploy more troops to Darfur. The Bush administration has also contributed needed humanitarian assistance, but it is not enough to put a band-aid on genocide.

"As president, I will hold the Sudanese government accountable for this genocide. Either the Khartoum regime relents, or I will work with our European allies and others in the UN Security Council, to immediately impose tough sanctions on that government. These measures should include freezing the assets of the Sudanese Government, its leaders and business affiliates, prohibiting arms sales or transfers to Sudan, and banning the purchase of Sudanese oil. If the UN refuses to act, we will lead our partners outside the Security Council to sanction Khartoum, just as we did the apartheid government of South Africa. I will also work with Congress to strengthen existing U.S. sanctions on Sudan by prohibiting foreign companies doing business in Sudan from trading on U.S. public stock exchanges. At the same time, my Administration will swiftly provide robust logistical, financial and other support to the African Union to enable it to disarm militias, protect civilians and help humanitarian agencies reach those at risk.

"As President, I will restore U.S. moral authority and leadership in the international community. I will not substitute words for deeds in the face of genocide. I will do what is necessary to halt the genocide and punish its perpetrators."


posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:02 AM




Thoughts from on top of a Dike, Part 2

All right, class, calm down. Would the boys in the back stop snickering if I spelled it "dijk," in Dutch fashion?

Anyway, as I was driving along atop the dike, I listened to BBC's Radio 4 for a while. There was a talk show where four panelists discussed the events of the day. As an American, I had a hard time recognizing the format because everyone said intelligent things, didn't interrupt each other, and didn't tell anyone to shut up.

One question put to the panel was whether Britain had anything to fear from a Kerry presidency. Three panelists said in the most emphatic terms that a Bush win would be a disaster. Fair enough; their politics ranged from center to left, and Bush isn't exactly popular in this hemisphere.

What got me was the other panelist, who was actually the first to speak. He is part of the Conservative Party's shadow cabinet. In other words, he's parallel to one of the ministers in the Labour government and ostensibly would become a minister if the Tories won the upcoming general election (fat chance).

He said he found it hard to say which candidate would be better for Britain and Europe. He kept kind of talking around the question, and the moderator kept trying to pin him down and say whether he preferred Bush or Kerry or had no preference. He seemed unwilling to say outright that he didn't care who won, but he also kept saying he really couldn't tell.

How things have changed from the days when Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were sister- and brother-in-arms in an ideological revolution. Those two may have made an odd couple, but there was no doubting which American party the Tories were aligned with.

I think it's hard for Americans to realize just how much of a disaster Bush appears to be to the rest of the world.

The results show that in Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Japan, Spain and South Korea a majority of voters share a rejection of the Iraq invasion, contempt for the Bush administration, a growing hostility to the US and a not-too-strong endorsement of Mr Kerry. But they all make a clear distinction between this kind of anti-Americanism and expressing a dislike of American people. On average 68% of those polled say they have a favourable opinion of Americans.

The 10-country poll suggests that rarely has an American administration faced such isolation and lack of public support amongst its closest allies. The only exceptions to this trend are the Israelis - who back Bush 2-1 over Kerry and see the US as their security umbrella - and the Russians who, despite their traditional anti-Americanism, recorded unexpectedly favourable attitudes towards the US in the survey conducted in the immediate aftermath of the Beslan tragedy.

[snip]

The ICM survey shows that if the British had a vote in the US presidential elections on November 2 they would vote 50% for Kerry and only 22% for Bush. Sixty per cent of British voters say they don't like Bush, rising to a startling 77% among those under 25.
For some, it has to do with ideology, but even to those who might sympathize with his policy goals, Bush seems thoroughly incompetent and ignorant. Consider that Japan continues to have a rightist government, the Aussies just reelected the conservative party there in spite of widespread opposition to the war, and even Chirac represents the right flank of "respectable" French politics.

For now, a lot of people seem to distinguish between Bush and America (in spite of the GOP doctrine of l'etat c'est lui, in which criticism of Bush constitutes hatred of America). But if we elect this guy after everything he's done, the generally positive views of the U.S. will decline significantly. Either that, or there are going to be a lot of cases of cognitive dissonance out there.


posted by Arnold P. California at 8:28 AM




"The Reality-Based Community"

I arrived in my Amsterdam office this morning to find that cyberspace's chattering classes have been buzzing about yesterday's New York Times magazine article about Bush's faith-based approach to governing. The observations that Bush is impervious to facts and has an abiding faith in his own correctness are not new, of course. My own new insight into this came not from a magazine but from a long drive through the Dutch countryside on Saturday.

If you have driven in the heart of the Netherlands, you will know that the main canals run in channels on top of dikes, with dry land on either side. When you are driving on top of a dike, you can look at the water on one side and down at the flat farmland stretching into the distance on your other side, and one thing is immediately apparent: the water is at a higher elevation than the land.

The sight of boats floating along next to you while cars drive below you is actually quite disconcerting. Whenever I'm in this position, the situation looks absurd to me, and I feel as if the whole thing will stop working if I stop believing in it. It's like Wile E. Coyote running off a cliff and standing midair until he looks down and realizes there's nothing supporting him. If I resolutely push the reality of gravity out of my mind and keep on driving, the water will stay where it is.

This seems to be how Bush views almost everything he does, most obviously the Iraq war. It doesn't matter what is actually happening; if Bush resolutely pushes reality out of his mind and stays on the same course, everything will turn out fine.

Of course, neither of us is right. The world will not change itself to conform to our beliefs, no matter how resolute we are. The only difference between us is that the dikes actually work.


posted by Arnold P. California at 7:39 AM


Sunday, October 17, 2004


The Times' Endorsement

It's no surprise that the New York Times endorsed Kerry in this Sunday editorial, but I thought it was well stated. Here are some excerpts:

... while Mr. Kerry's service in Vietnam was first over-promoted and then over-pilloried, his entire life has been devoted to public service, from the war to a series of elected offices. He strikes us, above all, as a man with a strong moral core.

There is no denying that this race is mainly about Mr. Bush's disastrous tenure. Nearly four years ago, after the Supreme Court awarded him the presidency, Mr. Bush came into office amid popular expectation that he would acknowledge his lack of a mandate by sticking close to the center. Instead, he turned the government over to the radical right.

Mr. Bush installed John Ashcroft, a favorite of the far right with a history of insensitivity to civil liberties, as attorney general. He sent the Senate one ideological, activist judicial nominee after another. He moved quickly to implement a far-reaching anti-choice agenda including censorship of government Web sites and a clampdown on embryonic stem cell research.

... When the nation fell into recession, the president remained fixated not on generating jobs but rather on fighting the right wing's war against taxing the wealthy. As a result, money that could have been used to strengthen Social Security evaporated, as did the chance to provide adequate funding for programs the president himself had backed. No Child Left Behind, his signature domestic program, imposed higher standards on local school systems without providing enough money to meet them.

... The president who lost the popular vote got a real mandate on Sept. 11, 2001. With the grieving country united behind him, Mr. Bush had an unparalleled opportunity to ask for almost any shared sacrifice. The only limit was his imagination.

He asked for another tax cut and the war against Iraq.

... Mr. Bush and his attorney general put in place a strategy for a domestic antiterror war that had all the hallmarks of the administration's normal method of doing business: a Nixonian obsession with secrecy, disrespect for civil liberties and inept management.

We have specific fears about what would happen in a second Bush term, particularly regarding the Supreme Court. The record so far gives us plenty of cause for worry. Thanks to Mr. Bush, Jay Bybee, the author of an infamous Justice Department memo justifying the use of torture as an interrogation technique, is now a federal appeals court judge.

... The Bush White House has always given us the worst aspects of the American right without any of the advantages. We get the radical goals but not the efficient management. The Department of Education's handling of the No Child Left Behind Act has been heavily politicized and inept. The Department of Homeland Security is famous for its useless alerts and its inability to distribute antiterrorism aid according to actual threats.

... Mr. Kerry has the capacity to do far, far better.




posted by Frederick Maryland at 3:54 PM




Congressman Jim DeMented

This morning on NBC's "Meet the Press," host Tim Russert interviewed U.S. Senate candidates from South Carolina -- Republican Congressman Jim DeMint and his Democratic opponent, Inez Tenenbaum. I'm not sure which is more outrageous -- DeMint's frightening views or his slimy refusal to answer a pretty simple question:
MR. RUSSERT: In a previous debate, Mr. DeMint, you were asked a question, and this was your answer about teaching in South Carolina.

(A video clip is shown from a DeMint-Tannenbaum debate on Oct. 3, 2004 in which DeMint states, "If a person is a practicing homosexual, they should not be teaching in our schools.")

MR. RUSSERT: Why not?

REP. DeMINT: Well, I apologize for that remark because I really regret distracting from the main issues of this debate.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, do you apologize because it's a distraction or do you apologize for what you said?

REP. DeMINT: No, I apologize for distracting from the real issues of this debate. This is...

MR. RUSSERT: So do you -- wait, but let's clarify. Do you believe that gays should be able to teach in the public schools of South Carolina?

REP. DeMINT: I believe that's a local school board issue and the voters of South Carolina want me to talk about how they're going to be safer, how they're going to have better jobs, how I'm going to save Social Security.

MR. RUSSERT: But you said they shouldn't be. And the Republican Party in South Carolina's platform...

REP. DeMINT: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: ...said they should not. Do you believe that gays should be able to teach in the public schools?

REP. DeMINT: I believe that's a local school board issue.

(Moments later)

MR. RUSSERT: You also, when asked about your comments about gay teachers, said this: "I would have given the same answer when asked if a single woman, who was pregnant and living with her boyfriend, should be hired to teach my third-grade children." Do you also still believe that, that a single mom should not be a teacher in South Carolina schools?

REP. DeMINT: I believe that's a local school board issue. And, Tim, I was answering as a dad who's put lots of children in the hands of teachers and I answered with my heart. And I should just say, again, I apologize that distracted from the real debate.

MR. RUSSERT: But you apologize for distracting but are you apologizing to gay teachers or to single mom teachers?

REP. DeMINT: No. I'm apologizing for talking about a local school board issue when the voters want us to talk about how we're going to make them safer, win the war on terror, how we're going to create jobs ...

(Moments later)

MR. RUSSERT: But you're making judgments about gay people or about single moms and, in effect, disqualifying them. Are you certain that you never had a gay teacher?

REP. DeMINT: Listen, I have my personal beliefs, Tim, but I honestly believe that the teachers should be hired by local school districts. They should be making the decisions on who should be in the classroom.

MR. RUSSERT: But don't the voters have a right to know about whether or not you still stand by comments you made in the campaign? Do you stand by your comments?

REP. DeMINT: I apologized for answering a local school board question.

MR. RUSSERT: No, you're apologizing for the distraction, but it's a simple question. Do you believe that gays should be able to teach in South Carolina schools?

REP. DeMINT: Well, Tim...

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that single moms should be able to teach?

REP. DeMINT: It's a very simple answer. I think the local school board should make that issue, not Senate can -- I mean, make that decision.
These days, you hear some on the Left talking half-heartedly about moving to Canada if Dubya is re-elected. Well, if I lived in South Carolina and watched DeMint get elected to the Senate, I'd start pricing real estate in another state.


posted by Frederick Maryland at 3:22 PM




Felonious Republicans

In Wisconsin, they did more than simply promote Ralph Nader's petition drive for ballot status, they apparently committed a felony. The state's second-largest newspaper reports in today's edition:
At least 16 Republican Party officers and volunteers from across Wisconsin were involved in a secretive signature drive to get presidential candidate Ralph Nader on the ballot by claiming to be supporters and keeping quiet about their GOP affiliations.

... Nader's Wisconsin coordinator, Bill Linville, said he didn't turn the signatures over to the state Elections Board because the head of the drive, UW- Madison student Matt Holsen, refused to say who was behind it. The Wisconsin State Journal has learned that Holsen is a regular volunteer at the Republican Party of Wisconsin headquarters in Madison and is a member of College Republicans. Holsen, who personally collected an estimated 583 signatures, didn't return repeated telephone and e-mail messages.

Linville said Holsen posed as "someone who liked Ralph Nader" when he approached Linville just days before the signature deadline. Linville said Holsen gave him about 100 signatures. After promising to bring more signatures, Holsen met Linville outside a Nader campaign meeting on Sept. 6 -- the night before the petition deadline. Linville said he was "shell-shocked" to see Holsen carrying hundreds of pages of names.

"I asked him where he was from. I started asking him some questions, and he just ran away," said Linville, noting that Holsen wore a "Keep Milwaukee Green" T-shirt.

Linville said he quickly rejected the petitions because, "You don't collect 3,000 signatures between you and your friends unless you're in an organization. These came from all over the state. You can't coordinate this without having some type of structure. It would have to be some coordinated Republican Party effort."

As required by law, each circulator signed a statement on the petition swearing, "I intend to support these candidates." The form warns that anyone submitting false information on the petition could be guilty of a felony. Some circulators contacted by the State Journal said they had no plans to vote for Nader, but most said they supported his right to be on the ballot - primarily as a way of benefiting Bush.

"I wholeheartedly support President Bush," said Nicole Marklein, chairwoman of the UW-Madison College Republicans, who gathered 11 signatures for Nader.



posted by Frederick Maryland at 1:07 PM



Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com