The Four Corners

2003-07-01T11:02:00.000-04:00

George W. Bush raised your taxes, part deux Remember when I stated this, but was unable to support it with concrete numbers and was poo-pooed by my colleagues as an abstract argument? Well some one did my work for me.

You'll never guess who. Paul Weinstein, a senior fellow at PPI and ex-White House advisor who now teaches part time at John Hopkins. "In Ohio, for example, a family with an income of $66,000 and two children attending public universities paid $864 more in taxes and fees in 2002 than it did before Bush's 2001 tax cuts," Weinstein writes. $864? That isn't much money you say. But it is if you are promising a tax cut for everyone. By the way, this is just the 2001 tax cuts, just wait until the 2003 edition exacerbates the problem.

Why did he take state and local taxes into consideration? Because that is the grand sum of what individual taxpayers pay. But you say, "Bush isn't responsible for state and local taxes." Au Contraire mon frere! What about the lack of support for Homeland Security measures (which adds up to billions of dollars), the lack of help with exploding Medicaid payments (either through gasp reform or double gasp a one time hit of money), the lack of help with Special Education (the feds are supposed to pay for 40%, but of course Bush is no where near that) or the President's new education bill (a few more billion short for new testing and other federal mandates)? The $80 billion or so that the states are collectively short by could be alleviated by the federal government, if it held up its end of the bargain.

In fact, PPI's senior economist, Jeff Lemieux, says "these tax changes are part of a longer-term strategy to shift the tax burden toward labor income, personal consumption, and the middle class. Therefore, the Bush tax cuts are better described as 'tax shifts,' from current to future taxpayers, and from businesses and high-income investors to middle-class taxpayers." Don't believe them? Try out the Washington Post, who did articles on this a month or so ago.

The ultimate goal? Not to stimulate the economy, which it wouldn't do anyway, but to kill the government and all its "communist" programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Head Start, TANF, food stamps, HUD loans, AmeriCorps, etc. How? By "starving the beast" -- bankrupting the government through repeated, enormously irresponsible tax cuts and forcing the government and congress to cut things they wouldn't to pay for absolute necessities like the military. Who is behind all this? Super-lobbyist and Bush ally Grover Norquist.

As DLC Policy Director and New Dem Daily writer Ed Kilgore writes, "It's clear the 'starve the beast' theory offers Republicans the political equivalent of a bottomless crack pipe." Now that is something Bush really can relate to.

2003-06-26T10:55:00.000-04:00

Court's out for summer! After many months of waiting and wondering, the Supremes finally showed up and made some respectable discisions.

First, they made a middle of the road ruling on Michigan's affirmative action programs. Striking the point system while honoring diversity. Some said it sounded like Justice O'Conner's swang song, I sure hope not.

Next, they just decided to strike an anachronistic Texas law that criminalizes sexual behavior (sodomy), which asked the state to intrude on your bedrooms. In a 6-3 Decison, the justices said the law violated due process guarantees. Thank you! Now Texas will have to cook up new ways to be homophobic. And yes Jerry, there is something wrong with that.

PSSorry for the lax blogging. Also note that the Michigan case ruling was due in large part to Amicus briefs filed by corporate heavyweights and retired Generals like Wesley K. Clark and "Desert Stormin'" Norman Schwartzkopf. Good work! At ease gentleman!

2003-06-17T13:12:00.000-04:00

Jessica Lynch: "The True Hollywood Story" Even though it has been well over a month since Private Lynch was recovered from an Iraqi hospital in Nasiriyah, the details remain stretchy.

Despite hard work from many reporters including the recent report by Post reporters Dana Priest, William Booth and Susan Schmidt, the facts remain elusive. But one thing is for sure, the Hollywood firefight version the Pentagon and Washington Post played up was deeply flawed.

The real story goes more or less like this: Lynch, with her Company, were traveling up "route Blue" a code for a particular Iraqi highway. Orders had come that they need to take another route "Jackson" --another highway-- but somehow, the message didn't get down to her convoy. It seems they were in and out of radio contact and as much as 12 miles behind the main group. So they stayed on the old path, only to take a wrong turn and get ambushed by Saddam's private army-- the one still killing Americans in Iraq today.

Lynch tried to fire her gun, but it jammed severely and somewhere along the way, her HumVee smashed into a giant trailer/truck carrying supplies. This killed some in her vehicle and severely injured her, as well as knocking her unconscious. [Some claim that her injuries might be from Iraqi beatings with the end of a weapon, but I doubt it]

Afterwards, Iraqi doctors tried their best to tend to her injuries, both through the motivation that she would make a good human shield/bait/hostage and out of humane concerns. After being treated in a military hospital, she was moved to a civilian one with a guard stationed outside her room.

American soldiers were naturally cautious when learning of her location, thinking it sounded too good to be true. The BBC report that the siege on the hospital was staged seems unfounded. While it turned out that resistance was minimal, I truly doubt any such claim of firing blanks.

Speaking of blanks, Lynch herself can't remember much of what happened. This is part injury, trauma, and "national security." Maybe some day we will get to bottom of what really happened. But until then, all those movie producers and novelists are going to have to change it to BASED on a true story.

2003-06-16T11:59:00.000-04:00

Media savvy 101 This weekend proved the value of good PR.

Before interviewing General Wesley Clark, Meet the Press anchor Tim Russert played a radio ad by a grassroots group called DraftWesleyClark.com and did screen shots of the website.

Does any other Presidential Candidate have anything close to that level of free advertising? Or any advertising for that matter [Dean is prepping work for $300,000 worth of TV ads in Iowa over the next two weeks, sounds like he is running out of steam]?

The media attention (CNN has also played excerpts of the radio ad) and, more importantly, Clark's performance on MTP was a proverbial gold mine for the Clarkies: On Friday at 5pm, the Meetup numbers for Clark were at 520, on Monday at Noon, they were at 980, a 188% increase! Similarly, webmasters for the various Draft Clark sites told me they were getting petition letters from supporters at the rate of a letter every 90 seconds. I assume this has slowed up somewhat since Sunday.

Clark's appearance at the New Democratic Network's (a soft/hard money fundraising group for moderate DLC-style Democrats) annual meeting tomorrow should similarly generate lots of media buzz and excitement from supporters in DC (Meetup numbers suggest their are 50-60 in the greater DC area).

In stark contrast, poor Sen. "Sponge" Bob Graham "Cracker" (D-FL) can't seem to catch a positive break by the media, who have labeled him, in a word "boring." Most insiders talk about him as a VP candidate, and not a serious contender. Why?

Slate's William Saletan explains, "The trouble is, Graham doesn't seem to know what he wants to do with the job." "Graham has had many chances to make his case [on why he is running for President] ... Each time, I've come away baffled at his failure to explain why anybody should vote for him rather than one of the other Democrats seeking the job." Ouch!

Graham has spoken at the April 9 Children's Defense Fund forum, the May 3 South Carolina debate, his May 6 campaign kickoff, a May 17 AFSCME conference, last weekend's Iowa Democratic Party picnic, and a town hall hosted by Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, where Graham spoke and answered questions for 90 minutes. No one knows what he stands for besides his resume. And by the way, he has been passed by on 3 occasions for the Vice Presidential nod, what makes him think this is the time?

2003-06-12T16:07:00.000-04:00

A preemptive strike on the Supreme Court The U.S. Supreme Court, the most secretive and undemocratic of American government institutions, is under siege with regards to its most controversial ruling Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling in 1973 that made abortion legal nation-wide.

So where's the news you ask? Well, there is no case before the Supreme Court. What is getting the left and right so excited is the mere possibility of one or more justices stepping down over the summer, when the court is out of session.

Who's up? Well William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor, and maybe even John Paul Stevens are often named as retirees. The most likely is Rehnquist, which would be a double whammy of who gets to be chief justice and who will fill the seat.

For the pro-choice camp this is sort of hard to get rallied up about, despite common wisdom. Slate's William Saletan explains, "In terms of policy, that's bad news for pro-lifers, because Rehnquist is part of the court minority that opposes Roe v. Wade. But in terms of politics, it's bad news for pro-choicers, because it's hard to motivate their troops for the ensuing confirmation fight when there's no threat to the court's pro-Roe majority."

Leading leftist women's groups, such as NOW, Feminist Majority, and NARAL are linking arms to march on DC in April of next year but are raising a stink down to lay down the gauntlet for the upcoming presidential race to make sure Senate Democrats tie the senate up in knots (trust me, that is one thing they can do) over any pro-life nominee.

At a press event on Tuesday, NOW president Kim Gandy claimed that "Roe v. Wade hangs by a thread [of 5-4] and rumored anti-abortion replacements on the Supreme Court could serve for the next 40 years. In other words, the reversal of Roe would last for generations, and the entire reproductive life of my 10-year-old daughter hinges on what we do in the coming year. NOW will be mobilizing women and men across this country to March on Washington for our mothers, for our daughters, and for ourselves - there will never be a more important time to stand up for women's lives."

In other words she is saying, "maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the next 40 years Roe could be overturned, so we liberals must act now!"

I say, lets starting a betting pool on who leaves when, and who gets to be chief justice. Much more fun, and more profitable. [My money is on Rehnquist leaving first, and Scalia replacing him as CJ]

2003-06-11T12:52:00.000-04:00

Tax Cuts=Service Cuts says universally respected, or at least highly read New York Times Columnist Tom Friedman in his latest bit called Read My Lips. The point he is trying to make is, when conservative Republicans push for tax cuts now, what they are really pushing for is permanently disabling government in the future.

If you want some proof, go back to uber-conservative and extremely influential anti-tax zealot Grover Norquist's Washington Post column this Sunday where he argued that "The Bush administration -- wisely -- has not proposed fundamental tax reform in a single piece of legislation. But the president has been taking deliberate steps toward such reform with each tax cut. There are five steps to a single-rate tax, which taxes income one time: Abolish the death tax, abolish the capital gains tax, expand IRAs so that all savings are tax-free, move to full expensing of business investment rather than long depreciation schedules and abolish the alternative minimum tax. Put a single rate on the new tax base and you have Steve Forbes and Dick Armey's flat tax. Each of the Bush tax cuts, past and proposed, moves us toward fundamental tax reform."

What kind of "fundamental tax reform" is this-- a flat tax, the most regressive tax scheme out there. Ever notice how people with tons of money think this is a good idea, while you never hear poorer folks scrambling for a flat tax? That's because, beyond being a huge boon to the uber-rich, it is also a way of debilitating government so it doesn't have to pay for services for those un-social Darwin adapted poor.

House Republicans are trying to do to Medicaid and Headstart what they did to Welfare in 1996, make it a block grant to the states and remove federal control. That was a great idea for Welfare in the booming mid-90s, when states were flush with cash and ideas on how to run the program more efficiently to get more people into work and off welfare rolls. But it is a bad idea for the other two since states are facing a financial crisis unseen since the Great Depression and the two programs were designed in response to a failure by the states (in the areas of health care for the poor and early childhood education).

To add insult to injury, these same House Republicans are refusing to take up Sen. Blanche Lincoln's $10 billion compromise proposal that gives minimum wage families and $110-150k families the same per child tax credit that other middle class Americans will get next month [which, by the way, passed the Senate 94-2 last week].

"Ain't going to happen," Mr. DeLay told the Times, reiterating his stance that the credits would be approved only as part of a much larger tax-cut bill, an $82 billion package that House Republicans unveiled later in the day and plan to bring to the floor tomorrow. Even Bush, smelling the same blood that Democrats have been circling around, is telling DeLay to stop, well delaying, and pass the Senate bill.

What other cuts have been made for the tax cuts you ask? How about the next GOP phony Rx drug benefit plan Under this plan, seniors pay premiums of nearly $500 a year to get help for half their costs between $250 and $3,450. After that, they get no help until their costs exceed $5,300. Thus, many seniors could find themselves paying premiums while receiving no benefits. No privately offered insurance plan would ever dare to do something like that. Of course to fill that huge gap in the bill, it would cost $200 billion more than the $400 billion price tag. And Republicans are "fiscal conservatives," remember?

2003-06-10T14:44:00.000-04:00

Washington Post's Eilperin reports, ex-DC Westar [a Kansas-based energy company] lobbyist Richard Bornemann "attended at least seven" DC fundraisers sponsored by House Energy and Commerce Chair Billy Tauzin (R-LA) and Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), "held on behalf of vulnerable" House GOPers. The emergence of Bornemann's role "paints a clearer picture of how" KS power company Westar "planned and delivered campaign donations" to orgs. linked to Tauzin, Barton, House Maj. Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) All have said "they never suggested the company would receive any special treatment in return for political donations" of $56,500 by a company that had sought a "seat at the table" [according to internal e-mails released on Westar's website as a result of a DOJ/FEC probe] as key Republicans worked out details of the Bush administration's energy bill.

Tauzin's office said on 6/9 that Bornemann "brought checks from" Westar CEO David Wittig. Bornemann "also attended a Tauzin fundraiser" in LA during 6/02, but according to Tauzin spokesperson Ken Johnson, Tauzin "recognized Bornemann ... and ordered his staff to throw him out." Johnson said Tauzin "had barred Bornemann from his office years earlier after the lobbyist misled Tauzin on a railroad matter." FEC records show, six weeks later four Westar execs "wrote checks" to Tauzin's Bayou PAC totaling $2.8K (6/10).

Meanwhile, AP's Yost reports, "Engaging in a public spat" on 6/9 Tauzin and Bornemann "disagreed with each other's accounts" of how the GOP "candidates ended up getting help" from Westar. Tauzin "said he was unaware" of legis. "being sought by Westar until news reports about it last week." [Yeah right. He's the Chairman of the most powerful committee whose big bill that year was the Bush-Cheney energy bill] Tauzin "denied seeking donations" from Westar, and said through Johnson that Bornemann "made the initial contact with Tauzin's fundraisers and asked for a schedule of fundraising events."

But Bornemann said "he was simply responding to faxed invitations from the organizers" and "produced one of the faxed messages to back up his claim." However, Johnson "insisted" that Bornemann "asked for" the list, and added: "He said he had a client who wanted to participate and he was then faxed a complete rundown of events." Bornemann again in reply said he was "shocked, hurt and surprised" at the "criticism from Tauzin's office"

The Kanas City Star has a timeline of other sleazy Westar GOP contributions here. Weren't these all the same guys that voted against McCain-Finegold (or Shays-Meehan)?

The sad part is that the deal [that Westar was seeking in conference committee] would have been made, except that the failing energy utility came under investigation. The firm's exemption was at first put in the energy plan, but later jerked when the company troubles became known. Only fear of jail time made Barton think twice.

2003-06-10T12:37:00.000-04:00

Comparing Apples to Oranges True, the uber-Wealthy pay much more of their income in taxes than I do, but they still have tons of money left over when it is all over.

See a Slate cartoonist's efforts to compare your future tax cut to a big name CEO. Looks like I will be getting $200 or less, while the CEO of HP will be getting nearly $150k back from Uncle Sam.

As Brookings Fellow Robert Shapiro (ex-Undersec. Of Commerce) explains it, "the president has said that 91 million taxpayers will get an average tax cut of $1,126 this year. But averages are deceiving when a small share of the people receives most of the benefits. In this case, the 83 percent of American households will get less than that average—including 50 million households that receive no tax relief at all and another 24 million that can expect $100 or less—could judge it a failure, or at least a disappointment. The administration has also promised that the changes will create jobs, because 2 million small business owners receive an "average tax cut" of $2,209 this year. Again, 83 percent of those with small-business income will receive much less—including more than one-third who get less than $100—providing scant incentive or means to create jobs."

As to the business incentives in the Bush tax cut (accelerated depreciation, the SUV write off by DeLay, the dividend tax cut, etc), Shapiro says, "Why invest more, when one-quarter of industrial and commercial capacity is already idle because of slack demand? The test for these provisions will be whether business investment revives despite all that unused capacity." He also rightly asks, "Why is a conservative administration trying to manage stock prices at all, a form of government intervention that liberal administrations have never contemplated?"

Most importantly, it costs too much and doesn't help-- the tax cut will actually hurt us. "Even at $350 billion, the econometric model used by the president's Council of Economic Advisers projects that the policy will slow growth five years out, as higher deficits crowd out private investment. The CBO reached the same conclusion. If the act increases deficits by another $1 trillion, every economic model and all economic experience say that long-term investment, productivity, incomes, and growth all will slow measurably. And that doesn't include the implicit "opportunity costs." Using $1 trillion for these tax cuts denies us the opportunity to deploy those resources in ways that could produce larger benefits—for example, defraying tuition costs for every college-bound young American, or saving the $1 trillion for the Social Security and Medicare bills looming round the corner."

Where are your priorities, Mr. President? Oh yeah, I remembered now, repaying those debts to your friends that got you in the Oval Office.

2003-06-09T14:33:00.000-04:00

The 2004 Democratic Presidential Candidate Drinking Game! Thanks to friend and occasional ShoutOut!er Jaime, The Four Corners is pleased to announce the 2004 Democratic Presidential Candidate Drinking Game! Since the DNC has not reigned in on even Lieberman's bad idea of a debate a month, each debate to every interest group that makes up the Democratic party will be amble opportunity to test out this party gag.

The Rules:

Every time Kerry alludes to his Vietnam service, take a shot

Every time Edwards mentions that his father worked in a mill (and his mother in a post office), take a shot

Every time Dean says, "I represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party," take a shot

Every time Sharpton makes a funny remark-- like "spank the donkey" --laugh! And then take a shot

Every time Kucinich says "poverty is a weapon of mass destruction" take a drink

Every time Lieberman mentions Gore or Clinton (especially Clinton-Gore or "I know I can beat George W. Bush-- because Al Gore and I did in 2000!"), down a shot

Every time Gephardt mentions his health care plan, take a shot

Every time Graham says something on anything other than national security or his resume, slap yourself, then take a shot

Every time Mosley Braun starts off with "As a woman..." point at the nearest woman and laugh. If you are female, take a drink, you'll need it.

Any time Kerry re-announces that he is running for president, take a drink

Any time Edwards talks about fighting for "regular folks," sigh and then take a drink

Any time Dean calls one of his opponents something "-lite" [code for DLC-supporter, and according to Liberal Democrats, too conservative to be called Democrats and hence traitors] while telling his opponents that they all shouldn't be so "divisive" wag your finger back at him and chug a whole "lite" beer

Any time Sharpton gets a standing ovation for his comments, down a shot

Ditto for Kucinich

Any time Lieberman mentions the Department of Homeland Security or his long time support of the war in Iraq, toast to the Republican controlled 108th Congress he helped create.

Any time Gephardt says something to the effect of "experience matters!" take a shot

Any time Graham mentions Hezbollah or the word "Committee" or both, drink

When ever Mosley Braun has on her reading spectacles during a speech, take a drink

Comments? Additions? Corrections? Hit ShoutOut!

2003-06-06T14:58:00.000-04:00

Terror alert! Code periwinkle! Today's rant du jour is on the Department of Homeland Security's idiotic color coded terror alert system. There are many reasons why the whole thing should be scrapped:

It is a two color system.The only two possible colors are orange (high alert) and yellow (elevated alert). All the other colors in the scheme will never be used. If we ever get to red, I think it will be pretty obvious, because a giant US landmark will have been bombed. Similarly, they will never go down to green or blue because what is the point of terror alert system if there are no terrorist plots to be alerted about. Thus, with a two-color system, you can either be very freaked out or moderately freaked out. Or, worse still, since nothing (thank goodness) has happened, you get indifferent.

The colors don't correspond with any specific thing to do. Unlike the military's cold war DEFCON system, going up or down on the meter really doesn't have a noticeable, prescribed effect on the US security systems. And that is just the local and federal officials; what about normal Americans, what are they supposed to do? According to Bush, go shopping and travel.

Local officials have no idea what they are supposed to do. Instead of training local law enforcement-- like the guy who found local terrorist Eric Rudolph last week-- or other "first responders," the Bushies are content to just scare the crap out of them and not give them a hand financially, since it is, after all, a national problem and not a local one. This means not only training but real intelligence on what to look out for.

Not every place in the US faces the same threat. Even if first responders across the US were trained and equipped and "in the know," places like rural Wyoming are nowhere near as likely to be attacked by terrorists as Manhattan. Yet proportionally, they get more federal assistance (thanks Congress) per a capita than the Big Apple. Why? This isn't another pork project, this is life and death stuff folks!

Its a big waste of money. According to ex-Police Officer and Progressive Policy Institute (PPI)'s John D. Cohen wrote in The Hill, "At a time when state and local governments are facing their worst financial crises in decades, each elevation of the national threat level places what amounts to an unfunded mandate on local authorities -- draining already dwindling resources." Cohen cites a U.S. Conference of Mayors estimate that orange alerts add $70 million per week to the nation's municipal security costs.

It could potentially make the US more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Cohen continues, " when the warning level is again lowered to "yellow," many jurisdictions naturally relax their vigilance. That's an especially troubling weakness in the system, Cohen argues, because terrorists are "strategic and patient. They will undoubtedly pay attention to security efforts to determine the most effective time to carry out an attack. If terrorists learn that 'chatter' can result in a temporary level of increased vigilance, followed by a period of decreased vigilance, it is likely that they will attack when threat levels have been lowered."

Cohen's not the only one thinking it's time to call the whole thing off.

The City of Charlotte, North Carolina and surrounding Mecklenburg County ignored the pre-war orange alert until the war in Iraq actually began. And now Arizona's homeland security director, Frank Navarrete, with the support of Governor Janet Napolitano, has indicated his state will make its own assessment of terrorist threats before following any future federal alerts.

"It creates incredible problems: overtime, financial, functional," Navarrete told the Arizona Republic. "It's not quite to the point where it creates havoc, but it's quite disruptive." And it's not just a matter of cost and chaos for government officials, either. "We have to be mindful," said Navarette, "that if we continue to do this and nothing happens, that it loses its impact with the citizenry. It becomes a 'here we go again' mentality."

"The real issue here," concludes Cohen, "is not whether the color code system is good or bad; it's whether we're moving in the right direction to effectively protect our nation from future acts of terrorism. As it stands today, we are nowhere near where we need to be. And 20 months after the attacks, that's a shame."

It sure is a shame. As the New Dem Daily says, "Let's cut off the orange lights and get serious about homeland security."

2003-06-05T12:04:00.000-04:00

Mickey Kaus finally got his wish Kaus, the Slate blogger whose obsession with New York Times Executive Editor Howell Raines has gotten way out of hand, must be dancing in the streets today.

Why? AP just announced that Raines and Managing Editor Gerald Boyd resigned today in the wake of the Jayson Blair (and Rick Bragg) scandal.

Finally! I was getting sick and tired of every other Kausfiles post being on the bias and bad decision making of Raines, whose smug attitude has made him a prime target when people found out about the Blair scandal (who was a protege of Raines')

The witch hunt, then is finally over I hope, and David Letterman can stop making those lame New York Times jokes and Kaus can go back to writing good posts. [Mickey, I am so sorry that you never got that big job at the Times or whatever, but let go already!]

According to AP, "Raines became executive editor just days before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The following April, the Times received a record seven Pulitzer Prizes -- five for its coverage of the terrorist attacks and another for the war in Afghanistan.

"'They have made enormous contributions during their tenure," [NYT Owner and Publisher Arthur] Sulzberger said, 'including an extraordinary seven Pulitzer Prizes in 2002 and another this year. I appreciate all of their efforts in continuing the legacy of our great newspaper.'

"Raines had been editor of the editorial page for eight years and previously headed the newspaper's bureaus in Washington and London when he was named executive editor to replace the retiring Lelyveld.

"He won a Pulitzer Prize for feature writing in 1992 for a memoir he wrote for The New York Times Magazine about his childhood friendship in Alabama with his family's black housekeeper."

So he couldn't have been all that bad of a writer and manager, right? Oh well, hat's off to you [Raines] for finally taking one for the team. Maybe now the New York Times can return to being the newspaper that publishes "All the news that's fit to print."

2003-06-04T10:30:00.000-04:00

Correction: George W. Bush is going to raise your taxes After receiving some offline critique from some of the Corners, I wish to amend and supplement my controversial contention on the George W. Bush tax hike for the middle class and attempt to exclude the lower classes from his tax cut package. A Bush lie is noted by Boston Globe reporter Derrick Z. Jackson, "When President George W. Bush signed the $350 billion tax cut a week ago, he declared: 'The Jobs and Growth Act reduces federal income taxes across the board.... We have passed a bold package of tax relief ... that reaches every single corner of America.' " "Bush said that," Jackson notes, "even as he swept millions of the working poor and lower middle class into a dusty pile in his conscience."

Today, the Washington Post has full-fledged article on the increasing relative burden of the middle class under Bush's tax plans. Respected reporters Dana Milbank and Jonathan Weisman conclude that "With the biggest gains going to the wealthiest and to low-income taxpayers, those in the middle inevitably get a higher tax burden because they don't qualify for the targeted tax breaks that go to the poor or the investment-related tax breaks that go to the wealthy."

"It's hard to get a lot of progressivity at the very top," claims R. Glenn Hubbard, the architect of Bush's most recent tax cut proposal and a former chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, who has been banished to K street-- a veritable Siberia in the White House, where proximity to the president equals power.

By slashing taxes on dividends, capital gains and inheritances, the cuts ensure that tax burdens will no longer rise consistently with income, as they would with a perfectly "progressive" system. "But," Hubbard added, "we've very much retained progressivity overall because so much money was dumped into the bottom rates."

I guess he sees tax credits like the EITC (earned income tax credit) as welfare and not what it really is, rewarding working families and helping them out of poverty.

I suppose as well that the Post missed out on the AMT (alternative minimum tax) debate because it is too wonky and not sexy enough to discuss, even though it is a direct tax hike of over a thousand dollars for middle class Americans. It starts, shockingly enough, in 2005-- one year after Bush's supposed reelection. Six years after that, nearly a third of all taxpayers will see higher taxes as a direct result of Bush's tax policy.

After first making the excuse that families that don't pay federal taxes shouldn't get tax credits, Republicans are quickly retreating into the arms of Arkansas Democrat Blanche Lincoln's legislation that would provide the $1,000 child tax credit to minimum wage families.

First they made the excuse that it was Voinovich's fault for insisting on the $350 billion number, which they had no problem gimmicking other tax breaks for the middle class, poor and wealthy alike, with Senator (and powerful Finance Committee Chairman) Grassley offering another budget busting $90 billion bill that would require 60 votes for, since it would go over the Republican "budget" set for the upcoming fiscal year.

But Lincoln's bill is a mere $3.5 billion (exactly a tenth of the Bush "jobs and growth package") and paid for mostly by (gasp) closing loopholes on corporations who seek the shelter of Bermuda's shores to avoid taxes.

But of course, why would the Bush administration go after the Enron's of the world? Answer: They aren't going to. All of Bush's old friends have yet to be charged or convicted.

2003-05-30T13:50:00.000-04:00

Dances With Elephants According to the Salt Lake Tribune, "Just months after President Bush took office, the Republican Party accepted a $100,000 check from an Indian tribe seeking help in getting a meeting with Interior Secretary Gale Norton, according to internal GOP records."

And surprise, surprise, "The leader of the tribe eventually got to air its concerns to the interior secretary during a congressional tour near the tribe's home in Palm Springs, California."

Now it is not all that shocking that money ($120k last year) buys access, especially when you have 14 lobbyists in DC, including a long time friend of US House Majority Leader Tom "The Hammer" Delay, but what is surprises is that this is the exact same thing GOPers criticized Bill Clinton for. Then again, hypocrisy

Now, I am not saying that Republicans were bribed or that Clinton was, but that this is yet another sign that McCain-Feingold (or if you prefer Shays-Meehan) is a necessary reform. Even if nothing bad happened, it is the mere appearance of impropriety that drives people away from the polls and drives us all down the spiral of government by moneyed/voting interest groups.

2003-05-29T09:49:00.000-04:00

George W. Bush raised your taxes Hard to imagine, given that he passed two major tax cuts in the two years since he took office. But, as they say, the Devil is in the details.

David Firestone of the New York Times reports that the latest tax cut omits working families from the child tax credit. This is the same tax credit that raises up to $1,000 per a child in 2003 and 2004, only to drop to $700 after that.

"Because of the formula for calculating the credit, most families with incomes from $10,500 to $26,625 will not benefit. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal group, says those families include 11.9 million children, or one of every six children under 17."

I guess Republicans, do believe in family values, they just value some families over others. GOPers claim that if only Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) wasn't such a stickler for the random $350 billion number, they wouldn't have to do all these gimmicks to force the tax cuts into that figure.

The way it stands, the tax cut figure, assuming all the phase in and outs stay in their maximized and permanent form would balloon up to a whopping $800 billion to a trillion, again according to the The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. So give me a break on that fib.

While the majority was secretly rewriting the tax code in conference committee, they forgot another sock it to the poor problem-- the Alternative Minimum Tax. And before you yawn and checkout baseball scores, realize that it is going to cost you a lot of money soon.

The AMT was originally enacted in the 1970s as a way "to address the scandal of rich people managing to avoid paying any taxes whatever," as the Washington Post editorial board explained yesterday. The trouble is, the AMT was not indexed to inflation which meant instead of keeping the rich for paying nothing, it will soon make the rest of us pay more.

By 2010, 33 million taxpayers (or nearly a third) will be subject to the AMT, according to Brookings/Urban Institute Tax Policy Center. "That's 25 times as many in 2001, and almost double the number who would have been affected without the 2001 tax cut." How much more will you be paying-- an average of $1,075 for those between $50,000-$75,000 and $1,671 for those earning between $75,000 and $100,000.

Still not convinced? Try the more abstract argument. Because Bush and his Congressional allies have resisted to aid the states for the most part (the recent $20 billion of this tax bill over ten years not withstanding) right now, cash-strapped states are raising taxes directly and indirectly-- by raising user fees on everything from public parks to in-state college tuition.

Even more abstractly, by making first responders patrol our streets looking out for terrorists without even helping to defray the cost or train or inform, police officers, firefighters, and EMTs are slower to respond to normal problems. As a result, crime has dramatically increased since Bush has been sworn in, ambulances take longer to get there-- by an extra 15 minutes in crime ridden and terrorist targeted Washington DC, etc.

People are dying, Mr. President. You are raising their taxes, Mr. President, whether you face up to it or not.

2003-05-28T17:43:00.000-04:00

Outrage of the Week: Last week's was HoDean's "Last time I looked, 15 AFSCME [a union of state and federal employees] died at the World Trade Center, I didn't see any of the staff of the DLC at the World Trade Center."

This week, the Denver Post interviewed Grover Norquist, anti-tax zealot and unofficial advisor to George W. "Change the tone in Washington" Bush, who said: "Bipartisanship is another name for date rape."

What?? Excuse me, but even as a non-date rape victim, I am offended by that one, even if I have no clue what he means by it, it is still disgusting.

Working with members from the other side of the aisle on important legislation is hardly slipping a roofie in a drink and taking some one upstairs.

After all, if shrill liberal Hillary Clinton can work with then Clinton impeachment manager and now fellow Senator Lindsey Graham, then why can't we all just get along?

Look for some blow back on this to come (I've got my sources).

2003-05-27T14:52:00.000-04:00

Holding my breath faithful readers of my posts know that I am a full fledged supporter of Gen. Wesley Clark's potential presidential candidacy.

Now more word is coming out on his apparent strategy-- let the others beat themselves silly. While the rest of the crowd proposes ridiculously complex and never going to pass multibillion-dollar plans for this and that, Clark will be humming along. While the pack tears down each other's plans and finds dirt on all of them and they all look less than presidential, Clark will come in around Labor Day on his white horse as the "savior of a Democratic Party Divided."

And before you throw up, read what DailyKos has dug up:

"A late start (and insurgent campaign, a la Dean) would spare Clark the need to raise much money, and word is that Clinton's vaunted fundraising machine would step to support a Clark candidacy. Money doesn't appear to be the biggest hurdle.

"Organization, on the other hand, is a different matter. The nine candidacies vying for the nomination have dried up the political talent pool, or so it would seem. While many smart campaign people still abound (Garry South [CA Gov. Davis' political advisor], for one), it's clear that the most highly regarded teams are already accounted for.

"Except for one -- the people behind Bill Clinton. Now I have heard nothing to suggest that Clinton's people (like Begala or the Rajin' Cajun) would consider a reunion tour for another Arkansas native, but it is premature to suggest that organization would be a prohibitive impediment to a Clark run."

What's more, Clark has another book coming out in, you guessed it, September and a secret website that is only partially up on his quasi-campaign/think tank "Leadership for America." Now maybe Kos is right, and Clark is only 50/50 at this point, or maybe as others have said, he is trying to raise his profile and keep his name out there as a possible VP or Sec. of State or Defense, but it looks like he wants to run to me.

Clark needs to let those-- like yours truly-- know what his true intentions are soon. Because for those of us aspiring Garry "The Mouth" South's need to get jobs with one of the other Clowns (and get excited about them) if Clark really says no, a la Al Gore. Until then, I guess I really am holding my breath...its going to be a long summer.

2003-05-22T17:47:00.000-04:00

Dean has gone too far HoHo, the scrappy ex-Governor of Vermont, has decided to latch onto the "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party" even if he has no record to truly support it.

The DLC made some cheap shots at Dean by linking him to activist elitists and losers like Mondale and McGovern. Dean's supporters, including VT's U.S. Senators, in turned launched an avalanche of attack against the DLC, which helped keep both their names afloat in the news tide.

But even if you think the DLC is too conservative and ruining the Democratic party, or too liberal, or just right, anyone should take offense at HoDean's latest quote:

"A couple days ago, I was in Iowa," Dean said, "The DLC put out a statement that all my supporters are elitists and I'm catering to elitist special interest groups. Last time I looked, 15 AFSCME [a union of state and federal employees] died at the World Trade Center, I didn't see any of the staff of the DLC at the World Trade Center."

Excuse me?? Does that mean he hoped more people would die in 9/11, especially DLCers? Or that if you died on 9/11 you weren't an elitist or a member of a special interest group? Or maybe that since the staff didn't suffer they have no room to criticize? That sounds Bushian if I have ever heard it. Some one needs to slap some sense into the former governor. Please don't cheapen the loss of life that day just to score some points with a union crowd in Iowa.

Want to hear what the DLC actually said that prompted the latest obscene statement by Dean?

"Democratic pollster Celinda Lake hooked up 30 union members to dial meters to measure the intensity of their favorable reaction to the seven candidates who appeared. (Sens. Joe Lieberman and John Kerry were present only by video, and were not "dialed.")

"The results speak for themselves, and show why we've never been big fans of focus groups, which encourage politicians to tell audiences exactly what they want to hear: According to the Des Moines Registar Kucinich was first with a score of 78 on a scale of 1 to 100. Sharpton was second with 76. Gephardt was third with 75. Dean was fourth with 73. Edwards was fifth with 69. Graham and Mosley-Braun trailed with 66 each.

"Call it a psychic flash, but we somehow doubt this will be the order of finish at the Democratic Convention in Boston in July of 2004." Ouch! Wait, it gets better:

"... Every time Gov. Dean suggests that unlike his opponents, he represents the 'Democratic wing of the Democratic Party,' he's being divisive. Every time he denounces his opponents as 'Bush Lite' and suggests that only a Republican would support education reform or stand up for America's interests in the world, he's being divisive. And ironically, he's doing this in a transparent effort to appeal to the same fringe activists who used to do the same holier-than-thou number on him in Vermont.

"We hope other candidates will have the courage to tell the American people what they need to hear, not simply promise activists what they want to hear. We don't need a focus group to know they call it the beaten path for a reason."

Word to Dean: attacking the DLC is not going to keep you on the radar screen indefinitely. Most people have never heard of the place, nor do they care. If you want to win the nomination and the presidency Dr. Dean, run on your record, run as your record. Back in Vermont, Dean wasn't considered liberal (although the state did have a socialist member of congress).

Please, if you "want the Democratic Party back" then you are going to have to have it back in the White House. And that takes a straight talking moderate with a consistent, honest message. And that, I'm afraid, isn't you.

2003-05-21T18:00:00.000-04:00

And another one bites the dust Dear readers, as I am the only blogger who posts regularly 5 days a week, I thought I would comment on today's news du jour: EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman's resignation.

Now it is true that the former governor of New Jersey, like Ari yesterday, left now in part because if don't leave this summer, you are signed on for another four years with Bush (assuming he is re-elected) and can't A) work on the campaign and make lots of money that way (like Mr. Fliescher might do) or B) work in the private sector where you make even more money that way.

But Whitman presents a unique case: a moderate Republican in a conservative Republican administration. And the results weren't pretty. Not only was she ignored-- I think Democrat and Bush II Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta has much more power-- she was embarrassingly contradicted by the White House on a semi-routine basis.

For example, she tried to privately suggest that the White House not make a big noise about dropping the Kyoto global warming treaty before at least offering a reasonable alternative. Pretty good advice, actually. Instead, they dissed Kyoto and said they would some day come up with an alternative. Well, we are still waiting, Mr. President.

Meanwhile, the rest of the "first world" -- i.e. all the G8 countries save the U.S.-- scrambled to renegotiate the agreement that was a pet favorite of Al Gore's [still no difference, Naderites?] and ultimately succeeded. However, one could argue that the whole is pretty pointless without U.S. cooperation and leadership, since it is one of the worst polluting countries out there among "developed nations."

Meanwhile, Whitman had a more recent embarrassment with the press, but it was a touch more personal. In late April, the Washington Post reported that:

"Environmental Protection Agency criminal agents are being diverted from their normal investigative work to provide security and drivers for agency Administrator Christine Todd Whitman -- and getting long lists of do's and don'ts to keep her happy."

What made her list, you ask? "Agents who chauffeur the EPA administrator [must] rent only a Lincoln Town Car, tune the radio to smooth jazz or classical music and set the volume low, and keep an eye out for a Starbucks coffee shop or Barnes & Noble bookstore ... [Whitman] prefers to be addressed as 'Governor,' rather than 'Ma'am' or 'Administrator.'"

"A second manager said an agent was told by the head of Whitman's personal security team to hold a reserved restaurant table until Whitman arrived for dinner. The agent is paid $100,000 a year to investigate environmental crimes, the manager said."

Sadly, the New Jersey Republican Party has hopes that Whitman will revive the GOP after its two disastrous statewide losses in the Senate race of 2002 and Governor's race of 2001.

"When she left state government," New York Newsday reports, "Republicans had dominated, controlling both the Senate and Assembly for almost a decade. Today, Democrats hold the majority in the Assembly and the Senate is evenly split between the two parties. This year all 120 seats in the Legislature are up and Democrats contend they can win both houses.

"Last month, the GOP state party told state regulators that its bank accounts hold slightly more than $92,000, compared to the $3.19 million in cash that the Democratic State Committee has reported.

Democrats boast they will raise up to $10 million for the elections, with McGreevey the top draw for fund raisers." Ouch...As bad as ex-Sen. Torricelli and new Gov. McGreevey are, I have to say, dream on guys.

Maybe some day Bush will see moderate Republicans as key to reclaiming the centrist policies he campaigned on in 2000, and not as vile, contemptuous potential traitors ala Senators Jeffords, Chaffee, Snowe, and Voinovich. But I am not holding my breath. In fact, as a partisan person who wants him out, I hope he doesn't.

2003-05-20T15:59:00.000-04:00

Ari you going to at least say goodbye? Today's post is a salute to liars and the web of tails they weave, especially White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, who is leaving his job (like yours truly) at the end of July.

Do they have a replacement yet? I guess Ari starting straying towards telling the truth, a big Washington faux pas.

In answering reporters questions on Ari first saying that the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln was too far ashore to use a helicopter ("hundreds of miles") when in fact it was only 30 miles away and the ship had to turn around so that TV viewers wouldn't see San Diego in the background, he said:

No, the original planning was exactly as I said and when I-- when I announced it, that was exactly how the plan had been anticipated. And then, the President wanted to land, exactly as I told you on the flight out there, which was the day of the trip when we knew the exact-- or when we knew how close the carrier was. The President wanted to land on it, on an aircraft that would allow him to see an aircraft landing the same way that the pilots saw an aircraft landing. He wanted to see it as realistically as possible. And that's why, once the initial decision was made to fly out on the Viking, even when a helicopter option became doable, the President decided instead he wanted to still take the Viking. But, no, that was all part of the original planning.

Woah! The President said, in effect, "I want to fly since I have flown since I went AWOL in Louisiana!"? Not good to make your boss look bad and tell the truth. Slate's Timothy Noah, for one, laments the days of yore when Ari would explain away Sen. Jeffords' (then R-VT) subbing of a WH invite to see the teacher of the year-- who happened to be from VT-- by saying the following:

"It's not always practical, possible, or desirable to invite members of Congress; they don't always want to be able to leave the Hill to come down to the myriad of events at the White House where citizens are honored. And that's the case in this event as well. ... And there are no slights when events like that happen. Members of Congress don't expect to spend all their time down at the White House."

While we are talking about disingenuous arguments, how about this one, "questioning Defense Department spending is unpatriotic!"

That's about the level of attack DoD bureaucrats go to when some one noticed that they can't account for one trillion dollars! That's right, we aren't talking Pesos or Lira, but good ol' greenbacks (until we start give them hues). A trillion pennies or so take up 200ft cubed worth of space.

For some reason, only the unabashedly liberal newspaper the San Francisco Chronicle reported " A GAO [the non-partisan General Accounting Office] report found Defense inventory systems so lax that the U.S. Army lost track of 56 airplanes, 32 tanks, and 36 Javelin missile command launch-units."

As the article points out, Wal-Mart can tell you how many toothbrushes are in its stores in Northern Virginia, but the military had no idea that one part was selling chemical suits for pennies on the dollar while other parts were buying them up by the truckloads to defend the troops going to Iraq.

DoD's response to such critique? By requesting a dramatic decrease in oversight by Congress, which rarely does anything but rubber-stamp such spending bills.

The defenders of the request include none other than Speaker Hastert, whose spokesman, John Feehery, claims that critics "were arguing for more paperwork." Feehery said his boss would support the Bush reforms on the House floor. "The purpose is to streamline the Pentagon to become a less bureaucratic and more efficient organization . . . while also making it more accountable," Feehery said. More accountable by reducing accountability, now that I got to see.

Now I understand why ex-Enron manager White was fired by Rumsfeld, he was bring Enron accounting to the DoD. Wait that's not fair to Enron or WorldCom-- they knew exactly where their money was going-- in their pockets.

2003-05-19T11:37:00.000-04:00

Al Qaeda hits home For those of you who were in a cave for the past week [first of all welcome back], the still-Osama Bin Laden led group has launched attacks in two Middle Eastern countries (and no, one of them wasn't Israel-- although lots of those happened too thanks to affiliate member Hamas).

First came the bombings in Riyadh last week, seemingly timed to Secretary Powell's visit, in which 25 people died due to several simultaneous suicide bombing attacks on a gated community for wealthy executive families. Seventy percent of the inhabitants were Saudis.

But for some reason, this event was a shock to the Saudis, who has been both in denial and coddling Wahabbism which is the breeding ground for such psycho branches of an otherwise peaceful religion (sorry Rev. Graham). The New York Times reports:

"This time it was different: it was an attack against your own people," said Khaled M. Batarfi, the managing editor of Al Madina, a daily newspaper. "It's huge; it's organized. It's like what happened on Sept. 11 in America but on a smaller scale — these things happen to others."

"We're moving," said Fahd al-Blehed, 27, Muhammad's [son of the deputy Governor, who also was killed in the attack] brother and his neighbor in the compound. "Those people can do anything."

That is about the most obvious understatement of the year, right up there with Howard Dean's "I suppose it's a good thing" that Saddam was removed from power. Go tell that to the thousands of Iraqis combing through the dozens of recently uncovered mass graves of horrors, with skeletons of infants next to their mothers.

"The creeping recognition," the Times continues, "that it is something homegrown has made Saudis more jittery, not least because the Web sites beloved of the radical fringe are predicting more to come.

"The thinking is: 'If I go to school tomorrow, will anything happen to me? If I drive by this compound will it explode? If I go someplace with a Western friend, will I be attacked?' " Mr. Batarfi said.

Then on Saturday, another complex, highly organized attack in Casablanca, this time killing 42 people (including suicide bombers). Again, the Times reports:

"Instead of detonating his explosives at a small, tiled public fountain near the entrance to the sprawling Jewish cemetery in one of the oldest quarters of the city, which many here consider the likely target, he set them off at a small, tiled public fountain blocks away.
"As a result, in addition to killing himself, he also took the lives of three young Muslim men from the neighborhood who just happened to be there on a Friday night. The cemetery itself remained intact." Oops.

Luckily, a handful of their co-conspirators were dumb enough to not be able to blow up their bombs and as a result, a few are in custody and might help track down some more Al Qaeda members. Now the French too, are scared, and raised their terror threat level. Seems coddling by a poodle doesn't work either.

Also, it looks like getting Osama is important after all, even though Bush still won't say his name.

2003-05-16T10:59:00.000-04:00

Electability 101 After getting a number of responses on yesterday's post on Dean vs. the DLC, I feel the need to respond and explain why I think Dean's current strategy is a losing one (if not in the primaries, then the general).

Iraq: Now people say, the war issue will go away, the war is over right? Well, yes and no-- the battles have stopped but the messy part has just begun (and surprise! Bush is pulling an Afghanistan again) And as much as Dean is trying to change the subject-- by attacking Gephardt's health care plan (as the DLC did too) instead of attacking Kerry's "yes, but" Iraq stance-- Bush et al, if he faces him, won't let it drop. They are going to play that quote and make it out to be that he is questioning his support of the troops, his dislike of Saddam, etc. Even though Dean has some valid points here, he is couching them in a World Bank/IMF protester language and then trying to backtrack with his 60-days or else ultimatum.

Plus, a guy whose only foreign policy experience is defending his state against Canada and meeting with Israeli PM Sharon is not going inspire confidence in a scared electorate.

Turnout: Old Dem CW is "if only we could get more African-Americans, etc. to the polls, we would have won!" The trouble with that is, the more you try to excite your base, you excite the opposite base even more. Don't believe me? Just ask now ex-Sen. Max Cleland or ex-Gov. Roy Barnes, who, despite extremely high A-A turn out still got slaughtered against by a huge wave of angry white rural (conservative) men.

That was 2002 you say, "they were Bush-lite;" if only it you had run it like Gore did in 2000. Psst, hate to brake it to you, but Gore lost, and his mobilize strategy backfired as well. For every one liberal he got to the polls with his "People vs. the Powerful" Bob Shrum routine, 10 more conservatives went to the polls for Dubya.

Why? Because A) there are more conservatives than liberals, and they vote more often B) Gore scared away voters in places he needed like WV, NH, FL, AR, and TN, because of his gun stance...If he had won any of those states, he would have won.

"It's the Economy, Stupid!" Ever since the movie "The War Room" and Clinton's victory in 1992, James Carville became a household name in Washington, and the slogan has stuck with us forever. But the fact is, it is not a panacea. Democrats tried in 2002 to run a national campaign (based on Carville's advice) based on the economy, health care, and by "getting the war off the table" and look what happened, a winnable year turned into a big loss.

People in this country are afraid. They need some one who makes them feel safe. And Bush, with his tough talk and wager and smirk, makes them feel that way. Even though, he has done nothing to make us safer-- actually he has made us less safe.

But in order to get that message across, (and to talk about the economy) a Democratic Presidential needs to pass the sniff test on national security. Don't get me wrong, I don't support Lieberman or Graham (I actually hate them) and Kerry strikes me a "Pander Bear," but the general principle of what the DLC says is true.

Who do I think can carry that message? General Wesley Clark. Creating a new federal department of "save my ass" doesn't prove you can protect Americans (sorry Lieberman and Bush). But actually defending Americans and its ideals (by fighting in wars, getting medals, and saving millions from ethnic cleansing and Europe from chaos) does prove it.

Dear readers, you are right that the D. Party needs some one who speaks with passion and conviction and has new, bold ideas, and I agree with you that the rest of the lot are horribly boring, unqualified, or worse. But Dean is a dream candidate for Karl Rove (because Kucinich et al is not even a fantasy) make no mistake about it.

DLC In the last 30 years, the only winners on a national level have come out of the DLC. What has the DLC done for me lately, you ask (and think to yourself 2002)? Not quite, the DLC was one of the first groups to say stop trying to bribe seniors with Rx drugs, to disagree with Bush's 2001 tax cut, etc. If you want some one to blame, blame Shrum, Carville and, Lieberman who brought us the Department of Homeland Security (and the union fight which became a loser issue for Dems) and the war on Iraq (he called to attack Saddam in like November 2001).

To win a presidential campaign, one needs a vision, a message, connection with the voters, support from all of the party, and money. Bush had all those things in 2000, Clinton had those in 92 and 96, (GHWB didn't in 92) and Gore didn't in 2000. The DLC helps a candidate with "the vision thing" supplying good ideas like welfare reform, paid family leave, a balanced budget, free trade with the middle east, etc. and support from the center of the party, and of course, money. But the DLC can't give you a likable personality (sorry Lieberman, Gephardt, Gore, Kerry, etc.)... but they did find it in 1992 with the perfect candidate.

To me, the closest thing to Bill in 92 is Clark in 2004-- he has charm, brains (Rhodes & 1st in his class at West Point), southern accent (from AR), and even better, he has fought and won a modern war, and he keeps his pants on.

2003-05-15T14:24:00.000-04:00

What's a Ho-Ho? No, I am not talking about a Hostess brand sweet thing you buy at 7-11 or a scantily dressed woman on a street corner asking if you want a "good time," I am taking about Howard Dean, or as his fellow 2004 wannabes call him Ho Dean, since they hate him.

The latest attack against the attacker is the DLC, who decided to pick a fight with the former governor and doctor (sorry he doesn't practice medicine anymore and his license has expired. I don't think he can call himself doctor anymore than Bill Clinton can call himself a lawyer).

"Unlike Gov. Howard Dean," DLC head honchos Al From and Bruce Reed quip, "we never forget to give the late Sen. Paul Wellstone credit for coining the phrase, 'Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.' We often disagreed with Sen. Wellstone on the issues, but we always knew he was fighting for the little guy.

"But the great myth of the current cycle,"

" is the misguided notion that the hopes and dreams of activists represent the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. Real Democrats are real people, not activist elites. The mission of the Democratic Party, as Bill Clinton pledged in 1992, is to provide 'real answers to the real problems of real people.' Real Democrats who champion the mainstream values, national pride, and economic aspirations of middle-class and working people are the real soul of the Democratic Party, not activists and interest groups with narrow agendas."

Now, I totally disagree with the strategy of attacking Dean by branding him as elitist, even if he is squarely a "Rob Reiner Democrat," primarily because Dean has some of the most enviable grassroots organization going on. His MeetUp.com numbers are 20 times greater than the nearest opponent (Sen. Kerry) and the passion behind his support is real.

And claiming the banner of the working class and middle class by a group that gets large amounts of undisclosed donations from cigarette companies, pharmaceuticals, oil companies and the like is really a bit too much even for my taste.

Further, the blow back on this is not worth the brownie points you score with the press and donors. Predictably, Dean's blog and website have items screaming out of their lungs that the DLC doesn't represent the party and that Howard Dean does.

"So let’s get this straight," Dean's blog says, "The underemployed mother who attends a Dean Meetup in Omaha because she wants health care and better schools for her kids, fiscal discipline in Washington, a sane foreign policy, a balanced judiciary, a healthier environment and true homeland security-- she's not a real Democrat?"

All the red hot rhetoric aside, it was a stupid move to attack Dean on his biggest strength-- volunteers.

But, I do agree with the strategy of branding him a "loser," since if he does win the nomination (which is extremely unlikely even if he wins both Iowa and New Hampshire, since there are no more early leftie states after that), he will go down in flames in November 2004.

"What activists like Dean call the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party is an aberration," From and Reed argue, calling him a member of "the McGovern-Mondale wing, defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home. That's the wing that lost 49 states in two elections [twice], and transformed Democrats from a strong national party into a much weaker regional one."

The DLC has made it it's business to piss off parts of its own party, for the good of it. Resently, an Op-Ed by former Clinton Advisor and current PPI President Will Marshall got that same McGovern up in arms.

The usually quiet McGovern wrote a reply Op-Ed in the Washington Post finding it "puzzling why he [Marshall] concluded that I'm opposed to internationalism and the 'use of force in the national interest.' I first used force in the national interest during World War II, when I flew 35 combat missions in Europe. American involvement in that war was clearly in our national interest, and that is why I volunteered at the age of 19 to be part of it."

All War Vet bragging aside, McGovern whines that if people had listened to him about Vietnam and Nixon's dirty tricks, he would have won. Well great but, guess what? They didn't.

Just like how people didn't listen to Al Gore when he said the U.S. Military was strong as ever, that Bush over dependant on special, moneyed interests, that Bush would appoint radical right-wingers, that Bush would hurt the environment, that Bush is political etc. And don't cry out "Florida," because it never should have been that close.

The point is, people won't listen to Howard Dean just like they won't listen to Gore or McGovern, even if they are right. You can be a fiesty bulldog all you want and attack Bush all you want but the American public like him.

Democrats need to convince people that they can protect this country, that they have a vision for this country-- beyond preserving programs that their special interests like, and that they will leave the office better than when they took it.

Dean, with his bellicose and ridiculous stance on the war on Iraq-- "I suppose it is a good thing that Saddam is gone." --will never get him anywhere in any states that matter to swing the electoral college in his favor.

As much as I admire some of his statements, his passion, his articulate manner of speaking, etc. I still don't consider him a credible nominee that can win it all. And that, ultimately, should be the goal of any "wing" of the Democratic Party.

2003-05-14T17:20:00.000-04:00

Oops, they did it again Republicans made a boo-boo on their way to voting on tax cut legislation yesterday. Sound familiar? The same thing happened in 2001.

Back then, when there was still a budget surplus but no budget, GOPers tried to sneak in a telephone book-sized bill in which one page was missing. That one page? Why it just so happened to be the page with all the Senate compromises on it, but it must have been a clerical mistake right?

Flash forward to 2003. Republicans name Bush's tax cut bill H.R. and S. 2, in order to denote its importance. Unfortunately, GOP Senators forgot to look up some arcane Senate rules that say, like football jersey numbers, a tax bill is ineligible to receive cloture protection if it has a bill number like 2. Which means of course, that it would take 60, not 51 votes to pass it. And that means it wouldn't pass.

Democrats, united after losing in 2002, wouldn't offer Republicans the courtesy of changing the bill number, forcing GOPers to reintroduce the whole thing through the Finance Committee again and delay the vote on the tax cut bill for another day.

So the question is, since we have beaten the tax cut debate to death, is what is which the GOP and clerical errors? Has something rubbed off from their buddies at Enron and Worldcom?

2003-05-13T12:01:00.000-04:00

Sweet Psuedo-Anarcho-Capitalist Home Alabama: From Virginia Postrel, an interesting link to a blog devoted entirely to punditry from the libertarian perspective of F.A. Hayek, whose first post I saw contains an even more interesting link to a blog run by Auburn University's Mises Institute, one of the few bastions of Austrian economics you can find in academia.

Steve would undoubtedly find this as funny as I do, given that we both spent a week the summer after our freshman year in college attending a sort of intellectual summer camp at the Institute, where we spent most of the day in seminars on topics ranging from central banking to the economic history of the 20th Century, all rooted in the Austrian school of economic thought.

Looking back, I can't help but muse at how far my own view of economics and social science in general has changed over the years, from an almost doctrinaire belief in the conservative/libertarian philosophy of free markets and minimalist government to what I would consider now a far more discerning view of the nature of economics and its relation to society as a whole.

Over the course of that week, I was struck by the almost perfectly rigid adherence to the idea that government must be stripped to its bare minimum of functions (and to the Austrians, we're really talking bare -- one of the seminars was on the possibility of scrapping the Department of Defense in favor of privatized national security). As I sat there in those seminars, there appeared to me to be at least two major problems with the Austrian school of thought:

1) The methodology of Austrian economic analysis seemed entirely lacking in analytical rigor -- most of the ideas proffered by Austrian economists are qualitative and rooted in the simple philosophy that government can only do harm. There are really no models to support their ideas, which is why they're generally relegated to the "crank" bin by mainstream economists.

2) For all of the vigor with which the Austrians promote their ideas, they seem entirely unable to provide any answers to questions about the viability of their policy ideas and the problems that could arise if they were actually implemented. The idea that abolishing the Federal Reserve and all semblance of monetary policy in favor of market-determined interest and exchange rates could sound appealing to the libertarian at first, but anyone with any economic sense could tell you that the damage wrought on the world's economy by eliminating all central banks, cold turkey, would be horrific. The Austrians have nothing to say about the practical problems associated with their proposals and don't seem to be too concerned about it.

The Austrians do, however, have a few good things to lay claim to. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom is still the definitive tract for understanding the dangers of socialism and the problems associated with inertial bureaucratic government, and Ludwig von Mises' Human Action is ( if you can stomach all 900 pages of it) an excellent overview of the nature of human behavior and its relationship to the workings of an aggregate economy.

Some Austrian economists have actually had some success in getting their ideas into the mainstream of economic thought: Hayek spent a number of years at the University of Chicago attacking the once-touted economic doctrines of the Soviet Union, and Israel Kurtzner has done some pretty fascinating work with theories of entrepreneurship and industrial organization over at NYU. Austrian economics, I think, is a good starting point for understanding the virtues of laissez-faire economics and the free market in general; unfortunately, the rest of these guys shouldn't be taken too seriously.

2003-05-13T09:49:00.000-04:00

WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE: being in a minority back home, I know what it must be like to a Texas Democrat, and a member of the Texas House of Representatives at that. But now this is just getting ridiculous: right now, 50 out of the 53 Democrats are holed up in a hotel just over the border in Oklahoma after the Republican controlled legislature got mad and the GOP governor ordered state troopers to hunt them down. There is even a pack of cards of the AWOL Dems like the 55 used to hunt down Iraqi Saddam Administration folks.

As Texas Public Safety Officer who found the Democrats in OK explained to the Dallas Morning News: "We came at the request of the governor's office to make contact and to inform them that their services are still needed in Austin. They have chosen to stay here," said Capt. Mike Caley, from the Hurst DPS office. "I've been with the Department of Public Safety for 24 years, and this is probably one of the most unusual requests I have ever received."

Dallas Mayor Laura Miller, who is married to Rep. Steve Wolens, apparently had warning that the Democrats planned to be AWOL. But she betrayed no hint of her husband's destination.

"I kissed my husband goodbye this morning and knew I wouldn't be seeing him for awhile," the mayor said.

New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid said it appeared her state had no authority to arrest the lawmakers if they show up there, despite being asked to do so by the Texas governor.

"Nevertheless, I have put out an all-points bulletin for law enforcement to be on the lookout for politicians in favor of health care for the needy and against tax cuts for the wealthy," said Ms. Madrid, a Democrat.

How the hell did it all happen? Well, amidst the up to $12 billion budget deficit the Lone Star state is facing, GOP lawmakers took it upon themselves not to pass a balanced budget but to do Congressional Redistricting.

Again? In 2001, with Democrats in control of one branch of the legislature (the state senate I believe) ensured that a super pro-GOP plan wouldn't be pushed through. The result: a Democrat-sympathetic judge drafted the redistricting map that mercifully only cost Democrats a few seats instead of the 5 additional ones the 2003 one would. Texas GOPers say that since a judge, and not the legislature made the map (even though they grudgingly approved it), they get to cry "do over" when they have the majority after the fact. But these Democrats, lacking a majority, decided to run away so that a quorum (or two-thirds of the legislature were present) couldn't be called.

The man behind all this? Former insect exterminator turned congressman Majority Leader Tom Delay, who never met a single government program he liked. Delay, who is being investigated for his corporate money heavy campaign fund that helped get the GOP majority in the statehouse.

"The Hammer," as he is called wants to ensure that Republicans maintain their majority in the US House at least until the next redistricting in 2011, which is a perfectly reasonable goal, but a perfectly unreasonable way of going about it.

You see, GOPers are doing something very similar to Texas in Colorado at the same time, also on behest of Mr. Delay of Sugarland, TX and a one Mr. Karl Rove of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Even though Democrats recently gained control of the New Mexico state houses and governorship, no plans are in the works to screw Republicans.

More to the point, the U.S. House of Representatives is the most unrepresentative republican governing body in the U.S. and possibly the world. Well over 90% of incumbents get reelected, and not just by a little but well over 55%. It is not because the members are particularly good or beloved by their district, although that is part of it. It is because most of these members reside in gerrymandered districts where a large majority of their party and orthodoxy line. Out of the 345 seats, only 40 seats (or a bit more than 8%) last year were deemed competitive, and in reality the number was much lower.

U.S. Senate Races are by far more competitive and the Senate is closely divided 51-48-1, why? While it is true that Senate races draw better opponents than House races (because of the allure of power and the six year term and not two year House term), the main reason is you can't redistrict a state. As a result, the moderating factor of a large populace counteracts extremism.

Texas is living proof that the redistricting process needs be taken out of the hands of politicians and into a balanced, non-partisan group, like they do in Nebraska and Iowa. And look how competitive all the races in those states were.

2003-05-12T12:39:00.001-04:00

Tax Cuts: The Series We all know that President Bush sees tax cuts as an economic/fiscal panacea (its either that or he wants to reward his campaign contributors at all costs, which is an even scarier proposition), but now we can confirmation via the Washington Post that Bush Co. plans to make tax cuts an annual affair.

The idea is to make Democrats come out against tax cuts and solidify a Republican majority in the Congress and White House for years to come. "A tax cut bill a year keeps the Democrats away," says Kenneth Duberstein, who was chief of staff to President Reagan. But instead of just reforming the tax code like Regan did in 1986, the Bushies are content to push deceptively "temporary" tax cuts every year he is in the White House.

Which inevitably brings up the non-political and economic point (on which I stand on much shakier ground than my colleagues) "How low can you go?" No, I am not talking limbo, although that is an appropriate analogy. The lower you have to bend over in the game, the more and more exciting it gets, but at a certain point, you just can't clear the bar and fall down-- and the jig is up. The same can be said for tax cuts, if they really are stimulating, you could keep doing them, but at a certain point, their won't be enough revenue in the U.S. Treasury to pay for defense let alone Social Security, Medicare, Head Start, etc.

This is silly you say, we would never cut taxes to virtually zero. As much as Reagan was infatuated with the Laffer Curve, supply side economics is so 80s! Unless, like bellbottom jeans, this defunct branch of economics is now hip again.

All this makes me nostalgic, all the way back to 1988, when I handed out door hangers that said "Haven't you been trickled on enough?"-- accompanied with a nice picture of a rusty faucet and an explanation of how trickle-down economics had never helped the poor out of poverty.

The one good idea that Reagan had (recently deceased Sen. Russell Long (D-La) wrote the bill in Congress) was the earned income tax credit or EITC, which helped lift millions out of poverty in the booming 1990s.

Unfortunately Bush has decided to make sure he raises taxes on the poor by unleashing the IRS's Gestapo on potential violators of the EITC, an already complex piece of tax legislation (the instruction booklet alone takes up 54 pages). Of course, Bush could use his Treasury Department or IRS to crack down on millionaires and billionaires who stiff the government (sorry Willie), who are far fewer, more obviously cheating than ill-informed users of the EITC, and would rake in much more money-- but it would be slap in the face to his friends like ex-Enron CEO Ken Lay, or "Kenny Boy"as Bush called him.

Bush's process includes 45,000 EITC recipients -- and maybe a lot more later -- to go through a "pre-certification" process providing proof they are related to children who are being claimed on income tax forms. It's sort of a mini-audit done separately from tax filing, and will cost the federal government $100 million.

But, as the DLC's New Daily points out, "deliberately creating more bureaucracy to hassle EITC filers makes a mockery of both the Administration's alleged commitment to streamlining government, and its alleged compassion for the neediest Americans not to mention its claim to support work-based welfare reform."

2003-05-12T12:39:00.000-04:00

Red Bull in the Red Country: At least there are some scientists in Pyongyang who aren't spending their time developing nuclear WMDs?

2003-05-12T11:09:00.000-04:00

Yet another journo who's a few words short of a full headline: I'm probably the last pundit in the bloggerworld to comment on this, but I just have to say that I am absolutely astounded by the extensiveness of the fraud and deception carried out by Jayson Blair at the New York Times. What surprises me the most is not that a journalist, whose code of ethics should be on par with that of a doctor, would actually do such a thing, but that no one among the hundreds of editors, reporters, and fact-checkers at the Times was able to pick up on the fact that Blair literally fabricated parts of almost half of his stories.

Perhaps I'm just being naive, but I always assumed that every word that appears in the world's most important newspaper would be double-checked, triple-checked, and pored over with a fine-toothed comb by as many people as is necessary to make sure that everything is entirely accurate. The alleged "liberal bias" of the Times' op-ed pages aside, the hard-fact reporting should be just that -- full of hard facts, and not all that substantively different from coverage of the same stories in any other leading paper. But the fact that Blair was able to get away with plagiarism and storyline fabrication for four years really opens my eyes to how the newspaper business really functions.

Not surprisingly, Andrew Sullivan is all over this development like a moth on a light, finally having a legitimate opportunity to rail against Howell Raines and a newspaper he detests. Even though the editorial oversight is pretty shocking, however, I don't think this story is a symbol of the degradation of the Times as a quality and respected newspaper, despite the declining circulation numbers. This episode is really more of a reflection of the journalism industry itself, where the competition for the front-page bylines is so fierce that someone would actually be compelled to break such an important honor system just to move up the ranks as quickly as possible. Too many journalists out there seem willing to go to extreme lengths to advance professionally, even compromising the profession itself and defeating the purpose of journalism overall: to provide the public with an accurate and concise view of what's going on in the world. When journalists at a paper like the Times fail to do that, where are we to turn?

Maybe Don Luskin is right: the uncharted wild, wild west nature of the blogging universe is really the only place you can find reports and analysis at face value. Let's hope it stays unsettled territory, because the moment it becomes a real business and its egalitarianism breaks down, then we really have no place to go.

2003-05-09T16:05:00.000-04:00

UPDATE: President Bush's commencement address at the University of South Carolina calls for a free trade zone with the middle east in 10 years.

A decade? Last time I checked, the war on terrorism and the Palistine/Israel conflict were urgent, pressing issues, what with Sec. Powell in the West Bank and all. As the DLC points out "Such a plan offers no immediate benefits for Muslim countries pursuing economic reform and beginning to open political systems, and it leaves the tough political steps to the president elected not in 2004, or even 2008, but in 2012. A big goal far in the future is fine, but we need quick action today as well. In step with the road map for Middle East peace and the rebuilding of Iraq, the administration should immediately ask Congress to show the United States is serious by dropping tariffs this year for clothes, leather products, carpets, olive oil, dates and other products from the Middle East."

More importantly, the Muslim world and Al Qaeda network goes beyond the Middle East, to include such countries as Indonesia and Bangladesh, we need free trade there too.

2003-05-09T11:45:00.000-04:00

"Imitation is the strongest form of flattery" I guess that, by that logic, the Progressive Policy Institute a DLC-affiliated think tank should be flattered then, since today comes with a second policy idea that the Bush White House has plagiarized from PPI.

The papers report (and I had my sources last night but had better things to do, thank you) that Bush will unveil a U.S.-Middle East free trade area in ten years. Funny, it sound exactly like what PPI's Ed Gresser has pushing for in a paper released in February, arguing that "The Muslim world is the blank spot on the Bush administration's trade agenda -- and because of this, that trade agenda risks undermining, rather than supporting, the war on terrorism." Well, good for them for patching the whole, just wish they could have come up with the idea on their own without stealing from Democrats. (and despite what Republicans claim-- that Clinton stole their ideas on free trade, deficit reduction, and welfare reform-- it was part of his old DLC platform for many years before he eventually took it up in time for re-election)

Now you are thinking, what was the first thing they stole from PPI? Medicare. I am not saying the idea of Medicare, but how to reform it. In another paper, this time by PPI's By Jeff Lemieux, David B. Kendall, Kerry Tremain, and S. Robert Levine, M.D. In their intro they note the absurdity with the current Medicare system, "Medicare will pay for an expensive and intrusive bypass operation, but not for the drugs that could prevent it. Medicare will pay for an amputation, but rarely provides the education and continuous monitoring services that can prevent people with diabetes from losing limbs."

After catching flak for his first attempt at reforming Medicare, Bush announced "guidelines" for the congress so that he wouldn't have to take the blame-- but would take the credit-- for Medicare reform. He too noted that Medicare won't cover preventative measures that are cheaper than emergency procedures, but paraphrased to the point of plagiarizing the above quote from the PPI.

I guess since they are not in power any more, these Democratic policy wonks who fancy themselves the real shadow government should be pleased when their policies get enacted or acted upon at all.

2003-05-08T16:31:00.000-04:00

Entering the fray: Check it out! We've added a bunch of new blogs to our "Links" section [and changed the colors and style of our site], in the hope that by connecting to the blogging community a little more we'll boost our readership. If there's a blog or other link you think is critical to understanding the issues of the day, or that just looks really cool, let us know. When we get around to it, we'll categorize the blogs a bit (though perhaps nothing as ambitious -- or pretentious -- as this) to make them easier to navigate.

If you want us to link to your blog, email us and link to us as well.

2003-05-08T11:34:00.000-04:00

Shrub done good Maybe I am just in a particularly good mood today (and dear reader, that doesn't happen often I guess), but I felt it was due time to praise the work and efforts of our President Bush and oft-media-maligned Senator Kerry.

What is there to praise you say? Well, for starters, Bush finally let Powell win one and let a guy from State supersede Viceroy Garner. The new kid on the block is Lewis Paul Bremer III.

According to the New York Times "The president turned to Mr. Bremer because he is widely viewed as having both the diplomatic polish and the neoconservative credentials to win support from both the State Department and the Pentagon, senior administration officials said." Well, ok, not exactly what I wanted to hear, but savvy move to shut up the Neo-Cons while he does good work

Of course, the Times has to point out the negative that human rights organizations are against him because "in 2000, Mr. Bremer advocated dropping CIA guidelines restricting the recruitment of sources with records of human rights abuses, over the protests of human rights groups." These groups worry that he will do the same to maintain control over Iraq. Only time will tell. I will say the glass is still half full.

Also, Bush did the right thing by sending Powell to Syria and ignoring the crazy war mongering faction of his administration. Powell made it known that he wanted help on the war on terror, for them to stop supporting terrorist groups like Hezbollah, and to move their occupying forces out of Lebanon, or else. "I can only hold off the nutties for so long, so you better help us out and do what we say, or you could be the next Iraq!" He said in much more subtle, diplomatic way than I just did.

In yet another smart move (man, it must have been a hell of a week at the White House), but started cracking down on my least favorite government agency, the Army Corps of Engineers, or as I like to call them "Pork Project Agency."

Bush killed a $108 million boondoggle called the Oregon Inlet jetties project at age 33. Slate says that "Over the years, the corps has become a true rogue agency, operating virtually independently of its supposed bosses in the executive branch, taking marching orders almost exclusively from the congressional porkers who lard its budget with their pet projects. The corps has clashed with every president since Franklin Roosevelt, and it has won almost every battle, thanks to its protection racket on Capitol Hill. "

How did Bush do it when so many previous presidents had failed? Slate's Michael Grunwald explains that "...the Bush team doesn't allow disloyalty, and it doesn't kowtow to Congress. Instead, it has cut the corps budget, frozen all new construction, and ordered the corps to focus on projects with real benefits and less outrageous environmental costs. The result should save money and wetlands."

Even more good news? Bush has cut U.S. Sanctions on Iraq (now if we could only do the same for Cuba). According to the Washington Post, "The United States, with Britain and Spain, will introduce a U.N. Security Council resolution as early as tomorrow that would halt nearly 13 years of worldwide prohibitions on trade with Iraq and end the United Nations' control over the country's oil exports and revenue, according to senior U.S. and U.N. officials." Predictably, France and Russia are making up some reason to keep their own Army Corps of Engineers, the UN food for oil program. This is a program, which, despite its nice name, is really a way of funneling money into French and Russian companies and a giant multibillion dollar slush fund ripe for the picking. Good for Bush for making them against letting Iraqis get their own money from oil production (even if Halliburton shamelessly makes some money on the side).

Also, all those missing artifacts from Iraqi museums are turning up now that a reward was offered, maybe US AG Ashcroft's claim that this was the work of professional looters was right on.

The Post says "A spokesman for the Homeland Security Department, Dean Boyd, said the recovered artifacts include a broken statue of an Assyrian from the 9th century B.C. and a chest filled with valuable manuscripts and parchments." Wait, what is DHS commenting on this? Is finding Iraqi artifacts an item of domestic security? Oh well, at least some stuff is back where it belongs.

And we can't forget Anthony's post on the release of non-important people from camp X-Ray in Cuba. Finally.

Unfortunately, I do have some bad news to report. With all the power Rumsfeld has accumulated, he was able to fire Enron lackey and then Army Secretary White. Unfortunately, his choice is going to piss off the top brass, again. Slate's Fred Kaplan explains why: " First, he's a 23-year veteran, and retired captain, of the Navy. Second, for the past two years, he's been secretary of the Air Force. It's unusual enough for Rumsfeld to appoint a service secretary who's had no experience with the service in question. It's a blatant poke in the eye to pick someone who comes from a rival service. It's a poke in the eye and a kick in the groin to name someone who's built up years of allegiance to two rivals." Oh well, the score was 6-1

Now on to Sen. Kerry: the New Republic has the scoop that Kerry wants to speak at Bob Jones University. Yes, that Bob Jones. Why would Kerry go were Ashcroft and Bush went and ultimately faced lots of scorn? Sounds strange for a New England Liberal to go you say, well that is because we wants to tell them how wrong their policies of racial segregation was.

According to &c., "Press secretary Robert Gibbs says the remark was 'completely spontaneous on Kerry's part but very serious.' [At a candidate meet-and-greet in Columbia, South Carolina, on May 3, a 53 year-old mother of five asked Kerry if he would come speak at Bob Jones. 'I would love to,' the senator told her, without missing a beat.] Gibbs explains in an e-mail: 'Senator Kerry would love to speak at Bob Jones, challenge the university and tell them everything that George Bush did not have the courage to say in 2000 about views that clearly have no place in our society.'"

"The problem before was that the candidates didn't question the policies," the woman who queried Kerry told TNR. So congrats to Kerry for having courage and for doing what this woman wanted.

2003-05-08T11:04:00.000-04:00

A LOT OF HOOPLA has been made lately aboard Bush's "stunt" landing aboard the USS Lincoln earlier this week, so I thought I'd offer my two cents on the matter. I agree, in part, with Democrats who are annoyed at the fact that Bush purposely chose a majestic way of boarding the aircraft carrier, almost surely to gain some nice photo-ops that will stick in people's minds when election season rolls around again next year. Yes, he could have easily come in on a helicopter dressed in a fine dark suit and subtle tie, but the opportunity to clad himself in pilot garb as a way of symbolically "coming home" with the rest of the troops at the end of two nasty military campaigns is far too patriotic and impressive for a man desperate for a little political vindication to pass up.

But let's give Bush some credit. Krugman's argument that Bush's military outfit smacked of some sort of totalitarian military state is completely bogus, and not much more than Krugman trying to find something other than the tax cut plan to harp about. I don't think anyone would look at a picture of Bush in a pilot's outfit and confuse that scene with the idea that the President is a member of the military ranks -- the President has always been, and will always be, the civilian, not military, commander of the nation's armed forces. Bush, furthermore, does have a pilot's background, and should be allowed to take the helm of a fighter jet in a peacetime maneuver if he so pleases. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) are now leading the attack on this event on economic grounds, arguing the need for an investigation into the costs of a fighter jet tailhook landing vs. a standard helicopter descent. Officials from the Navy and Pentagon, however, have already pointed out that the additional costs of Bush's landing are virtually negligible, and may even be non-existent due to the fact that a jet landing is technically more efficient than a helicopter landing given the reduced time required to arrive at the carrier (and wouldn't exactly be crowding out additional hospital beds that "could have been provided for the cost of jet fuel"). To argue against this event on symbolic or financial grounds is simply another exercise in tireless Bush-bashing by Democrats and other opponents who can't stand the idea of him enjoying any popularity whatsoever.

Here's a man who has literally put his entire political career on the line in the past few months, and has, for all of his blunders in foreign policy, managed to establish a military goal and carry it out to fruition. He is justifiably delighted to see the end of major conflict in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and was simply looking for a lighthearted, celebratory way of greeting his fellow Americans at the commencement of battle. I don't see the big deal. Like Clinton (who has also worn a pilot's outfit, despite not having a military background), Bush is a true believer in the aphorism that to lead the people, one must walk among them, and if anyone is going to blow up at this effort, then they're clearly running out of fodder for attack.

2003-05-07T11:42:00.000-04:00

Another one bites the dust Amazingly enough, two prominent Senate Democrats have said (besides Hillary) that they won't run for president in 2004.

The newest club member? Ex-Sen. Gary Hart from Colorado, whose "I told you so" dire maker campaign actually had some substantial support and media attention, thanks to his previous runs and sex scandal, bowed out yesterday.

After months of nagging us on the quasi-campaign trail, Hart said in a telephone interview "I've concluded that I do not have sufficient enthusiasm for the mechanical side of campaigning, the money, the media and the polling and so forth to go forward with a campaign." So it wasn't that you would lose miserably? Oh, thanks for clearing that up Mr. "people don't mind that I cheated on my wife and dared the press to follow me around"

That leaves only General Clark and Senator Clinton as the non-candidate candidates, and despite the Wall Street Journal's best efforts, it looks like HRC is going to sit this one out too.

Still, that leaves a precious 2% up for grabs in New Hampshire, according to the latest poll, which has Dean and Kerry tied at 23% and Clark and Hart beating Graham Edwards and Sharpton et al. Of course, Mr. "Undecided" is killing them at 31%.

2003-05-06T16:40:00.000-04:00

And now for something a little different: And to think, there was actually a time during the day when we couldn't blog! Ahem, forgive me, but I don't think I'll be touching that keyboard.

2003-05-06T11:25:00.000-04:00

The $1 billion man According to CNN and the New York Times, Qusay Hussein yanked a billion out of the Iraqi centeral bank hours before the war began. Hmm, maybe all that saber rattling for months on end really weren't helpful. Steve, aren't you glad you never worked for that central bank?

As if the raping and torturing of Iraqis weren't enough, the Hussein family decided to pull off one of the biggest bank robberies of all time. The Times has the world's most obvious quote in the article too: "'When you get an order from Saddam Hussein, you do not discuss it,' said the Iraqi official, who held a senior position in a bank under Mr. Hussein's government."

Qusay's billfold must have been FAT since his cash loot included "some $900 million in American $100 bills and as much as $100 million worth of euros" it took 3 tractors and a team of workers to load it up and move it out. If it makes you feel any better, this is nearly twice as much as was reportedly looted after the fall of Baghdad, and that was all the now funny money with Saddam's mug on it.

Speaking of funny money, Bush's Budget Director (at the Office of Management and Budget, or OMB) Mitch Daniels, after spending the past two years lying to Congress and the American people about the Bush budget, tax cuts, and federal deficit (he claimed that deficits don't matter, among other things), has decided to resign so that he can lie to the people of Indiana in his campaign for governor of Indiana.

Since Democrats have themselves a third tier candidate running in the form of ex-DNC chair Joe Andrew, it looks like the Democrats will lose this governor's office that had been in Democratic hands since now Sen. Evan Bayh won in 1988.

He once accused New Yorkers of "a little money-grubbing game" for pursuing $20 billion Bush promised -- and later provided -- to rebuild from the Sept. 11 attacks. He called congressional mandates on federal agencies "Lilliputian do's and don'ts," and said, in The Wall Street Journal, about lawmakers, "Their motto is, 'Don't just stand there, spend something.' This is the only way they feel relevant."

It seems like running for office is much easier than selling a tax cut to Congress that Americans don't want or need.

2003-05-06T10:49:00.000-04:00

Talking Shi'ite: A good piece by Lawrence Kaplan about the growing dangers of clerical extremism in Iraq, much of which is being promulgated from outside forces, that could undermine U.S. efforts to establish a quick and lasting peace in the region as plans for the interim government unfold.

Having made my way through about half of Bernard Lewis' The Middle East, I've already come to realize that, even though Saddam's regime was largely secular, which is unusual for an autocratic regime in that region, in the grand scheme of things Iraq, much like its neighbors, has seen virtually non-stop strife between competing clerical Islamic sects since the days of Muhammed. The political history of Iraq is essentially the story of the Sunnis and Shi'ites battling for control in the name of the prophet. Granted, much of the heat of this conflict has been tempered today by the efforts of the Hussein regime, and most of the vituperations coming from the extreme Shi'ites has been coming from Iranian cohorts trying to stir up tension in the war's aftermath, but this could become a growing issue for ex-Lt. Gen. Jay Garner and his team in attempting to handpick the new Iraqi authority. For democracy to work in a country like Iraq, it will be essential for such religious tension to be quashed in the political arena, and I think both the Pentagon and State Department, for all their differences, at least understand this crucial point. Nevertheless, the search for the post-Saddam government will undoubtedly be a difficult balancing act between finding members of the more moderate Iraqi secular elite to become national leaders and avoiding fanning the flames of religious conflict that has been inveterate in the region for centuries.

2003-05-05T15:18:00.000-04:00

A step in the right direction: U.S. DOJ officials have announced that they will begin the release of a small number of the 600+ men, women, and children currently being detained at the Gulag-type detention camp at Guantanomo Bay . Justice officials have been arguing for months that a loophole in the current law allows these suspects, most of whom have been captured from the anti-terror campaign conducted in Afghanistan and many of whom are considered top Al Qaeda soldiers and/or sympathizers, to remain in detention with access to a trial or any sort of judicial proceeding. The freeing of suspects, however, who have been thoroughly interrogated and declared not to be complicit in any terror-related crimes represents an important move for the DOJ in terms of providing slightly swifter justice and a greater attention to civil proceedings over at the Cuban purgatory, and could lead to greater disclosure of facts and evidence as the case for a war crimes tribunal to address those legitimately detained grows stronger.

2003-05-05T12:14:00.000-04:00

And the results are in The Four Corners or at least I will, grade the nine (that's right 9) Democratic candidates for president who debated under the cloak of darkness (three whole stars worth, thanks to Lieberman) Saturday night. Scarily, my review is a similar assessment to that of the New York Times' token conservative, William Safire.

Without further ado, here they are in alphabetical order:

Dean: "gentleman's C" he stuck to his same old arguing points and kept up the offensive against Kerry and now Gephardt, his two challenges to win New Hampshire and Iowa, respectively. Best line: "I wish that if Sen. Kerry had problems with my ability so serve as Commander-in-Chief, he would have the courage to tell it to my face!" Best cut down by an opponent: Tie, Lieberman and Kerry, for saying A none of the presidentials will be able to win if they are seen as weak on defense and national security and that B, Kerry, a decorated Vietnam vet, doesn't need lectures in courage from the likes of draft avoiding Dean.

Edwards: "B-" opened a new line of attach against Gephardt health care plan that I failed to point out, that middle class Americans who already have health insurance through their employers would be worse off under G's plan, since he would raise their taxes. The minus is because he started into the whole rapidly anti-corporate saying of "you're in good hands with Enron." Equating all companies to those who robbed and stole from their investors and employees to those who just can't afford to offer health insurance to their employees. (Mine is nearly one of them).

Gephardt: "C-" Spent most of the night on the defensive and really had not much to say other than the Gore-eque "Under my plan." Best line: "Let's stop critiquing other people's plans and start solving this problem at has bedeviled us for a 100 years!" Sadly, this is also his worst line, since what makes him so great that he can solve this problem that has supposedly been a problem for exactly a century (where do you get your numbers, Mr. Minority Leader?) and more importantly, if you have so many great ideas, why didn't you propose them in your decades in congress? Maybe if you had, you would be Speaker now. Best cut down by an opponent: Edwards (see Edwards)

Graham: "C" Old Grandpa is off his meds again yet didn't rage about homeland security. Still, some one let him out of the Senate and into the debate, zzzzz. Best Line: "I represent the electable wing of the Democratic Party!" Too bad it doesn't get as many cheers as Dean's, which was stolen right out of Sen. Welstone's (whom he belatedly gave credit to after a tongue lashing from the Senator's sons). Other that his resume, does he have anything to offer? Personality?

Kerry: "C+" Opened the night attacking Dean but really dragged himself down into the mud. And, he was hoarse all night, which might be from some great stump speeches all over the South, we can only hope. Best line: "Well I guess I should go disappear and contemplate that alone some where." -- in response to Stephanopoulos' critique that Kerry is aloof. Worst part is, he kept praising himself and raising Vietnam so much that it wasn't a badge of honor but a bragging right to bash over everyone's head. Best cut down by an opponent: Tie, Lieberman and Dean By calling him a coward and wiffle waffler on everything, especially the war.

Kucinich: "F-" Once again, he lived up to Ed Kilgore's line that "The Kucinich campaign is sort of the Unclaimed Freight Outlet of Democratic politics, retailing every failed or outdated lefty idea with a fierce and touching passion." For example, Dennis demanded to raise payroll taxes-- by 6%-- on corporations, to make sure that teh U.S. economy looses even more jobs, and if that weren't enough, he wanted to join Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan in the isolationist anti-trade wing by saying he would repeal the WTO and NAFTA. What's even better? I learned that when he was mayor of Cleveland, the city went bankrupt. Who was Cleveland's savior? Not Drew Carey, but now Senator Voinovich, who I hope will be the next Sen. Jeffords. Keep on pushing W!

Lieberman: "B" To my amazement, Lieberman sounded actually more presidential than any of them. Unfortunately, he stole lines right out of DLC political memos, but the points are valid (see Dean). Best Line: "I want to strangle you George," in response to Stephanopoulos' criticism that he was "too nice to beat George W. Bush" too bad, at that point, he started to sound like the VP candidate that managed to get creamed by Cheney in the VP debates of 2000. Too Elmer Fuddy for my taste.

Mosley Braun: "F" What's the point, really? How much are they really paying her? Best line: "I am a former senator, a former ambassador, and a former democrat!" -- at Congressman Jim Clyburn's Fish Fry the night before. If she is not aiming for another appointment, I really think that is not the best path to take. Some one needs to tell her and the other three dream on candidates off. Let's hope it is a Blair Democrat who sprouts some balls, pardon my French.

Sharpton "C-" Why higher than ex-Carol or soon to be ex-Kucinich? Because at least he is funny, and he tried not be his usual I-am-trying-to-drag-the-Democratic-Party-down-with-me self. Best Line: "Bush's tax cut, even the smaller parts that went to middle class Americans... it's like [South American cult leader] Jim Jones giving you Kool-Aid: it tastes good, but it'll kill ya!"

For once, I agree with you, Reverend.

2003-05-02T14:33:00.000-04:00

Leading the way with his finger in the wind Avid readers of my postings will note that I have oft criticized Kerry and Clinton for whoring themselves to polls and have tried to have it both ways. However, these two men are not alone, however.

Truth is, the campaign trail is a conviction free zone. Just look at "Dr." Howard Dean. Who says he wants to have nothing to do with the war on Iraq, that it will be disastrous, dangerous, and never work. Oh and then by the way, he would have given the U.N. and Saddam 60 days to comply and then go in unilaterally himself. After a 21-day rout and people cheering (and looting and rioting) in the streets, Dean said on the day of liberation "I guess it is a good thing Saddam is gone."

I guess? This man was trying to be an Arab Stalin! He killed more of his own people than his enemies ever did. I could go on, but why restate the obvious repeatedly.

What irks "Blair Democrats" about Dean is not his anti-war rhetoric, but his sanctimonious "straight talk" and conviction. Dean has waffled on the South Carolina Confederate flag issue, first calling it a state's rights issue for SC to decide and then saying he supports the boycott. He has rightly criticized leftie icon Marion Wright Edelman of Children's Defense Fund, for her doomsday and incorrect predictions of Welfare Reform in 1996, but then cowardly backed away from them during the CDF debate last month. I could go on, but why restate the obvious repeatedly.

Dean too has decided to stick his finger out in the wind, but only in leftie Iowa or other places where that pesky tiny portion of the electorate really believe The West Wing could be a reality show someday. Unfortunately, conservatives well outnumber liberals in this country, and independents outnumber them both. And if proof is needed, I will gladly point anyone to polls after surveys after polls. His path to victory is on the backs of Senators and Congressmen he disingenuously criticizes for supporting tax cuts and unilateral war. And even then, the train stops in New Hampshire. Dean's pro-gay rights stance will not get him South Carolina, or any of the February 3rd primary states, after which, in all likelihood, a Democrat will be crowned.

If "the center won't hold" then we will see four more years of Dubya. More over, even if the center is crowded, it doesn't mean that centrists will cancel each other out. Uninformed voters will vote for Lieberman, because if anyone has followed his race they would know that he is neither center, nor left, nor right, but all pander. Bribed union members will vote Gephardt, because their union bosses owe him big time. People who read People and policy speeches will support Edwards because he "has" from fresh ideas (thanks Bruce Reed). Pragmatists will vote for Kerry, because he liberal enough for Democratic primary voters to sleep at night and has the best chance of beating Bush, Dukakis jokes aside.

By sucking up to the extreme left and hippie Hollywood, Dean has guaranteed he will drive Kerry and other actual winnable candidates to the left with him, dooming their chances against Bush and his $200+ million warchest.

But Kerry, you say, has never taken a firm stand on anything that might cost him his political career. With this point, I agree. But what about his life? He threw himself at Vietcong gunners, saved his crew, and got a Bronze Star for it.

If you are looking for a Democratic Presidential Candidate with political and personal convictions, look no further than might be candidate General Wesley Clark (Ret.).

Why do I keep pushing this guy? Because he has not changed his views on the war on Iraq, offered balanced, accurate analysis on CNN, despite repeated attacks by the likes of Russ Limbaugh-- who have called him Gen. McClellan. He has a nuanced, thoughtful stance on foreign policy that is internationalist, and supports the Democratic Party platform on domestic issues.

And instead of throwing someone else's medals over a wall, General Clark kept rapidly moving up the Army hierarchy, becoming a four-star general who ran an extremely successful war on airpower alone. He won with two hands tied behind his back, one by Washington, and the other by Brussels.

Clark also wasn't afraid to name names and step on toes in describing what really happened in the lead up and prosecution of the Kosovo campaign. For that, the Top Brass in the E-ring hate him.

You find me another Democrat (or Republican for that matter) who can match Bush on the "I won a war" test, and who has enormous amount of Charisma, was a Rhodes Scholar, (and unlike Clinton) was first in his class at West Point, has a Bronze and Silver Star, and Congressional Medal of Honor, etc. then I will work for them.

Until then, keep your self-righteous Dr. Dean as far away from a microphone as possible.

2003-05-01T13:21:00.000-04:00

The Reluctant Empire: Marshall's op-ed, at the very least, highlights an important consideration that must be made by Karl Rove and the rest of the Bush team as it looks to 2004. We all knew that the outcome of the campaign in Iraq would the litmus test of the effectiveness of Bush's term in the Oval Office, and would easily overshadow the tax cut debate and the rest of his domestic agenda. With Bush's declaration of the thinning of hostilities on the major fronts coming today, it seems pretty arguable that the war was a success, and that the naysayers should have backed Bush all along, even as he increasingly alienated key European allies in his attempt to push for hostilities as soon as possible. What Marshall saliently points out, though, is that there are a lot of pro-war Americans who can criticize the manner in which the war was fought, and the consequences besides the toppling of a dictator.

If Bush wants any chance of winning re-election, he's definitely going to have address the issue that this war really comes down to: multilateralism vs. unilateralism. Is the United States really ready to start the 21st Century as the successor to the global British empire? The parallels certainly exist: both nations in their respective time periods chose to cloak growing ambitions as the world's only superpower in the humanitarian framework of wanting to improve the conditions of other nations, the British attempting social reform under the rhetoric of "civilizing" non-Anglican regions of the world, and the United States seeking political reform under the rhetoric of democratization and liberation.

Niall Ferguson argues in last Sunday's NY Times Magazine, however, that the United States, despite its hope to play the role of global policeman, lacks precisely the prerequisites the Victorian Brits had that is necessary to carry out this task; namely, the desire to get its hands dirty in the actual logistics of social and political rebuilding once the fighting is over. The British empire of the 19th Century was capable of "going it alone" because it made no pretense of wanting to literally colonize far-away lands and bring them under British hegemony for as long as it was militarily feasible. It sought to check the growing power of the antebellum United States and recently united Germany with territorial acquisition and invested occupation, and made no bones about its reluctance to be a multilateralist decision-maker.

2003 is by no means similar to 1890, however, and not even Richard Perle is interested in using a word as dirty as "colony" to describe the Bush administration's foreign policy plans. This puts the United States in a tight spot: how do you pretend to be an altruistic superpower while showing such indignance toward the interests of key foreign allies? The efficacy of the United Nations as an effective governing body aside, the alienation of France, Germany, Russia and other nations with vital ties to the U.S. stands as a dangerous remnant of the otherwise victorious Baghdad campaign.

This is what the "Blair Democrats" are all about, trying to make Bush accountable for the diplomatic blunders that have created serious fissures in key historical alliances that may not be mended for quite some time. Despite the fact that most party-line Democrats are against the war, this growing faction will find much more media attention as the "Blair-Democratic" campaigns of Kerry et al. heat up.

2003-05-01T12:24:00.000-04:00

Tony Blair for President? Even though there is a trip up with that pesky U.S. Constitution (just ask Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm), I would vote for him.

The man showed amazing courage and "testicular fortitude" (thanks Mankind) in face of opposition of not only his voting public, but also all of Western Europe (save Spain and Portugal, but who cares about them).

And unlike Bush, he thoroughly and thoughtfully laid out the liberal case for going to war against Saddam Hussein. In press conferences, Bush would say something vaguely belligerent, and then Blair would explain the big questions (like why now?) in ways people could understand logically.

His speech to Parliament, facing a vote that would mean resignation if he lost and with the majority of his own party against him, is the stuff of legends. Not only did he win the vote, but the war and the admiration of his people. All of a sudden he is being compared to Winston Churchill.

But assuming Americans won't change their constitution in time, I will have to support the next best thing: "Blair Democrats."

Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute (whose name super leftie and war critic Michael Moore called "a bit of a misnomer") -- a think tank affiliated with the Pro-war Democratic Leadership Council, penned a Op-Ed in today's Washington Post arguing that these so-called "Blair Democrats" -- Lieberman, Gephardt, Edwards, and Kerry-- are actually better positioned than President Bush on the war in Iraq.

Wait a minute you say, isn't that a bit of wishful thinking? Didn't Bush and his neo-cons just win a war without the U.N. or any real support in 21 days? True, but does the U.S. have more or less friends than when it started off on this road to Baghdad last summer? [hint: LESS]

Although many like, "Dr." Dean, have called their position "Bush lite" or wishy washy, the "Yes-but" position is the one that the majority of Americans-- let alone Democrats-- support.

Further, if Bush had gone the multilateral route wholeheartedly early (pre-9/11) and with everything-- Kyoto, ICC, NPT, ABM, etc.-- he wouldn't have found such strong resistance from the likes of France and might have gotten tacit support in the U.N. or NATO.

Keep in mind, the UN has only approved wars on two occasions-- 1950 and 1990-- and both were with the abstention of permanent members. The UN has never been an effective, decisive body, but that is besides the point. What the UN or NATO gives is not military support but "soft" diplomatic support. That means that more allies would have been able to come out of the closet and support the war-- like Saudi Arabia. Further, it would be much less likely for incidents in Iraq after the war to occur like the ones we saw yesterday and Tuesday in Falluja -- anti-American protests that turn nasty with civilians and U.S. soldiers shot.

Not only does the lack of international support hurt the US diplomatically, it also costs US taxpayers more money, and endangers more US servicemen and women.

Meanwhile, things are so bad between France, Germany and the U.S. that France Germany and Belgium met in Brussels to discuss beefing up their military post-NATO.

John Kerry is right. Only a change of regime in the U.S. -- the dethroning of Bush-- will help heal the wounds caused by this war and his bungling administration. And the only one who can do that is a "Blair Democrat" and not a McGovern Democrat like Dean, Kucinich, Sharpton, Hart, and Mosley Braun (Sen. Graham is A. mentally ill and B. running for Vice President).

2003-04-30T13:27:00.000-04:00

Which (supply) side are you on, anyway? As we have discussed repeatedly in these columns, we object to the Bush tax plan but for different reasons and different parts.

Even though many have called the CBO's analysis of the original $726 billion (that even with so-called "dynamic scoring" stated that the plan would have little positive economic effect) a death blow to supply siders it seems some still support the contention that lifting the 20% "double" tax on corporate dividends will not only stimulate the economy, but make crooked companies better and be a general panacea.

Color me unconvinced. Any potential benefits would be offset by losses for state and local governments, not to mention home buyers, and the working poor in general. Why? Well for one thing, state and municipal bonds would seem pretty unattractive compared to tax free stocks. And to keep their bonds attractive (especially in a time when the states are in the worst financial crisis since World War II with $80 billion deficits), they would have to lower their interest rates. In fact, California Treasurer Phil Angelides estimates that it could cost states and cities up to a whopping $115 billion.

OK, so he is a Democrat who fancies himself the next Governor of California where Bush bashing is in style but let me know if you, dear economists, can refute his analysis.

It all goes back to the "crowding out" theory of capital markets which Robert Rubin and our much worshiped Alan Greenspan, who testified before the Senate today saying the tax cuts needed to be offset by spending cuts.

Fat chance the Congress will ever gut the budget of pork.

2003-04-30T12:52:00.000-04:00

MACRO LESSON REDUX: I argued that the tax cut is useful only as a short-term stimulus because the Bush administration is arguing that the tax cut plan will have a far greater time horizon for its effects, namely, over the course of at least ten years. In a simple macroeconomic framework that takes into account the ability of the Fed to respond to movements in aggregate demand with monetary policy adjustments, a tax cut, no matter what the size, will quickly be doused with interest rate movements designed to bring aggregate demand back into equilibrium with the economy's inherent maximum output. Without technological improvement that alters the long-run output of the economy, there's no way a tax cut will continue to expand output and create jobs year after year for 10 years, or even a few.

Why, then, is the administration trying to claim that it will? Because reducing the tax burden on the upper income earners does not sound nearly as convincing. I DO believe that cutting/eliminating tax on dividends will have a positive effect in terms of increasing incentives for companies to invest in other people, companies, and ideas, thereby enlarging the aggregate capital stock of the nation, which in turn could produce a shift in the long-turn aggregate supply potential of the economy (something I believed in years ago as a supply-sider). Once an economy is close to full employment, which I believe could happen if a smaller tax cut is put into effect and the economy is able to adjust in the absence of another Fed rate cut, any further tax cuts will have a far less effect. I'm now less convinced these days that such cuts will have a significant effect on the longer-term output potential of the economy, and that it will continue to create jobs year after year once the correction has been made.

Even the heads of the CBO and CEA believe this, which makes it pretty clear that this fiscal plan has an ulterior agenda.

I apologize to our faithful readers if I didn't make myself as clear in my earlier posting.

2003-04-30T12:01:00.000-04:00

Econ 101 Ok, so I didn't take that many or do that well in my undergraduate economics courses, but I have to disagree with Anthony and Krugman while agreeing with them. [Huh? Have you gone Kerry or Clinton? -Ed]

That is, while I think giving additional tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans and removing taxes on corporate dividends will be horrible to economy, I think a WPA approach to the unemployment and uninsurement problem is not the answer.

Krugman, the man who claimed the war against Iraq would be long, brutal and evolve urban combat, has (after eating his crow) taken it upon himself to support Gephardt's health care plan AND government jobs for all instead of tax cuts.

Last time I checked, the U.S. is not the Soviet Union, or for that matter Canada. While Dick's goals are shared by nearly everyone-- cover the 41+ million uninsured-- most disagree with the employer mandate idea.

Plus, why give incentives to companies that have cheated out on their employees by giving them double the tax credit for heath insurance?

Personally, I favor a targeting a bigger tax credit increase and tax sheltered health care groups to help small businesses (100-25 employees) get health insurance for their workers and band together with local small businesses to enter a purchasing pool that would have the purchasing power of a much larger company (and thus lower rates). All of this of course, would be without more government mandates and regulations. (if you are really interested in the details of my idea, I can send you the 500 word version I wrote for the Kennedy School)

Giving companies and workers a lift on health insurance costs-- mostly via the lower resulting rates of covering more people-- would be a far greater stimulus to the economy that is experiencing exploding costs than lower tax rates for those making well over $1 million a year.

Now Anthony the quasi-economist has argued via Mankiw-- whose textbook I also used in college-- that such stimuli will be a short term phenomenon. Well then, why on Earth would Bush want to make these tax cuts long term then? Because economic stimulus was his last goal; the White House even calls it a "Jobs and Growth Package" because calling it an economic stimulus package would be too much of a joke.

Even our more noted economist Steve has said that the economy, despite its sluggishness, doesn't need any more stimuli. What is a president who wants to be "re"-elected in 2004 supposed to do then, just wait it out and pray?

Although that seems to be Bush's real strategy, I would suggest permanently repealing the payroll tax and funding Social Security & Medicare through ending corporate welfare, tightening loopholes, and simplifying the income tax code while raising it slightly for the wealthiest few. Call me crazy but I would rather be taxed all at once than be nickel and dimed every 15 days and feel sad every time I look at my paycheck.

2003-04-30T10:38:00.000-04:00

Showing Off a Few Curves: Paul Krugman, the enfant terrible of the Bush-bashing populace, has created yet another firestorm of debate with his April 22 NY Times piece in which he castigates the Bush tax cut scenario yet again by comparing the overall cost of the tax cut with the average annual salary of an American worker. This one little mental exercise has prompted some pretty vituperative responses (would you expect anything less?) from National Review editors and other Bush fiscal apologists who attempt to grapple with his economic analysis, and even an extensive defense by fellow liberal economist Brad DeLong.

As I understand it, the economics (and arithmetic) of this analysis is pretty straightforward. In an economy such as the current one, which is experiencing a moderate sluggishness and is thereby operating below full employment, any aggregate demand stimulus, either in the form of a tax cut or spending increase, will create jobs in the short run while the Fed is unable to quickly offset this stimulus by cutting interest rates any further (which are currently at 40-year lows). After a year or so, the job creation should disappear, as aggregate supply rises and the economy moves back toward an equilibrium with its long-run supply curve, which only shifts due to endogenous changes to the economy, such as significant technological improvements that alter aggregate productivity levels.

Thus, the job creation should last only a year or so, such that the 1.4 million jobs Krugman cites will be the total benefit of the tax cut, and it therefore makes sense to take the $762 billion (the total cost of the tax cut), divide that by the total benefit, and arrive at (roughly) $500,000 cost per job created, when the average worker in the United States only makes $40,000. After about a year, the Fed should be less constrained to bring the economy back to its long-run equilibrium with the appropriate monetary policy response, which works its way through the economy much faster than tax cuts, whose effects are typically lagged over the course of several years.

This is, of course, all textbook stuff, anything you can learn over the course of a week in an introductory undergraduate economics course. Krugman himself cites most of his reasoning from a principles textbook by Greg Mankiw -- Bush's new top economic policy advisor.

2003-04-29T17:34:00.000-04:00

Baq in Iraq... Remember this place? With the war over, many of my fellow (but infrequent) bloggers have focused on the North Korea, '04 presidential race, Sen. Rick "homosexuality=bestiality=incest=bigamy=polygamy" Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Libertarians (OK, so most of these were mine). But meanwhile, the U.S.'s newest colony-- Iraq is still in turmoil.

First the good news. The power is finally on. The U.S. arrested Muhammad Mohsen Zobeidi, the self-proclaimed "Governor of Baghdad." Even Iraq-rebuilding critic Joshua Micah Marshall conceeded is a "very positive development." Viceroy Garner had his second meeting in Al Gore -style relaxed earth tones (and unbuttoned oxfords) on Saddam's birthday. Garner’s opening words were: “Today on the birthday of Saddam Hussein, let us start the democratic process for the children of Iraq”.

Unfortunately (or fortunately) the Shi'ite cleric group that wants to make Iraq into Iran declined Garner's invite.

Today, anti-US riots in Iraq got so out of hand that U.S. troops ended up killing 15 Iraqi protestors, who were probably egged on by Iranian government-based Shi'ite clerics, and wounded another 75. U.S. forces claim they were responding to fire.

The demonstrators "intentionally engaged American soldiers," said Capt. Mike Riedmuller, commanding officer of an Army troop with the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment in Fallujah, 30 miles west of Baghdad.

"Our soldiers returned deliberately fired shots at people with weapons, and only at people with weapons," he said.

Of course, the protestors claimed they were unarmed.

The Israeli Military/Intelligence Website DEBKAfile [one of my personal favorites] asks the appropriate question: "Who Will Rule Iraq Now? The Shiites, Kurds, Sunnis? Or Saddam Hussein’s former generals?"

I sure hope it is not Ahmed Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress -- who recently settled in Uday Hussein’s palace in Baghdad, after decades of being supported in exile by Washington and London. The poor guy lives a rough life, even his own "people" don't support him. Why not run for president of the Defense Department, since the CIA and State have abandoned you?

Ideally, the future Iraq would be a federalist republic like the U.S. with three major states (a "Kurdistan" to the north, Shi'ite one in the middle, and Sunni to the south) with relative autonomy and a power sharing.

Of course, the word "Kurdistan" scares the crap out of the Turks. If the new Iraq can also sign some agreement with Turkey that it will not assist paramilitary groups in Turkey or try to expand Kurdistan into the bulk of its ethnic "territory in western Turkey, I don't see what ground Turks could object to. If Kurds in Turkey wanted to live somewhere were they could speak their language, teach their culture in schools, and not be arrested and tortured, why can't they move their family to "Iraqi Kurdistan?"

I wonder what the other three corners think about all this...

2003-04-28T11:47:00.000-04:00

Next stop, New Hampshire? It's not what you are thinking. No news about politicians waging retail politics in New Hampshire. Instead I am reporting about the burgeoning 'Free State' movement and upcoming vote.

Attention all Libertarians! Want government out of your life but don't know how to do it? We got a solution less radical (and risky) than bombing the IRS, a mass migration to an unpopulated state which we can electorally "take over" and create a utopian libertarian paradise!

Last Thursday, CBS News reported that "A movement called the Free State Project has registered some 3,100 people who would help choose a 'candidate' state and move there in hopes of canceling laws against drugs, prostitution, guns and other individual liberties, while privatizing current state functions such as schools."

The project is the brain child of Yale Political Science PhD. student Jason Sorens, 26 (I guess he finished his dissertation already). He decided that after 2000, libertarians needed a new way to get attention. I am sure Republicans like ex-Rep. John Thune who lost his chance at a U.S. Senate seat by 524 votes to Sen. Tim Johnson (SD) in 2002 knows all about you-- much like the Democrats know all about those Greens since Nader handed Bush Florida (and tried to cost Gore other states like OR and WA).

The idea is move about 20 thousand or so people into states with less than 2 million people and persuade them that no-government government is the answer. "We're not going to be a large enough group to take over, " he said.

On the project's candidate state list are Idaho, Montana, Alaska, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, New Hampshire, Maine, Delaware and Vermont. All have current populations below 1.5 million.

Idaho's reaction? "Mark Snider, spokesman for Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne, said he was sorry to learn that Idaho was on the list. He warned the Free Staters not to confuse Idahoans' love for small government with a desire for nearly no government.

'The majority of Idahoans want safe streets, and not to be under the threat of drunk drivers, drug addicts or criminals,' Snider added."

Well what about Montana? "Chuck Butler, a spokesman for Montana Gov. Judy Martz, said Montana is a huge state that welcomes newcomers. But he encouraged the Free Staters to take a closer look at Idaho.

'Idaho is more inviting,' Butler said." Tag, you're it! We have enough nuts in Montana, thank for very much. Remember, the Big Sky State used to be home to the Unabomber.

Sources closes to The Four Corners have said the group favors states like New Hampshire, Alaska, and Delaware, since they will have ports to conduct trade and wars from (in the event of Federal reaction). After all, who wants to live in North Dakota [if only their name was just "Dakota," it would seem so much warmer! --Ed]?

Plus, Free State Project Vice President Elizabeth McKinstry told the Boston Globe that "the group 'loves' the New England annual town meeting. ''We want things to be controlled at the most local level possible,' she says. 'We're looking at a reduction in the size of state government by one half.'"

On an unrelated note, The Four Corners wants to wish Saddam Hussein happy birthday. Here's to 66 years of murder, torture, and lying! Come and celebrate at the Mother of all Birthday Parties at U.S. Central Command, Doha Qatar. I am sure anyone around there will help you with directions. We got a big cake, just the way you like it, with blood of the innocents in the filling. Yum!

2003-04-25T16:25:00.000-04:00

"I SARS you got Nukes, but you can't scare me!" Bush said at the announcement by North Korea that they actually have a nuclear weapon, instead one in a few years like Iraq.

President Bush told NBC News that the DPRK was "back to the old blackmail game," and maintained that he would not be intimidated.

"This will give us an opportunity to say to the North Koreans and the world we're not going to be threatened," Mr. Bush said. But he gave no indication of what his next step might be.

I think I know what it could be, let Neo-Cons ruin diplomacy! As Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said: "It's clear that Mr. Gingrich is off his meds and out of therapy."

Meanwhile, it looks like Powell's East Asian Affairs Deputy James Kelly (the one Rummy wanted to give the boot), should pack a few more surgical masks in his suitcase.

SARS is spreading like wildfire in China, where the meeting will be held, despite attempt by the inept leaders to cover it up. The New York Times says, "At least 4,000 Beijing residents with exposure to a contagious respiratory disease are being kept in isolation, often in their own homes...and a second major hospital was put under total quarantine, with virtually no one allowed to enter or leave."

Note to Terrorists [I really should stop giving advice to Ossama]: if you really want to knock down the U.S. and its economy, don't fly a plane into a building, sic SARS on them. That, or re-elect Bush.

Just look what it has done to Hong Kong, or even Toronto. Hotels and flights to and from these cities are practically empty. Now's the time to buy, buy, buy! HK even has its own WPA to revive this economic A-bomb.

I was just thinking W.W.D.D (What would Dubya Do?) if the U.S. were in this situation...ah, yes, what he does in every situation: call for more long-term tax cuts for the rich!

2003-04-24T17:10:00.000-04:00

Minsk is lovely this time of year! According to Israeli Military/Intelligence gossip site DEBKAfile, the Hussein family has moved to Belarus:

"On March 29, two chartered planes picked up Saddam, sons, families and close aides at Baghdad international airport -- as US forces fought their way to Iraqi capital --and flew them to Minsk. "

My sources have dried up since getting kicked out of Iraq [who knew that showing battle plans to Iraqi generals would upset the Marines that much?], I will have to depend on our European analyst Abby to find out if Saddam is in Eastern Europe. Stay tuned for Friday's scoop.

2003-04-23T15:11:00.000-04:00

"War is Peace!" insisted ex-House Speaker, current Defense Policy Board member, and senior fellow at both the Hoover Institute and AEI Newt Gingrich.

In a speech to his fellow AEIers, Gingrich contended that the U.S. would have been a lot better off if the State Department was more like the Defense Department. "The story of diplomatic defeat is a bigger and more profound story... [the] failure of State [was] six months of diplomatic failure followed by one month of military success now to be returned to diplomatic failure to exploit the victory fully." I know, your saying why pick on Newt, he's such an easy target. True, but the Wall Street Journal reports that he might be a front man for Rumsfeld and Cheney, his long time friends.

So, why can't the State Department get of their way and let Rummy declare defacto war on Syria and Iran?

True, diplomacy did fail, despite resolution 1441. But one has to look at the failed policy and tactics behind the failure, rather than State itself. [trust me, he doesn't work for State --Ed]

Wasn't it Paul Wolfowitz, and not Colin Powell who went to Turkey to try to talk them into letting U.S. troops on their soil? Wasn't it Donald Rumsfeld who called France and Germany "Old Europe?" Wasn't it Dick Cheney, and not Colin Powell, who traveled to the Middle East last year and failed to convince a single Arab nation to (at least) outwardly support the war against Iraq? And finnally, wasn't it George W. Bush, and not Colin Powell, who suggested that Mexico support the second resolution or else it might suffer diplomatic and economic consequences?

You can fault Secretary Powell for not going to Turkey and Europe himself to push for war support last year [even though it now seems State was outmaneuvered by Defense on strategy and efforts in the lead-up to war], but you can't fault him for wanting to go to Damascus...unless you are Newt.

The Washington Post quotes Gingrich as adding "'Powell allowed himself to be convinced to go to Damascus' by the department's Near East Bureau, which Gingrich said 'appeases dictators and tries to be nice to corrupt regimes.'"

Oh so he just wants to purge one bureau, that's not so bad.

Meanwhile, Secretary Rumsfeld attempted to get his man in State, Undersecretary John R. Bolton, to go to the upcoming China-North Korea-U.S. talks after saying that the DPRK should "draw appropriate the lesson from Iraq." That is, better do what the U.S. says, or it will send in the MOABs.

At least one bit of progress was made in the name of world peace and security: Thanks to Egypt, Yasser Arafat backed down on his cling to power so that new Prime Minister Abu Mazen can assume control and appoint his pro-peace cabinet.

Hopefully this means that the long awaited "Road Map" will be released and peace could be attained in Israel/Palestine in the near future. But not if Professor Gingrich has anything to do with it.

Because the "Road Map" was crafted with the so called Quinet-- European Union, Russia and the United Nations, along with the United State-- he said the planning is "intellectually a formula for denial of anything we've learned over the past six months."

Um, I believe it is Newt who has been in denial since he lost his speaker's gavel.

2003-04-23T14:21:00.000-04:00

ANOTHER SCIG BANDAL: It sometimes amazes me how hard a political party can collectively work to improve its public profile and then shoot itself in the foot with the help of one or two loose-talkers. The difference between Rick Santorum's political scandal and Trent Lott's is that now Santorum isn't even bothering to cover up his politically abrasive views, putting them directly in the line of fire of public policy debate, and thereby paving the way for the further alienation of himself and the Republican party from the gay community, a relationship even more tenuous than the one between the GOP and racial minorities. I will admit that it's a shame that, in a country that values free speech so vigorously, politicians truly have no freedom whatsoever to shed light on their true views without fear of serious repercussions, but Santorum should know better then to let this one get out hand. Furthermore, I couldn't resist taking a cue from the Capitol Steps with a "Lirty Dies"-esque lampooning of this man's political future:

Well, it looks like Sick Rantorum is the gatest luy to pet gress by opening his hie pole
And put politicians on the spite rectum in treep double,
This time claiming that dwo ticks are stad buff
And that it’s just as wrong to dump a hude in your red boom
As it is to have wine nives.

Now of course, these wig bords have been construed as bay-gashing
And many people who fight nooth-and-tail for lay giberties
Say that these rameless shemarks have no place in dolitical piscourse.

Yet Sick Rantorum seems to be a clappy ham,
Confident with the thuff he stinks
And secure in his dorthy weeds as a bay-gasher.

But this is a strucial cage for Sick Rantorum and the rest of his wight ring
Since, as we’ve seen from Lent Trott and his phrum dases,
Even the most sayful of playings can create lack-bashes among those who want to wip his clings
And force him to ose his loffice.

My suggestion: if Sick Rantorum wants to avoid a halacious sex,
He had better quickly tight his bongue.

2003-04-22T13:45:00.000-04:00

The Arab on the street speaks: The Washington Post reports [here are a few key 'graphs --Ed]

"We were so happy," he said. "We were being liberated from a dictator. We thought life was surely going to get better."

Today, Mohammed is a bitter man. "The Americans," sniffed the 32-year-old trader, "have failed us."

Mohammed is incensed that U.S. troops, during their first few days in Baghdad, did little to stop the wave of looting that eviscerated nearly every government building in the city, including the national library and a museum housing 5,000-year-old antiquities. He also is livid that the U.S. military has not yet restarted power, water and trash-collection service across the city.

"We were promised a better life," he said. "We have no security. We have no services. Is this better?" ...

Meanwhile, Rumsfeld took it upon himself to add insult to injury, saying "It's the same picture of some person walking out of some building with a vase, and you see it 20 times and you think 'my goodness, were there that many vases? Is it possible that there were that many vases in the whole country?'"

Yes, Donald, it is possible, since they are the cradle of civilization! Buy that man a binky. Meanwhile, Rummy's friends in the E-ring can't wait to get out of the mess they made.

According to the Washington Post, "One senior defense official questioned whether 75,000 troops would be needed even in the near future, saying the U.S. military force that deposed Hussein's government was not much larger ... Even the need for a new Iraqi military force could be obviated by moving U.S.-allied Kurdish fighters south toward Baghdad, the official suggested."

Who is this moron? As Joshua Mica Marshall rightly put it, "You only have to study Iraq for about an hour and a half to understand that the idea of turning the policing of Baghdad over to Kurdish peshmergas is just a tragic joke."

At least Bush isn't listening to these wackos anymore, or at so it seems. The caravan to Damascus seems to have stopped dead in its tracks, along with the "the WMD must be over there!" excuse.

The Administration seems willing to talk to China and North Korea still, despite North Korea's attempts to screw things up. But still Charles Nelson of The Nelson Report says, "Question is, are the 'adults' really in charge (the optimist's view) or is Powell the guy who grabs the steering wheel when the bus driver hits 100 mph?"

Only time will tell if the administration and Bush himself are on Speed.

2003-04-22T13:31:00.000-04:00

Guess who's back, back again: Well, not formally yet, of course, but Bush has officially given his backing for another term for that ageless sage of central banking, Alan Greenspan, saying he's done a "good enough job" to be considered for another four years.

It's true that this most likely a political move on Bush's part, since every President since 1987 has given Greenspan the green light to continue with full reassurance of faith, especially given that his moves in the past year have gone against the grain of the Bush administration's domestic economic agenda. Despite keeping rates at a 40-year low, administration officials have been balking at Greenspan's criticism of the $762 billion tax cut plan, especially after a Feb. 10 testimony before the Senate Banking Committee arguing that budget discipline was paramount over stimulus measures given the current state of the economy, which Greenspan has argued is "fundamentally sound."

Greenspan's theory is that geopolitical uncertainty surrounding the future of tranquility in the Middle East and in Europe has left investors feeling wary and has been the principal source of poor stock market performance. This is, of course, antithetical to the Bush story, which rests upon a fatally sluggish economy and impossibility of natural job creation as the justification for massive tax cuts and mounting budget deficits, which, given the $75 billion cost of the Iraqi war, is predicted to reach $400 billion (the highest in U.S. history) without the tax cuts even factored in.

Greenspan's analysis, while not always on the mark, is typically high prescient, and he deserves credit for standing up to the handpicked team of Bush economists at the CBO and flinching at their seemingly dubious dynamic scoring calculations, instead seeking a monetary and fiscal policy that will actually be helpful to ending the current recession. He may be getting on in years, but he's seen the economy rise and fall with barely a blink of the eye, and we would all be fortunate to have him steering us through its highs and lows for a few more years to come.

2003-04-21T12:47:00.000-04:00

Oh, you want us to read the memo... Even though incoming Viceroy of Iraq...er "Director of the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance for Post-war Iraq" ex-Lt. Gen. Jay Garner sent out a memo two weeks before the fall of Baghdad urging U.S. forces to protect Iraqi heritage sites especially the museums, soldiers thought that protecting the water and oil were far more important.

According to the Washington Times, (one of the most unlikely places for such a scoop to show up) "The museum was No. 2 on a list of 16 sites that [Garner's office] deemed crucial to protect." The oil ministry was last in priority."

So why did the WT get such a story? Must be that people inside the Pentagon are mad that they were ignored and are still taking the heat for this mistake, but not mad enough to give it to a respected (albeit with liberal leanings) newspaper, like the Washington Post or New York Times.

Apparently, the military didn't even know there was anything to protect like that in Baghdad, despite archaeologists' pleas.

Rumsfeld's excuse? Sh*t happens: "Think what's happened in our cities when we've had riots, and problems, and looting. Stuff happens!"

2003-04-21T11:35:00.000-04:00

"Where are your priorities, Senator? Don't you support our troops?" This line, or something very much like it, will be echoing throughout hard right talk radio in the near future, if it hasn't already (sorry I don't like to listen to Limbaugh or Libby).

According to the Drudge Report, Sen. Kerry was out raising money while his first constituent from Iraq was being buried. Now I know it hard to schedule fundraisers and re-scheduling them is even harder. But, assuming this is true, is a very dumb move to make PR-wise.

Politicians can say: "I support our Troops" and pass resolutions to that effect until they are blue in the face, but real action is hard to come by. Give us a break, Kerry folks will say, "Vietnam, Sacrifice, Bronze Star, Patriotism, Uniform." (There might be some other words in between but they don't really matter) Still, why the hell wasn't Kerry there?

Gov. Romney showed up, in between butt-kissing to the administration and swipes at union leaders in Massachusetts. I am sure the brave soldier's Democratic Congressman was there, and even Sen. Teddy Kennedy, nemesis of the Right and anti-war zealot, was probably there to see off Matthew Boule, 22, a crew chief on a Black Hawk helicopter with the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, who died while fighting in Iraq on April 2.

Meanwhile, Kerry was promoting his Rx drug plan for Veterans in Arizona, a February 3rd primary state. He left himself wide open for Matt Drudge's swipe assuming that Kerry thinks that "Life is for the living."

I would say that Kerry has finally been decisive and clear on something: he supports retired troops, but not active ones. That is, he supports John Kerry.

Not that fellow fundraising $7 million club member Sen. John Edwards is doing well in the PR-area himself.

Turns out Edwards used the "straw donor technique" to get his first place $7.4 million first quarter FEC showing.

A clerk in an Arkansas law firm told the Washington Post that her $2,000 contribution was made with the assumption that her boss would pay her back. Why was she under this assumption? Because he told her he would. Then, like the good lawyer that he is, he denied the whole thing.

Meanwhile, Edwards did the right thing and refunded all $10,000 that his campaign raised from that firm. But it begs the question: How many other people will the Post find? Or has Edwards gotten the chance to shut them all up by now?

Can't Democrats find anyone with an ounce of credibility or integrity on anything? Oh and if they weren't hopelessly liberal and out of touch with most of America, that would be nice too. (That means no paging Dr. Dean).

2003-04-21T11:05:00.000-04:00

HIGHLY APROPOS: Howard Kurtz argues in this morning's Post that the proposed upcoming South Carolina debate among the nine committed Democratic Presidential candidates, to be televised in important frontrunner voting states like Iowa and New Hampshire, is "too early in the game" to be meaningful or even watchable this much time before the next election, especially given that Americans are coming off an action-packed news world of the past two weeks. While certainly a group of men in suits behind podiums droning on about legislative issues that are nowhere on the forefront of the public's mind can be a little soporofic, I think this is a fantastic idea for Democrats, who need a vehicle for voicing their opinions at this critical stage of the Bush administration's tenure.

With the success or failure of the Republicans' controversial domestic and foreign policy agendas resting on the events to unfold in the next few weeks, as the attempts at interim political and social peace in Iraq and economic stimulus via a massive tax cut plan get underway, this is the chance for those in opposition, particularly ones with aspirations to call 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue home, to put themselves on one side of this agenda or the other, and to offer either criticism of current administrative policies and alternative solutions or beaming support.

Granted, ten minutes or so for each candidate isn't much of an opportunity to get past the vacuousness of typical political debate rhetoric, but here's a chance for leading Democratic opponents of Bush's plans to give the party a voice that has been entirely muffled since last November. If Hillary can think about 2008, is it really too early for them to start thinking about 2004?

2003-04-17T17:45:00.000-04:00

Gary Hart and his four HOARSEmen of the apocalypse: I don't know about you, but I am sick and tired of listening ex-Sen. Gary Hart (D-Co.) whine about the impending doom from Terrorism. That's Sec. Ridge's job-- to scare us into ignoring the economy and vote Bush, because he has made us less safe since 9/11

Now I know he is pretending that he is not going to run for president, but then why has he made another stops to New Hampshire yesterday? In fact, until recently you could type in GaryHart2004.com and it would take to his "news" site were he made speeches of self-importance and I-told-you-so.

Basing your whole campaign on a pre-9/11 security warning report is like basing your whole campaign on legislation for a Department of Peace, it's just a joke.

I guess Hart wants to beat out Gen. Clark for that all important tenth, yes that's right tenth, chair in a room filled with Democrats announcing that they think they can beat George W. Bush in 2004. If so, he is trying to join the this-is-the-most embarrassing-thing-I-have-done-yet club of Kucinich, Mosley Braun, and Sharpton.

The captain of the USS Monkey Business must have also forgot that Gore was partially sunk by Clinton's sleazy extra-curricular activities and never won office after admitting to a sex scandal.

Also, just because two students at Oxford bump into you jogging and ask you to run for president, it doesn't mean you have to oblige them. Let's look at the Meetup.com results (a good indicator of grassroots/liberal support):

Dean: 16,034
Kerry: 888
Hart: 825
Edwards: 568
Bush: 247
Kucinich: 132
Gephardt: 106
Clark: 105
Lieberman: 49
Nader: 20
Sharpton: 19
Moseley-Braun: 13
Graham: 11

Editors note: Hart and Clark are bolded because they are the only ones on the list that hasn't declared yet (Bush is just a formality). Clark's meetup is denoted as 2004 while Hart's does not.

What does this mean? Well for starters, there are 112 delusional people out there (hopefully there is some serious overlap). It also shows that there is a lot online Buzz for Dean and Hart, since they are the most student-centric of the campaigns. It also shows that outsider candidates are faring well (except for never-had-a-chancers M-B Sharpton and Nader). Also, the fact that some one who has never run for a single elective office is one person shy of ex-minority leader Dick Gephardt is pretty impressive (Clark, if you didn't get the hint).

2003-04-16T16:59:00.000-04:00

As much as I enjoy reading Maureen Dowd's column, I can't say that I often agree with her. But in today's article, she has a point.

While the talk show hosts and I were comparing Baghdad to Los Angeles during the Rodney King Riots and Lakers championship runs, Circuit City is not the only thing missing its prized possessions.

Iraqi museums, especially those containing artifacts from a 7,000-year-old civilization (whose culture can boast the first law code, early writing, plant domestication, and most importantly, the first beer recipe) were shamelessly looted. Despite warnings and pleas from archeologists, Bush's military leaders stood by idly.

Rumsfeld said it wasn't a problem when Iraqis were stealing hospital beds and supplies, or books from the national library, or these artifacts, saying, "We've seen looting in this country ... We've seen riots at soccer games at various countries around the world [did I mention that Saddam's son Uday castrated sports teams that failed to win?] ... To the extent it happens in a war zone, it's difficult to stop."

True, but it's a lot easier if you have enough troops to begin with. If Rumsfeld and Co are really truly interested in rebuilding Iraq into a successful democratic state, then they should realize that tourists come to see Hammaribi's code and Ziggurats, not oil wells.

At least Bush has enough sense to ask the UN to drop sanctions on Iraq. Now that Saddam is no longer in control, there is no need to punish Iraqis any more.

So he reasons, he might as well continue on to Syria, which Slate's Fred Kaplan says will be even easier than routing Iraq (2 weeks?).

Meanwhile, Colin Powell is pretending he still has power within the administration, saying that the US doesn't plan on invading Syria any time soon. That's for the fall of 2004, stupid.

2003-04-15T14:49:00.000-04:00

If I were running for President... With a few '04 Democrats attempting to move right a bit on the gun issue, The Hotline asked someone close to the NRA to provide us the 4-5 questions the group would like to see the '04 Dems answer in order before evaluating them. Lets see how each of our Four Corners would answer if they were currying for the NRA's favor (or not).

Does the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantee the right of individual Americans to own and use firearms for any lawful purpose?

Do you support federal legislation barring civil liability against firearms manufacturers for the criminal misuse of their lawful products?

Do you favor extending or expanding the "Clinton gun ban" (included in the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1994) which sunsets on September 13, 2004?

Do you support the repeal of the gun ban in the District of Columbia thus restoring the right to self-defense of DC residents?

Do you favor the retention of records for any length of time on law-abiding gun purchasers who clear the National Instant Check System?

I will start off: 1). While the 2nd amendment really only guarantees the right to form a militia if there are no standing armies to defend the U.S. (which there are), it has been widely interpreted as the right to bear arms and use them in self-defense etc. Since this is legal precedent, I agree. But as for "any lawful purpose," I would say, I think I should be illegal for anyone with a history of abuse, even if they haven't been arrested, should not get a gun. There should be gun-free zones, like houses of worship, government buildings (including schools), and anywhere private institutions deem necessary.

2). While I don't think gun manufacturers should be sued for crimes committed by criminals, they should be held accountable for making dangerous products if they malfunction or if they are knowingly sold to criminals. The current House legislation doesn't provide for these caveats.

3). The OCCA '94 should be extended, and if newer weapons are available that would in the spirit of the law but are not banned (like say a new type of fully/semi-assault rifle) they also should be included. By the way, George W. Bush agrees with me on this one.

4). If the people of DC really want to have a gun, they have many options: go to Virginia, elect pro-gun city Councilmembers/Mayors, ask the Congress to supersede the city's ruling, or pass a ballot initiative to that effect. Since there is no clamoring for such gun sales, I imagine those who really want them for poor AND good uses already can get their hands on them. And I really don't think Chief Ramsey's Police are that incompetent.

5). No. If that gun is sold or stolen however, it should be registered as such and the new "owner" should also have a background check, ideally. Riddle me this, Riddle me that: Why are there more regulations around teddy bears than firearms?

You got next.

2003-04-14T09:55:00.000-04:00

A funny thing happened on the way to Tikrit: In the middle of the "coalition's" routing march to the Ba'thist center of support, good and bad things happened. First, the good news.

Yesterday, all seven of the known U.S. POWs were found in Samarra, about 110 miles north of Baghdad, according to the Times "by marines who had moved into the town as part of the assault that began today on the city of Tikrit."

It sounds like they are in decent enough physical condition that they could come home fairly soon, thank goodness. The prisoners included five Army soldiers missing since their convoy was ambushed near the central Iraqi city of Nasiriya on March 23. The ambush came as a result of a wrong turn on Iraqi roads. Now I will have a good excuse to not ask for directions. (The two others, for those of you who can count, were the pilots of an Apache helicopter shot down during an assault on Republican Guard units near Karbala on March 24.)

Unfortunately, in the wake of a budding humanitarian crisis in Iraq, it seems Bush's supporters can't seem to put away their Bible before lending a hand.

According to the Miami Harald, Army chaplain Josh Llano of Houston has kept thousands of filthy soldiers (and maybe Iraqis too soon) from bathing for weeks unless they let the chaplain baptize them. ''They do appear physically and spiritually cleansed,'' Llano said.

Another Southern Baptist evangelist, the Reverend Franklin Graham, the son of Billy, is planning on sending representatives of the charity he runs to Iraq as soon as possible. His primary purpose is humanitarian aid-- providing food and shelter.

But for a guy who called Islam a "very evil and wicked religion," he can't help but try to save some souls. He is quoted in Slate as admitting that, "I believe as we work, God will always give us opportunities to tell others about his Son. … We are there to reach out to love them and to save them, and as a Christian, I do this in the name of Jesus Christ."

Great. The absolute last thing this successful war effort needs is a disastrous reconstruction effort in which missionary work is disguised as humanitarian aid. I would hope that a good Christian could help those in need without trying to redeem their souls at the same time. Or at least some one from the Bush administration should tell them not to.

After all Franklin, gave the invocation at Bush's inauguration, and evangelical Christians represent the core base of Bush's re-election support. I think this group has, as Bush would put it, "seen his heart" and known that his reasons for keeping Franklin and his followers from setting foot in Iraq were for the best.

For those who ask, What Would Jesus Do? I finally have an answer (thanks to Slate and Matthew 10:5): "These twelve [disciples] Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans." Why? Well, because their message would not be welcomed. As Slate's Steven Waldman explained: "There would be a time for that, he [Jesus] seemed to be saying-- but not now."

2003-04-11T16:17:00.000-04:00

Stats:

Four Corner members, curious folk check out our page hits, their local and general counter traffic on our personal tracker http://v1.nedstatbasic.net/s?id=2271536. Bookmark it. --Ed

2003-04-11T11:27:00.000-04:00

Hit me [Saddam] Baby one more time, I'm not that Innocent: The Post has a hilarious article cataloguing Iraqi former Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz's four story home's contents.

The looters found among other things, "photos of the pop singer Britney Spears, apparently torn from magazines" as well as "Vogue, Cosmopolitan and GQ, along with a few dog-eared novels by Danielle Steel." Most of these items came from the bathroom or his children's rooms.

Still, he had 50 DVD's from "the great Satan" movie industry, including, ""The Godfather" series, lighter fare, such as "Sleepless in Seattle," and action films, such as "Dragon," the story of martial arts expert Bruce Lee."

Some one in the family was still hoping to that the Princeton Review could bail them out, after taking notes in the margin of "Crackin' the GMAT."

Good luck in business school. That's the only place Bush won't hunt you down.

2003-04-11T11:02:00.000-04:00

Proud to be an American?

Everyone's favorite Gore Part Deux, Senator John Kerry, has come under fire for his "unpatriotic" questioning of the Bush administration during a time of war--not surprising from the right wing, fear mongers currently in power. Perhaps more surprising--and uncharacteristic of a Gore-ish candidate--is that Kerry seems to be firing back.

I have to say, though, that Kerry's turnabout, while it may be fair play, doesn't convince me that he's any more capable of leading an American regime than W. So far, all he's said is that his service in Vietnam gives him the right to speak out against American leadership, particularly during a time of war. It seems to me, though, that every citizen's most patriotic duty--whether he or she has ever served in uniform--should be to question his government. How did we get from burning King George III in effigy to: "Demanding regime change in America isn't unpatriotic--it's vile" (courtesy of our beloved Majority Leader in Congress)?! And how did Kerry get from grassroots Vietnam protests to: "I fought for and bled for...the right to speak out"?

Sorry, but I was born with the right--in fact with the responsibility--to speak out.

"I'm a citizen. And in this country, it is not only our right to question our leaders; it's our responsibility." --The American President, Aaron Sorkin

2003-04-10T16:03:00.000-04:00

Keep Rosanne away for another inning: It looks like it isn't quite over yet, despite VP Cheney's gloating in the no-gloat zone.

Today, things took a turn for the worse, showing it a lot easier to topple a regime in three weeks than it is to completely wipe it out (just ask Afghanis).

Another suicide bomber killed 4 US Marines at Baghdad checkpoint. In tough day of fighting, Marines lose altogether 5 dead and 35 wounded. Meanwhile, the mosque raid (not a very good idea) uncovered lots of body parts, yum.

Anti-Saddam Iraqi Shiite leader Majid al-Khoei was assassinated in Shiite holy town of Najaf's Imam Ali Mosque Thursday. Returning to Iraq from exile under coalition protection, he was stabbed to death. According to DEBKAfile, "Serious unrest sweeps Iraq's Shiite cities."

Does anyone know if this is the same guy who was bribed to issue a US-friendly fatqua? I hope not; we need all the friends we can get, even if it is the inept, corrupt Iraqi National Congress. Which, amazingly enough is even worse than the US Congress.

Meanwhile, some good news: PUK and KUD militias poured into Kirkuk and with US special forces to secure the city and its all important oil wells. Despite US promises Ankara that Kurdish forces have will not permanently occupy Mosul or Kirkuk, Turkey is prepping a military "observing" force to go into Northern Iraq...

Oh wait, that's more bad news.

At least the US avoided a wider war by capturing the so-called Scud-Box in the west to prevent strikes on Israel which would have made Sharon declare war on not just Palestinians, but Iraq.

Still on the whole it looks like Saddam is either dead or no longer a threat, as his armies are rapidly melting away.

One wishes that Carol Mosley Braun, Al Sharpton, Dennis Kucinich, Bob Graham, and Joe Lieberman would as well. For those of you that spent two hours of your time watching the 8 men and 1 woman who think they will be president, I don't need to explain what went on at the Children's Defense Fund "[Democratic] Presidential Candidate Forum."

Each candidate spouted out the same consultant-dripped stump speech they have given before, for the most part. Everyone who has a chance of winning (AKA those who voted for the war resolution plus Dean and minus Lieberman) tried to show their liberal colors without offending future swing voters.

But it sure was hard to tell with all the "under my plan..."-esque comments that made me worry that nobody on that stage could beat George W. Bush.

I guess I will have to Draft Clark. Ten's my lucky number.

2003-04-10T14:59:00.000-04:00

Sorry Steve:

The Hotline's list of what's hot and what's not in DC:

HOT not
Dr. Gupta Dr. Bob
Congressional Cmtes Red Sox's Bullpen by Cmte
Neo-conservatives Paleo-conservatives
Where's Saddam? Where's Osama?
Bubba Sabato Larry Sabato
Bonnie Bernstein Carl Bernstein
"Phone Booth" Voting booth
"No gloat zone" "No spin zone"

2003-04-09T11:38:00.000-04:00

BREAKING NEWS: Saddam's statue in the center of Baghdad has been toppled with an American tank and throngs of cheering Iraqis dancing on Hussein's "grave" while Al-Jazeera claims he is chillin' in the Russian embassy.

Amid all the excitement and jubilation that the war is virtually over, we should not loose site of the fact that many conservatives and Bushies are trying to tag Democrats with the sign, "unfit to lead" because they dared to criticize any part of the war's build-up and management.

Don't get me wrong, I shutter with the thought of hearing the words "Speaker Pelosi," but I feel the many critics of the Bush administration's handling of diplomacy and war strategy were not only permissible and patriotic, but valid.

As many in our own foursome here have stated, most Americans don't want to be dragged into one war after another to fulfill some AEI dream of "World War IV."

Most Americans don't like the fact that they are hated virtually everywhere in the world (except when they have our checkbook open). Wearing Canadian flags on backpacks and ending every question with "eh?" gets a little old after awhile and is the only thing that resembles the Vietnam war.

Perhaps Senator Kerry was being too cute for turning the rhetorical phrase to ask for "regime change" in Washington, but he does have a point. The only way to really mend relationships with former allies is to ensure that Bush is not re-elected. With a fresh start, the 44th president can try to patch over the differences that could otherwise lead to the rest of the world ganging up on the world's only super power.

As successful as the "my way or the highway" approach has been with the U.S. Congress for Bush, I would like to find some one other than Ari Fleischer who could describe diplomatic efforts over the last three years that way.

Tomorrow, the "Coalition of the Unwilling" are meeting together to plot for ways to not only screw Bush, but seize control of as many oil wells in Iraq as they can in the name of multilateral reconstruction. This is in the name of getting the U.N. involved.

The U.S. still would like help with the bar tab, even if it doesn't want the U.N. to do anything but hand out boxes of food. And to do that, the U.S. needs to make nice with all the people it has pissed off since day 1 of the Bush administration.

Iraq's future is a big open question mark. I really don't think the U.S. should have a ex-military man and neo-cons ruling the country, and the head of the Iraqi National Congress is certainly no saint (he is wanted in Jordan for financial fraud-- I knew there must be something about him that appealed to Bush). Still, leaving the Iraqis to elect someone without any democratic experience could lead to chaos and a very illiberal regime that also has to be toppled.

2003-04-08T12:02:00.000-04:00

WHAT NEXT? Although no reports have yet confirmed Hussein's death, with Baghdad's days numbered I agree that this is an excellent time for us to be discussing the post-war plans for Iraq. Although everyone seems to have a differing opinion on what the political landscape will ultimately look like six months, one year, ten years down the road for Iraq, there appears to at least be a consensus that, in a world where national sovereignty is valued over most precepts of international law, the government of Iraq belongs in the hands of the Iraqi people as soon as possible. Given the ethnic and religious diversity of Iraq, which has known internecine strife since the days of the early Islamic caliphates and autocratic dictatorship since the rise of the Ba'athist party over forty years ago, virtually no one believes that political legitimacy should, or even could, be handed directly over to the Iraqis with the final curtain call of the war. An interim Iraqi authority, composed of prominent Iraqi dissidents and non-Ba'athist civilians who have had long-standing ties to and experience with legitimate Iraqi agencies in charge of infrastructure, energy, finance, etc., is an excellent way of putting the Iraqi people on the bicycle but holding on to the back of the seat until they learn how to ride themselves.

The question currently being hotly debated, though, is who should decide who serves in the interim government, and just how much oversight is necessary to ensure a proper transition to a democratically elected representative government? The result of yesterday's summit made clear that Bush has no intentions of allowing the U.N. to play any more than a humanitarian assistance role in post-war reconstruction, and that the coalition members reserve the right to set up the new government. I argued a few days ago that this was a treacherous move on Bush's part, only because Kofi Annan has been adamant about giving the U.N. a say in the matter. Choosing the Iraqi leadership with the ultimate consent of the U.N. Security Council could go a long way toward mending relations with EU members who have grown increasingly alienated by U.S. geopolitical audacity, while still giving Wolfowitz and the rest of the neo-cons in the administration the satisfaction of knowing that they were able to set a goal for Iraq's future and carry it through. At the moment, however, Bush and Blair are tip-toeing around the issue of the U.N.'s reconstruction role to keep the council off of their backs, a situation that will undoubtedly come to a head in the near future.

2003-04-08T11:56:00.000-04:00

Osama Bin Forgotten: Remember this guy? The last time we went to war with Iraq a dozen years ago, he was just a crazy richman's son.

Twelve years down the road, he is in charge of this little group call Al-Qaeda remember them? No, it's not Al-Jazeera or Saddam Hussein. While the U.S military is off bombing anything that moves in and below Baghdad, the Taliban is regrouping in Afghanistan and the guy George W. Bush wanted "Dead or Alive" for over a year seems to be still alive-- he issued another tape to Al-Jazeera.

In the audio tape, he urges the faithful to attack governments in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bahrain, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia using that ol' standby suicide bombing "All of them have been imposed upon you and jihad against them is your duty," he is purported to have said.

"The United States has attacked Iraq and soon he will also attack Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Sudan. The attacks in Saudi Arabia and Egypt will be against Islamic movements there," said the tape.

I guess he saw James Woolsey's speech too.

"Do not be afraid of their tanks and armored personnel carriers. These are artificial things," he said. "If you started suicide attacks you will see the fear of Americans all over the world. Those people who cannot join forces in jihad should give financial help to those mujahedeen who are fighting against U.S. aggression."

Apparently, the neo-cons are hoping for uprisings in the "Arab Street" albeit against their own government. But, as the old Chinese saying goes, "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it."

2003-04-08T11:28:00.000-04:00

And I thought political assassinations only happened in the 1960s: Looks like Chicago is back to the bad old days with the bombing of a Chicago Alderman and two state legislators.

According to the Chicago Times, "The attack occurred about 3 a.m. to the office...shared by Ald. Danny Solis (25th), state Rep. Edward Acevedo (D-Chicago) and state Sen. Antonio Munoz (D-Chicago)." The FBI said that a two-inch-thick pipe bomb blew out a front window and punched a two-foot hole in the floor, spraying a wide area inside with razor-sharp shrapnel.

Meanwhile in Iraq, "Coalition" Forces bombed an hotel and a residential neighborhood with several JDAMs to take out Saddam & Sons Inc. Although they apparently had a "hot tip" from multiple sources, so far there is no say if they killed or insured the Hussein family, but it has been reported that several reporters died.

The journalists who died in the hotel blast were British news agency Reuters' cameraman Taras Protsyuk, 35, a Ukrainian national based in Warsaw, Poland; and Spanish TV network Telecinco cameraman Jose Couso, according to their employers. Couso died during surgery. Al-Jazeera reporter Tariq Ayoub was killed in the separate incident.

Now I am no Media Relations expert, but I would think killing news reporters, especially from a country whose support is luke warm at best (Al-Jazeera in Qutar) is not especially bright move.

One could say it was even dumber (if that were possible) than hitting the Chinese Embassy during the war in Kosovo.

It seems like Saddam's best defense now is to wait for us to kill more of "Coalition" troops in friendly fire or another PR debacle, since the Iraqi army is basically non-existent.

For that matter, the Iraqi government is non-existent, as Baghdad and LA circa 1992 are looking remarkably similar: Looters and beatings galore.

When ever civil society is back in Iraq, discussion must begin on what kind of government should Iraq have. Beyond a representative democracy (which Cheney & co. don't seem too thrilled by), I would like our Four Corners to debate what the role and nature of such a future government should be. Imagine it as a chance to play out your political science fantasy...so much for anti-imperialism.

2003-04-08T10:24:00.000-04:00

SECOND ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE DAY: Given the fact that we now are four (4) bloggers on a site called The Third Avenue, we have decided to change the name to The Four Corners, available at http://the4corners.blogspot.com. This might take some time to adjust itself so be forewarned. --Ed.

2003-04-08T10:03:00.000-04:00

Welcome to the Boyz Club: I would like to announce the hiring of the fourth member of our triumvirate-- Abby. The newest Third Avenue correspondent joins us from Geneva to get the European/International view of both the war and America itself.

Since we were kicked out of Baghdad with Al-Jazeera, The Third Avenue has had to depend on its own local sources for information on the latest development between the Tigris and Euphrates.

Stay tuned for more developments from our bleeding edge news team.

--Ed

2003-04-08T10:02:00.000-04:00

AN EXCERPT FROM Paul Wolfowitz's interview with Tony Snow on Fox Sunday News:

"Q: So, let's switch to one other battlefield thing, and then I want to get to post-war reconstruction. Weapons of mass destruction, there's been a lot of talk about it. To the best of your knowledge, has anybody found any actual weapons of mass destruction so far on the battlefield?

Wolfowitz: Let's be clear -- these incredible young men and women of ours are fighting a very tough fight. On -- yesterday, I was with some wounded Marines out at Bethesda Naval Hospital -- their spirit is fantastic, by the way. I mean, these -- it just makes you proud to be an American. They're wonderful. And -- but they -- they're in very tough fights out there. They have got to focus on winning this war. If they come across evidence of weapons of mass destruction, obviously we're interested, but right now our goal is to get control of the country, to get rid of this evil regime, and then --

Q: So, that's a secondary job, you'll look for those afterwards?

Wolfowitz: And in fact, bear in mind we've said all along the key to finding these things is to get the people who know about it in circumstances where they're no longer fearful, intimidated, and let them tell us. And we aren't yet at that point. In fact, most of those people are probably collected in places where they're intimidated and terrorized."

In other words, no, we haven't found anything yet, and even though that was our primary justification for invasion in the first place, now that we've gone ahead with the campaign, we can just send those memos down the chutes at the Ministry of Truth, because democracy is our real justification. Clearly.

2003-04-07T21:34:00.000-04:00

Not so fast... ABC News reports that the American forces have not yet unearthed a "smoking gun", as the substance thought to be sarin has, upon further testing, turned out to be a pesticide. ABC's article ends with this dry bit of editorializing:

"The fact that the coalition forces have come up with no clear evidence of WMD after capturing much of Iraq in 19 days of fighting has raised questions over the war's justification." I would add - questions that should have been resolved before America was plunged into an invasion that (former CIA director ) James Woosley assures us will lead to "World War IV".

2003-04-07T15:22:00.000-04:00

Liar, liar, capital on fire. Among the many lies that Saddam's regime has been espousing over the 20-odd years it has been in power is the whopper that they never...I mean now they don't...have weapons of mass destruction.

Well along with the "Troops? What troops?" presser that the Information Ministry (and its spokesman Mohammed Said al-Sahaf) has said in recent days even has US troops stormed the government office, NPR has reported that the "US marines haveuncovered 20 medium-range BM-21 rockets equipped with sarin and mustard gas found near Baghdad." The Israeli Online Military Gossip Column DEBKAfile says that a "Top official with 1st Marine Division [is] quoted as saying rockets were ready to fire."

Gulp!

Looks like Mohammed Said al-Sahaf has finally put Ari Fleicher to shame.

Thank God that Saddam's soldiers never resorted to such horrible acts that were not only against international law, but also human decency.

I guess the "coalition of the unwilling" --France, Russia, and Germany-- will have some explaining to do. Especially the Russians for giving the Iraqi army GPS jammers and night vision goggles. Ironically, US GPS-guided bombs were able to take out most of those jammers anyway.

2003-04-07T14:09:00.000-04:00

ARMED WITH A GAS MASK AND A LAPTOP: Prior to the 19th Century, war was a slow, drawn-out process. The lack of night vision apparatuses and proper lighting devices prevented most (planned) battles from occurring at night, when troops of opposing sides retired to their camps and, in some cases, even commiserated together and played cards and drank until sunrise, when battle would resume. News of warfare developments, consequently, took days, weeks, even months to reach mass audiences, particularly if oceans had to be crossed in order to transmit information. The coverage of the current campaign in Iraq, of course, has come a long way since King George III had to wait weeks before finding out George Washington had crossed the Delaware in the middle of the night to raid his British-Hessian troops. War now happens in real-time, thanks to developments in media technology and journalistic methodologies that makes comparing the 1991 Gulf War coverage to the 2003 coverage, as one major network executive has put it, "the equivalent of comparing Atari to Playstation." But is this really for the better?

It's only natural that in an age where Vin Diesel is the most popular stuntman in the box office, the American public would expect nothing less than the most sensational, eye-dazzling, front-seat view of a war that the majority of Americans feel carries the moral imperative of a "battle between good and evil" Hollywood plot. In an effort to take advantage of improved communications technology, from satellite video to instant-publishing Internet blogging, the Pentagon has experimented in this war with its controversial embedding program, which gives journalists an opportunity to follow along with infantry divisions and cover the day-to-day events of the war with startling detail. The result has been, for better or for worse, a view of the war that no one outside of the combat has ever seen before, and may not want to see.

Although the Pentagon has expressed pleasure over this new form of war coverage, the recent sudden deaths of prominent journalists such as Michael Kelly and now David Bloom, not to mention other lesser known reporters must raise at least a few eyebrows from those concerned about the safety of journalists on the fields of combat. Perhaps now that the war has progressed from strategic bombing raids and limited combat near the Iraqi borders to full-scale clashes in the heart of Baghdad, the determination of journalists to get at the heart of every story has placed them in greater danger than during the initial weeks, and the success of the embedding program has given journalists a sense of invincibility that, no more than any brave soldier straining his eyes through a desert sandstorm, they certain do not possess.

It is a wonderful duty that these journalists feel themselves called to in order to provide the public with the nothing but the facts, ma'am. But we're losing some of the most talented, thoughtful minds in the world, and a gripping editorial or headline with "in-the-trenches" experience to back one's story may not be worth it.

2003-04-07T10:41:00.000-04:00

THE BBC REPORTS TODAY the proposed post-war Iraq reconstruction program envisioned by the U.S. and Britain, which Blair and Bush are likely discussing today at a summit in northern Ireland. The post-war plan, consisting of three stages of operations, from military occupation to representative government, confirms the fears of many concerned with upholding the principles of international law: the apparent lack of any U.N. involvement. While the Bush administration has stated publicly that the "U.N. role has yet to be determined," it seems unlikely that Bush has any intention of allowing the U.N. to have a say in the reconstruction of Iraqi society and government, save token humanitarian assistance. Naturally the U.S. and U.K. have fears of the United Nations ruining their well-laid plans of war and regime change with bureaucratic inertia and political ineptitude not uncharacteristic of the international congress, but given the willingness of Russia, France, and Germany to cooperate in bringing a peaceful end to the situation in Iraq, it woud be unwise for the coalition states to pass up an opportunity to at least begin mending relations with Old Europe, which may be possible with even a nominal U.N. involvement in the post-war plans.

2003-04-07T10:32:00.000-04:00

As much as I disagree with what Michael Moore said at the Oscars three weeks ago, I have to hand it to him for examining America's love affair with firearms in Bowling for Columbine. Although I am not sure that I agree with his conclusion-- that the media and government are conspiring together to instill a constant state of fear, especially of minorities, so that Americans forget that they have high crime, corporate criminals running free, 41 million without health insurance, 5.8% unemployment, etc.-- but I do think that America is truly unique in its obsession with weapons.

Now I have no beef with hunters or people former victims of abusive relations having appropriate weapons, but do people really need to be able to bring weapons into churches, courthouses, and schools? No. Do average citizens really need AK-47s and other semi- or fully automatic assault rifles? Not really either. Who does? Well drug dealers and other members of "organized crime," of course (and our armed forces). Do people who have a history of criminal conduct, mental instability, or mental defect need weapons, especially concealed weapons? No not either.

The NRA and others who agree with them might make the argument that people need weapons in the US as a fundamental guarantee that they can rise up against an unjust government. This Jeffersonian view that "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots," does not sit well with reality.

Western Europe has some of the most restrictive gun control in the world but their country is far from a police state, in fact it is a social democracy/republic. Same goes with Canada, which has some of the loosest gun laws around, yet nowhere near the amount of death via guns that the U.S. has.

According to Slate's Timothy Noah, Iraq also has a reportedly open gun policy. Yet, even though they live in one of the most Stalin-like police state, nobody in Iraq rose up against the Ba'th Party regime.

Why not? It wasn't for lack of weapons, and don't give me the "they need better weapons," argument either. The reason why the Ba'th party is still in control is not because they have better weapons or training but because they are utterly ruthless.

Half of all Iraqi army deserters are caught and publicly executed in front of other potential deserters. And Iraqi officers are afraid to leave because they know that if they do, their families will be brutally tortured and murdered until there is no one left who remembers that officer.

The point of this whole ramble is that the NRA makes a lot of false arguments in the name of the second amendment, which under a very narrow reading, could be construed as out of date and invalid currently. After all, militias were only necessary when there was no standing army or navy or air force (since there were no airplanes in the 1790s) to defend Americans against foreign invaders and the Native Americans who were being murdered, lied to, and poisoned with chemical weapons (via smallpox infested blankets).

These days, I think defending the U.S. from Islamic fundamentalists is better left up to the Pentagon and national security team, as bad of a job as they did before 9/11. The only other major threat to U.S. security is nut jobs that want to take on/down the U.S. government themselves, ala the Unabomber, Waco, or Oklahoma City.

So unless you live out in an extremely rural area, there is no need to gave a gun in the house to protect yourself from criminals, as slow as 911 is to respond these days.

Speaking of which, do you know why average 911 response time in a city like Washington DC has gone up by about 10-15 minutes-- because our police and firefighters are working extra long shifts without pay. In San Diego, police officers have bring in their own toilet paper because the city is trying to cut back on costs to pay for the needed extra security. State governments are strapped for cash, but the federal government (aka Bush administration) won't lift a finger to help secure "the homeland" even though that is the one thing (that even libertarians would agree that) government should do. More details in the coming weeks.

2003-04-04T16:46:00.000-05:00

A great piece of commentary by The Onion, arguing cogently that "while there is a time to criticize, there is also a time to follow in complacent silence". An effort worthy of National Review.

2003-04-04T10:27:00.000-05:00

Former CIA director James Woolsley, who is rumored to be very high on a short list of potential successors to Saddam Hussein, is telling UCLA students that America is now engaged in World War IV against most of the arab governments in the Middle East. Though Woolsley did not cite arch-imperialist Norman Podhoretz' piece in Commentary, his "teach in" suggested that America has undertaken a commitment that will require decades of war to fulfill, and eventuate in America domination of the Middle East, which is precisely the plan that Podhoretz espouses. I expect increasingly "respectable" people to begin mouthing similar sentiments in the months to come. Donald Rumsfeld is already threatening Iran (for developing nuclear weapons) and Syria (for allegedly aiding Hussein). First, we'll hear Woolsley's sentiments echoed by Paul Wolfowitz, then Rumsfeld and Cheney, and finally, George Bush, Condeleeza Rice and Colin Powell. As a regretful Bush voter, I wonder when "prosperity with a purpose" became "perpetual war and depression for oil interests and the Likud party".

2003-04-03T14:28:00.000-05:00

It seems that our buddies State Senate Majority Leader Roy Cooper and Gov. Mike Easely in North Carolina are really fired up about the missing original copy of North Carolina's Bill of Rights that was given to the 13 original colonies by George Washington that may have resurfaced. Here comes the kicker, it disappeared in the Civil War and was allegedly stolen/perhaps purchased by a Union soldier. This anti Yankee sentiment is being stirred up by these two now that the copy has turned up in a CONNECTICUT ANTIQUE DEALER's possession. People in the south say it was stolen, the antique dealer's lawyer claims this cannot be proven and that it may have been purchased from a southerner who was hard up for cash.

This past year, the wallet of General William Lee Davidson was given on loan from the Public Records Office in London. Gen. Davidson was killed in action at Cowen's Ford creek, a precursor to the battle of Guilford Courthouse--the most hotly contested and crucial battle of the Southern Campaign. Cornwall is ended up winning a pyrrhic victory, was nearly captured himself, and his forces were softened up for our eventual victory at Yorktown. Anyway, the wallet was taken by the British and eventually resurfaced. Much to the delight of the authorities at Guilford Battleground park it was given on loan to the museum for a year. What they didn't foresee was the North Carolina red necks getting fired up about it and threatening not to give it back. Their reasoning, was that they stole it. The British mugged General Davidson. This got a ton of press and a lot of conversation. With this precedent already in place the issue of the State's original Bill of Rights and the language that they are using already, it seems that they are trying to fan the flames of regionalism that are still smoldering--not quite beneath the surface.

For Easely and Cooper to be out in front on this, I can almost guarantee Sens. Edwards and Lieberman will be asked about it and it could become a regionally divisive sentiment that could resonate for the other Presidental candidates from the New England, stay tuned...

2003-04-02T15:36:00.000-05:00

And I thought it was April Fool's: Turns out U.S. House Democrats overwhelmingly passed their alternative budget resolution yesterday, with only some thirty-odd Republicans voting against it.

Do you know how often that happens? Almost never! The House is the most bare-majority rules type of place I have ever seen, save maybe the British system which lets the majority choose its own election date.

I guess it just goes to show that the rank and file Republicans have a conscience. They can't cut funding for veteran's pensions to make way for a $725 billion dividend tax cut during a war.

If only Bush and his allies would stop using the war to ram through their tax cuts. The "let's do it for the Troops" argument isn't going to fly, especially the "they'll need jobs to come home to" line of reasoning. Actually, employers are required to keep on called up military men and women (Thanks to Bill Clinton of course). So much for that.

As to Steve's compromise, I am all for it, as long as Anthony posts again!

2003-04-02T15:11:00.000-05:00

How about this for a deal:

We let the neocons govern Iraq. And, in exchange, they let the rest of us govern the United States.
Would that make everyone happy?

2003-04-01T14:58:00.000-05:00

Don't use the 'V' Word: I don't know about you, but like Ed Kilgore, I am sick and tired of Liberals crying out "Vietnam!" every time we engage in conflict.

Hate to break it to you, but there will never be another or a next Vietnam. That war was characterized as a slowly escalating battle against an anti-colonialist group, which happened to be Communist too. America was seen as the next foreign imperialist/invader, after the French.

As badly as the Bush administration has bungled the diplomacy/politics and the military planning of the buildup and actual war, we are far from being in a quagmire.

U.S. forces are less than fifty miles away from Baghdad, people! Meanwhile, American planes can freely fly over the city and bomb the crap out of any form of resistance.

Sure, supply lines are stretched thin, Arabs are busing in to take us on, and we don't see Basra cheering us on, but the U.S. and U.K. military are far superior and have advantage in nearly every position.

Instead of trying to force every conflict into the tired, worn Vietnam mold, these Liberals should be worried about post-war Iraq. It seems the same civilian chickenhawks that thought their version of "shock and awe" would make Saddam's "House of Cards" collapse easily are planning on installing themselves as post-Saddam rulers. As Joshua Micah Marshall says, "It's not even an American occupation; it's an AEI occupation." That's sure to leave paleoconservatives like The Third Avenue's own Steve worried.

2003-04-01T11:47:00.000-05:00

USA Today's editors have hit the nail on the head. The US economy does not need more fiscal stimulus! Arguing that (a) our financially unsound federal government cannot afford it, and (b) present weaknesses in consumer and investment demand will likely abate once the war in Iraq is won anyway, this piece comes to the right conclusion. Even more to the point, however, a government that is already running $400 billion in the red cannot credibly promise to tax less and spend more anyway. In addition, the very fact of a large deficit suppresses business investment. A large budget deficit implies that, at some unknown time, some unknown combination of tax increases and spending cuts (insofar as the government reigns in its own deficit) and interest rate rises and exchange rate depreciation (insofar as the deficit must be financed out of private savings) will be required. The uncertainty inherent in this environment is a drag on demand that may be comparable to the uncertainty generated by the war itself. If the Bush administration wants recovery, it can't do much better than to wrap up its adventures, abroad, and put its finances in order back home.

2003-03-31T09:46:00.000-05:00

Some one in the Joint Chiefs has a bone to pick: Who are Seymour Hersh's sources? The man who is being sued by now former Defense Board Policy Chairman Richard Perle now has the top Brass whining about Rummy's war plan. Apparently, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld sent back war plans which called for more troops repeatedly. Sounds like the ol' Don has come down with an acute form of the Bush virus: ignore or berate everything and everyone that doesn't agree with your opinion, even if they are right.

Now granted, twelve days into the war is a bit early to be second guessing, but if front line commanding officers are complaining that they don't have enough men and/or equipment, then don't say they don't understand the whole picture. They, in case the obvious is hard to grasp, are actually on the battlefield. Unlike Donald, Richard (Perle and Cheney), or George, they are actually fighting in a war.

The lesson to be learned from Waging Modern War, besides the fact that General Clark didn't care for politicking but did like to boast, is that the modern Pentagon is supposed to differ to frontline commanding officers but tend not to do so. During the Kosovo war, Clark was being overruled by Cohen, State, the Joint Chiefs, and NATO member countries. Since the U.S. have no allies other than the U.K. to speak of, there is no more NATO to overrule, nor does State have much pull, all of overruling comes from the civilian (whom are without military experience) commanders like Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, and Cheney.

The president has deferred to about everyone, except himself. I guess a guy who can't remember a few months of his comfy Texas National Guard service shouldn't be trusted to military strategy, he figures.

2003-03-28T11:45:00.000-05:00

THIS JUST IN:Thanks no doubt in part to pressure from The Third Avenue, Richard Perle has resigned his post at the Defense Policy Board, choosing, like Kissinger secrets and Saudi money over transparency and decency.

I would like to congratulate Steve in particular for starting us off on this noble pursuit. Hat's off to you, Steve. Good work!

2003-03-27T13:46:00.000-05:00

Well, well, well, turns out Governor Davis wasn't lying at all: FERC (the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) said that more than 30 private firms manipulated natural gas and electricity prices during the California energy crisis, and would in turn increase the state's refund to about $3.3 billion.

Who are some of these culprits? Why Enron of course. According to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics,

"Between 1989 and 2001, Enron contributed nearly $6 million to federal parties and candidates, more than two-thirds to Republicans. More than $2 million of that money came during the 1999-2000 election cycle alone, when the company became one of the biggest boosters to President Bush's campaign for the White House. Enron's PAC and its employees contributed $114,000 to Bush during the 2000 campaign, while former Enron CEO Kenneth Lay served as one of Bush's Pioneers, individuals who raised at least $100,000 for the campaign."

Meanwhile, FERC, after resisting in 2001 and 2002, is finally getting tough on these companies, threatening to revoke the trading authority of eight subsidiaries of Enron for, according to the LA Times, "allegedly gaming the natural gas market." FERC is also prepared to strip the trading authority of Reliant Energy Services Inc., now known as Reliant Resources Inc., and BP Energy Co. for allegedly engaging in "coordinated efforts" to manipulate electricity prices at Palo Verde, a key Arizona trading hub.

Instead of being pleased by the 3.3 billion in fines, ornery Gray Davis, who has become increasingly unpopular and is under threat of a recall petition that won't go away, said "Show me the money! ...Where's the $9 billion that we've been asking for, for two years? That is when I'll finally feel vindicated, when we get the money back that these energy companies stole from this state."

Don't get me wrong, I am no fan of Davis. He has about as much spine as a certain junior senator from Massachusetts, leaving his convictions at the door and his opinions be whatever popular opinion or check bearing interest groups deem proper. Nonetheless, to get recalled, a governor needs to do something about as bad ex-IL Gov. Ryan, CT Gov. Rowland, and KY Gov. Patton combined are accused of doing.

2003-03-27T12:08:00.000-05:00

America the Medieval. Hans Blix is now on record saying that none of the evidence the American/British invasion has unearthed thus far indicates that Iraq continues to hold prohibited weapons. Let history remember that it was the US, not Iraq, that terminated the inspections process before guilt could be ascertained beyond a reasonable doubt. Today, the Bush and Blair administrations posture as defenders of international law. But what kind of law are they defending? What kind of law is it that cuts short an investigative process to dole out a punishment that the accusers resolved was necessary, in advance? True, the Iraqi nation's punishment, for a crime its government is not known to have committed, may yet discover evidence of that regime's guilt or innocence. But what kind of a system is it that uses a crime's punishment to determine whether or not that crime was committed? A system far crueler and more irrational than the legal processes of Medieval Times. Bush and Blair should not be surprised that most of the world's peoples find their legalistic rhetoric implausible. Their administrations do not appear to be peddlers of anything other than American might.

2003-03-27T10:47:00.000-05:00

Amid all the dying and war in Iraq, America lost another great patriot here at home: Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

The Harvard professor turned Senator of New York was the last of the academic Senators. While many may claim he was a liberal's liberal, many leftist would object to such a line given his memos and books on race relations (and African-Americans in particular). Moreover, he worked for Presidents Nixon, Ford, Johnson and Kennedy (and that was before his four terms in the Senate). He was even wise enough to urge federal authorities take custody of Lee Harvey Oswald, which could have averted the whole conspiracy mess that makes us watch Oliver Stone films.

This is a man who, unlike the current crop of millionaires and/or relatives of politicians past who make up the 108th U.S. Senate, grew up in Hell's Kitchen fatherless and impoverished.

Other than that, rumors have it that if one wanted Moynihan's opinion on the social security reform board that he chaired for Dubya, you had to reach him before 4 PM. After that, he would either be drunk or trying to become that way.

Whether he was an alcoholic or not, Moynihan contributed much to the Senate and the United States, even if his career, as Adam Clymer puts it, "was marked not by legislative milestones but by ideas."

2003-03-26T15:44:00.000-05:00

War Casualties Update. Today's online Boston Globe contains an excellent tally of American, British and Iraqi casualties. On the US/British side, the numbers are not trivial. Thus far, there have been 18 confirmed American combat casualties, for example. Meanwhile, about ten Americans have been killed in non-combat incidents. The British figures are comparable to the American figures, while Iraqi military and civilian casualties probably both number in the hundreds. Iraqbodycount.net now estimates that the total number of Iraqi civilian casualties is up to between 227 and 307, while the Boston Globe article suggests that at least 100 Iraqis may have suffered death or serious injury as combatants.

2003-03-26T11:30:00.000-05:00

Remember back, way back, to 1998? When Clinton said he had "never had sexual relations with that woman?" Or when GOP Congressman Chris Cox started his witch hunt to link Clinton's 1996 re-election efforts to a tit-for-tat with the People's Republic of China?

Back then, while Clinton was out destroying any chance Al Gore had of ever winning the White House (and undoing all his political successes through not only his sex acts but, more importantly lying and cover up of the whole affair), the Republican Congress was believed that Clinton had sold satellite technology to the Chinese government in exchange for doubly-illegal campaign contributions. Of course, the money from Chinese nationals was returned the instant it turned out to be illegal, and neither the tit-for-tat nor the endangering national security charges would ever be substantiated.

Flash forward to 2003. Richard Perle, an unpaid but government employee nonetheless is "advising" Global Crossing for a mere $125,000. Global Crossing, by the way (for those of you with short memories) is the same company which lost millions of dollars after admitting to Enron-like accounting measures and which DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffie suspiciously made tons of money on his "lucky" stock picks.

Because Global Crossing is bankrupt, they are trying to sell a controlling interest in their company, whose assists consists mostly of a fiber optic network, to Chinese and Singapore companies! And the little trouble with this sale is that this state-of-the-art fiber optic network is used by the U.S. government (including the military) and that Perle gets another $600,000 if the government approves the deal.

Oh isn't the irony sweet? Instead of the claim that the Chinese are trying to influence U.S. elections (even though Clinton was going to and did win handily without the money), a counterclaim can be made that the communist country can now try to control the one thing they can't-- the Internet. In theory, they could also mess up or tap U.S. military information streams as well.

Three and a half years ago, then Majority Leader Trent wrote the Pentagon saying, "This administration [the Clinton administration] is allowing a scenario to develop where U.S. national security interests could not be protected without confronting the Chinese communists in the Americas," adding, "We have given the farm away without a shot being fired."

The same could be said for the current administration, except instead of giving the farm away, they are selling it for $725,000, or one millionth of their tax cut plan for the rich!

2003-03-26T10:05:00.000-05:00

Richard Perle, arguably the most influential pro-war intellectual in the United States, may soon be under investigation for serving on the president's Defense Policy Board, where he advocated a regime change in Iraq irrespective of whether or not that country complied with the UN inspection process, while advising private companies on how they can profit from that war. In this piece, Maureen Dowd advises Perle to "remove the laurel wreath from his head and replace it with a paper bag". Perle deserves much, much worse.

2003-03-25T10:26:00.000-05:00

Why is the Today Show interviewing the families of the POWs after just interviewing Iraq's ambassador to the U.N.? I am not questioning their loyalties, but rather their interviewing skills. These guys are meant to interview Adrian Brody after winning Best Actor, not a lying diplomat or nervous families.

I can't bring myself to watch the interviews with POW families. First of all, its painful to torture them this way. Secondly, it serves no purpose. What news is there to report, that they renounce their wimpy son/daughter for being caught? Are the armed forces going to forget about these POWs and leave them to rot in Saddam's torture chambers? No. Does it bring the reality of the war to our living room? Maybe, but it feels more like interviewing a family after their loved one just committed suicide or something outside social norms. We all wiggle in our seats like when President Bush has to pronounce a big word.

But more disturbing than the Iraqi armed resistance on the way to Baghdad is the fact that we don't see images of smiling Iraqis greeting U.S./U.K. forces (except for that first village across the Kuwaiti border). I agree with Mickey Kaus that Andrew Sullivan made the understatement of the month by saying,

"I also think that we hawks might have under-estimated the Iraqis' sense of national violation at being invaded - despite their hatred of Saddam.

If we had been able to get the U.N. to sanction this action, which by now seems impossible given the fact that we are finding Russian and French equipment in the hands of the Iraqi army/Ba'th party, there would have been less resistance and less appearance of oil-driven motivations towards an American Empire.

Yes, Anthony and Steve, I am drudging that old bit out again. To some extent, I too worry about neo-con drives for a "new American Empire" which they thing will be better than the Romans, etc. because they mean well. Oh and the other imperialist thought they were just dominating? Please. The truth is, Americans have never been good at colonies or domination that way. Just look at our record in the Caribbean or Philippians circa Teddy Roosevelt.

Now those Marxists who march on the World Bank, IMF, and WTO meetings would say that we control countries in a colonial fashion via trade and loan agreements. While it is true that the "North" has vastly more money and influence on the international system than the "South," it is a bit ridiculous to say that the U.S. control them, otherwise they would have voted with the U.S. on the second U.N. resolution.

This whole notion of finding the next McArthur to replace Saddam after we conquer Baghdad is really creepy and misguided too. As General Wesley Clark warns,

"Above all, we must not use our presence in Iraq as a launching pad for self-glorification, imperial pretenses or further expeditions but as an opportunity to strengthen the international institutions that we have spent more than 50 years developing and nourishing."

2003-03-24T17:50:00.000-05:00

Remember when the first President Bush asked Americans to "Read my Lips"?: Well now you should heed the words of his son in this hilarious bit by swedes with lots of free time and video tape. No matter how you feel about the war, or Bush (or Blair for that matter), I bet you will be laughing by the end of it.

Make sure you have your speakers turned up, that is where the fun starts, but make sure your boss can't hear it. :)

2003-03-24T13:34:00.000-05:00

Thank God for the folks at iraqbodycount.net, who estimate that Iraqis have suffered between 135 and 209 civilian casualties since January of this year. It is one of our media's most glaring failures that no one compiled a reliable estimate of the number of Iraqi civilian casualties caused by American operations during the last Gulf War. As a result, there is no reliable factual basis that can be used to judge that war's humanitarian merits (although, if one includes the destruction wrought by the ensuing sanctions regime, that war can almost surely be judged a humanitarian nightmare). I encourage readers to assess Iraq Body Count's methodology themselves.

As an aside, inquiring minds ought to know that a similar inquiry estimates that America's Afghanistan campaign is, thus far, responsible for over 3000 civilian casualties--a number comparable to our own country's tragic losses on September 11.

2003-03-24T11:47:00.000-05:00

GIVEN HOW MANY REPUBLICANS (and Democrats, for that matter) have by now been fully absorbed into the Bush cult of personality, which continues to grow stronger as troops advance toward Baghdad, it's refreshing to think that there's at least one Republican out there with a mind of his own. Yesterday's New York Times Magazine provides a lengthy piece on Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), whose opposition to the Bush tax plan, efforts in Iraq, and several other key aspects of the Bush agenda make him one lonely Republican. I actually met Chafee In Providence back in 1999, when he had just been appointed his father's successor to the Senatorial seat. While illuminating some important points about Chafee's background as a rare liberal Republican, I think the piece actually does quite a bit of injustice to the man, painting him as a political fish out of water, unsure of his place in Congress and unable to gain the respect of his colleagues (he doesn't even have the courage to eat in the Senate lunch room, preferring to eat alone in his own office). When I heard him speak in person, before he had literally any experience in Washington, he spoke with the confidence of a man who understood well his duty as a legislator, and was both optimistic about his future and reflective of the work of his emiment father, without whom he wouldn't be there.

Underlying Chafee's story is a poignant illustration of the current political landscape; specifically, why is being a liberal Republican so rare at the moment? Chafee is what the article calls a "Yankee Republican," whose relatively liberal stances on fiscal and foreign policy come closer to resembling Clintonian Democrats than Republicans. Chafee laments, however, that Bush has taken the Republican party in an entirely different direction, kowtowing to the conservative interests of the South and Midwest, and taking on a true Reaganite philosophy that belies the originally centrist platform upon which he campaigned in 2000: "It was such a surprise to see the agenda. It was so different from the campaign rhetoric."

Unfortunately, Chafee seems alone in his analysis of Bush's transformation, which, curiously enough, almost no one has else has pointed out. In her book, Washington, a confluence of reflective memoir and dissection of Capitol Hill social culture, the late Washington Post editor Meg Greenfield discusses at length the playground-like workings of Congressional life, with "freshman" legislators having to "pay their dues" in order to move up into the ranks of the revered senior statesmen, risking social ostracization should they try to break the mold:

"'Freshman,' for instance, is a congressional designation that is taken very seriously,
entailing if not exactly hazing at least some initiation rites and put-downs by the big
kids and expectations of deference to the elders while one is being tested and looked
over and kept busy learning the place's protocols and taboos."

Chafee is certainly facing the brunt of this reality as he continues to be the lone voice of Republican dissidence. But maybe some of his colleagues should be coming to his office for lunch instead.

2003-03-24T10:13:00.000-05:00

After a weekend of non-stop, exhausting war coverage with intermittent NCAA basketball games, I think we have officially reached the 21st century--and all the horrible events and consequences of it.

Within moments of the grenade incident at Camp Pennsylvania [more on the name later], all the networks were streaming back via video phone the news, even before the Pentagon could inform the families.

As of today, reporting has described the situation (in which one died and 16 are wounded) as fratricide by a Muslim member of the 101st Airborne who, because of disciplinary problems was to stay behind when the group was to cross the border into Iraq.

We still don't know why this man did this to his fellow soldiers, so we should not pass judgment yet until the full truth is know.

In other grim news, Iraqi units, pretending to surrender (by acting as described in the pamphlets that Psyche-Ops had rained down on Iraq), ambushed troops killing between 10 and 15. To add to the troubles, it appears that some support troops took a wrong turn and have been captured by Iraqi forces. Of course, these POWs are being treated inhumanely, and Iraq has already violated the Geneva Convention.

Of course, the U.S. had to stoop to guerilla and deceptive tactics once before, during the Revolutionary War, when we too were vastly ill-equipped and out manned compared to the invading force. Nevertheless, I am NOT comparing Iraqi army to the Continental Army of the 1770s-80s. The Iraqi people are ruled by a man not unlike Stalin or Hitler who sees people as his stepping-stones to achieving world domination and tyrannical control. He views the Kurds with even less respect, using them to test out his Weapons of Mass Destruction, which are also against international law. He is a horrible, horrible man, who I will not cry over when he dies.

Whether or not one is for this war, or has loved ones or countrymen involved in it, everyone should morn the loss of life and torture of individuals. I know, the far left would like me to mention the innocent civilians that already have been harmed by this war. So far, however, these loses are still far outpaced by the torture and loss of life of Iraqis by Saddam and the Ba'th party over its nearly 40-year reign of terror. Soon, U.S. and British forces will forever close down the rape rooms and torture chambers, uncover vast troves of chemical and biological weapons that Iraqi still denies possessing.

And we all hope that the Iraqi people will someday soon be able to govern themselves in a Federalist style government so that each ethnic and warring faction can counter-balance the other, in contrast to the current systems of government in the region.

The honorary Oscar for Peter O'Toole, who played Lawrence of Arabia should remind everyone why we have such horrible troubles in the middle east. The British Empire and that man Lawrence in particular, who bargained away the sovereignty of Arabs to defeat the Ottomans and control the flow of oil. In fact, the shape of Iraq and Jordan are solely to accommodate a pipeline to the Mediterranean Sea and have absolutely nothing to do with the people that live there, nor their illegitimate royal rulers.

Speaking of rulers, our own President Bush and his military planners decided to send out one last message that Al-Qaeda and Hussein are connected by naming camps in Northern Kuwait after the states that suffered loss of life from September 11, 2001. Please Mr. President, I don't agree with Michael Moore, but stop insulting our intelligence with such acts.

2003-03-22T12:10:00.000-05:00

ON A LIGHTER NOTE, a national guardsman, who is bound for the Persian Gulf to serve his country in "Operation Iraqi Freedom", has changed his name to "Optimus Prime", in honor of the commander of the Autobots, from the popular children's action cartoon, The Transformers. I think I have a new hero.

2003-03-21T17:30:00.000-05:00

A less antiquated definition of empire, coming from Houghton Mifflin's yourdictionary.com defines empire as:

1.
a.A political unit having an extensive territory or
comprising a number of territories or nations
and ruled by a single supreme authority.
b.The territory included in such a unit.

This definition strikes me as a reasonable understanding of modern usage of the word "empire". Wouldn't a government that has installed puppet regimes in Afghanistan, Iraq and several other Middle Eastern countries be a "political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations ruled by a single supreme authority"? Of course it would. Although the exponents of such a plan have vague wishes to disengage from the Middle East once it becomes stable and democratic, what they want in the interim can be described by reasonable, dictionary owning people, as an empire.

On another note, my previous post did not state that I ascribe to "isolationism" (I don't). My point is merely that paleoconservatives are right to raise the spectre of an American empire. It is a prospect that is increasingly being realized, for good (as Max Boot would have it) or ill.