He IS a Conservative.

A lot of people on the right have been saying that George W. Bush doesn't deserve the amount of abuse he receives from liberal because he has put more money into certain programs that liberals like. There are two things wrong with this analysis, the implementation of this government expansion has been done in a way that would be the least likely to please liberals and this analysis focuses too narrowly on spending, when we look at the big picture, anyone with eyes to see can realize how far to the right this president is.

First of all, the way Bush has gone about boosting funding for different social programs is noxious to the center-left. The pharmaceutical companies essentially designed the medicare prescription drug benefit and while liberals generally support such a benefit, designing it in such away is clearly not going to earn their admiration. It is true Bush has increased education spending, but the requirements imposed by No Child Left Behind are not covered by the increase and so a large part of the President's education plan is an unfunded mandate imposed on state and local governments (something conservatives use to be against). A lot of the other spending hikes have been for things liberals really don't care about and primarily driven by cynical political considerations. Do the democrats; does anyone, really care about the NEA? No, they do not.

More importantly, when we look at the whole of President Bush's agenda (and the agenda of the Republican party), rather than focus obsessively over certain actions, it becomes quite clear it is reactionary. The stereotype of "tax and spend" liberals isn't entirely baseless. Tax and budgetary policy is important to liberals and when you look at what Bush is doing on this front, you can see why the left hates him. Tax cuts themselves are enormous and they are without question tilted towards the richest Americans. They also deprive the federal government of revenue, which means that there is less money for things liberals actually like. The tax cuts have caused a tremendous budget deficit and the fiscal situation will only get worse if the Republicans hold on to power. As the fiscal situation deteriorates, not only will new reforms become impossible, there will have to be a serious reduction in the existing activities and goals of the welfare state. When the broader fiscal picture is considered, Bush's "liberalism" seems all the more sinister. While he puts more burdens on the government in order to win the votes of moderates, he is systematically making it harder and harder for us to pay for these burdens. Therefore, the growth of government under Bush is only accelerating the conservative agenda. Each additional dollar of spending brings us nearer to a fiscal train wreck that will have serious consequences for the American and global economy and possibly end any chance at reform for a generation.

In light of these facts, particularly the part about crushing the liberal state with huge amounts of debt, there are plenty of good reasons to revile the President. He is unique in his cavalier attitude about the national debt (Reagan, George Bush Sr. and Clinton enacted tax hikes to bring the deficit under control) and this recklessness will end up costing us all dearly.

Loserman

Lieberman Trails Kerry In Connecticut
Senator Lieberman, it is time to pack it in. You're poll numbers have only gone in one direction, down, since the start of the campaign and you are making a clown out of yourself by staying in the race. Do yourself and the party a faover and drop out now. Even Braun knew when to quit.

The Right Priorities

The Bush administration said on Thursday it wants to spend $274 million in 2005 to build a system that can detect and react to outbreaks of disease -- natural or otherwise. -The Reuters

The request for the Missile Defense Agency is $9.14 billion, according to a copy of the budget President Bush (news - web sites) plans to send to Congress on Monday. That would be nearly 20 percent above last year's $7.6 billion for the agency. -The AP

Billions for an unworkable missile defense program to defend us from a largely imaginary threat and a pittiance to protect America from biological warfare and disease. I guess public health professionals aren't as generous campaign donors as aerospace corporations.

A Miserable Intelligence Failure

Bush Declines to Back Call for Iraq Probe

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) said Friday "I want to know the facts" about any intelligence failures concerning Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s alleged cache of forbidden weapons but he declined to endorse calls for an independent investigation.

So, if our inability to find Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq is due to shoddy work on the part of American and foreign intelligence agencies, like the administration says, then why isn't Bush serious about correcting the problem? Maybe because it wasn't really the fault of the CIA, but rather a White House too eager to sell a war the public would not have backed otherwise. Then again, maybe I am just playing election year "gotcha", its not lik accountibility is a crucial component of a working democracy or sound policy making.

The National Review Also Gets Letters

The Corner also engages in the irritating practice of posting letters that express views that are in agreement with yours, but are so laughable that you are afraid to express them and so only do it via proxy. Here is one such example

Peggy Noonan wrote this in 2002. I think she was right then and I think this is what we're seeing now too:

The reason is Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The reason is that GWB is doing an FDR.

And I think people know this without quite knowing it.

FDR would sacrifice anything, he'd tack left right and center, to win World War II. You can almost literally trace the end of FDR's New Deal legislation to the beginning of the war in Europe in September 1939. Yes, the court-packing scandal had something to do with it, and so did the Supreme Court finding aspects of the New Deal unconstitutional. But after Hitler moved on Poland, Roosevelt sacrificed almost all his liberal domestic plans, angering his own supporters and disappointing his party's interest groups, in order to mollify conservatives and refocus voters' attention away from the Depression and onto the war. He knew he would need broadened support to execute a war. He disappointed much of his base to get it.

Mr. Bush is doing the same thing. He is accepting what he thinks he has to accept (pork, a bad trade bill) in order to keep or expand the power balance he has in Washington, and in order to keep from angering or offending your basic, normal, politically nonobsessed citizen.

Shorter The Corner: FDR+Lincoln+Washington+Woodrow Wilson+Reagan+Jesus Christ=George W. Bush

I guess that enormous and unpopular 2003 capital gains tax cut that Bush rammed through congress was meant to show how much he was willing to compromise his domestic agenda in the name of the war on terror and in the spirit of national untiy. Thank goodness that Bush isn't as a divisive figure as Howard Dean, otherwise we might be at the mercy of a lunatic whose minor foibles are known to us (rather than presented as virtues by his crotching sniffing lapdogs in the press).

Another Poll Has Bush Losing

Kerry Tops Bush In National Tracking Poll

A poll by Rasmussen Reports has Kerry beating Bush by one point. Yes, its much too early to who will win in 2004 and 1% is a very small lead (but I suspect this election will be determined by a margin of about that size), but it is a good sign, especially given that a few weeks ago the same poll had Kerry getting creamed by the President. Only 37% of those surveyed considered Kerry to be a liberal, with most identifying him as either a moderate or a conservative. Good stuff.

Marshall Hasn't FORGOTTEN

The other day I quoted a post by Andrew Sullivan complaing that Blogstar Josh Marshall neglected to mention 9-11 in his recent essay for the New Yorker. Later that day, I went out and read a copy of the essay and discovered that Marshall did in fact mention 9-11. Marshall also responded to Sullivan's smear by posting an excerpt from his essay proving the point. Here is Josh Marshall's response:

I’ll let readers judge whether the essay really ignores 9/11 and the effect it’s had on the country --- an interpretation which strikes me as rather strained. But as to the particular point, yes, I think he did miss something.

After September 11th, a left-wing accusation became a right-wing aspiration: conservatives increasingly began to espouse a world view that was unapologetically imperialist.
And in case there’s any unclarity, when I referred to September 11th, I was referring to the terrorist attacks that happened on that day. And in the previous sentence when I referred to 'terrorist attacks' I was referring to the hijacked airliners that were flown into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and the field in central Pennsylvania.

Andrew is of course right that I don’t see Bush administration foreign policy as simply a logical and unavoidable response to 9/11. I see it as both a pretext for and a catalyst of the implementation of an approach which the architects of the administration’s foreign policy had supported long before they even considered al Qaida type terrorism much of a threat.

Yeah, it seems that Sullivan believes he can safely ignore the most obvious facts when he is trying to make a point. Well, I believe I'll give it whirl. ANdrew Sullivan claims he values the sanctity of life, but not only does he perform involuntary abortions on women he grabs of the street, he totally sold a bunch of Toddlers into white slavery! If Andrew Sullivan would like to dispute my charges, I am more than happy to let him to. I'd also like links to 3 examples from Sullivan's blog where he specifically condemns the practice of performing abortions on unwill subjects and selling toddlers (and they must be toddlers) into slavery.

"I don't believe in planning...."

Area police donate vests to protect Guard in Iraq
National guard units from Michigan are being given bulletproof panels for their humvees. It appears these humvees were only intended to ferry supplies, not for combat. Jesus christ, I can't believe stuff like this. How on Earth can we send our soldiers out there without proper equipment? This is terrible and there is no excuse. Since at least early 2002 it was pretty clear that there was a really good chance there was going to be a war with Iraq, how come no one thought to take care of things like this?

Sullivan Pulls A Bush

From Andrew Sullivan.com

Josh Marshall has written an engaging and artful essay about the notion of an American empire for the liberal New Yorker magazine. I read it yesterday and then re-read it. Josh manages to write about the Clinton era "soft-imperialism" and the Bush era "hard imperialism" with nary a mention of a certain even that occurred on September 11, 2001. Maybe I missed something. I doubt if his editors noticed the lacuna. Why should they? For the Clintonites, 9/11 didn't really happen. Everything the Bush administration has tried to do in foreign policy is perverse, neocon imperialism - despite the fact that Bush ran as less interventionist than Al Gore in 2000. It doesn't seem to have occurred to them that this administration's hard line against terror-sponsoring regimes and those developing WMDs was not some ideological plot - but a reaction to events.

Never mind that Iraq didn't have WMD's, wasn't even close, had very limited ties to Al Qeada, no connection with 9-11 or the War on Terror. It was a reaction to events and that is all you need to know. Unless you have forgotten.

More News From the Troubled Dean Campaign

Dean: Doesn't Need to Win Any State Tues.
Howar Dean is saying that his focus is on picking up delegates, not winning the next round of primaries, so all he needs to do is place in the 7 state races on Febuary 3rd. It seems he is playing the expectations game. He knows he has a problem on his hands and he is not going to make a comeback by next week, so he's playing down his anticipated defeats in advance. Hey, its better than Lieberman's delusional optimism. This primary race is starting to make Senator Lieberman look like a fool, like one of those kids in school who would always pretend that they had a lot friends, when it was quite obvious that not a single person liked them. You know what I am talking about, if you are cruising the blogosphere you probably were one or currently are one.

A Really Bad Sign For The Deaniacs

Dean Suspends Advertising

Howard Dean "has chosen to forgo further advertising in this round," the Washington Post reports.

The New York Times says the campaign "has upended its advertising strategy. Dr. Dean, who last June was the first candidate to advertise, is now the only major candidate to be off the air right now, and his strategists said Wednesday night that they were in no hurry to return." Furthermore, Dean campaign officials "said they were only confident of having enough money to compete through next week."

No advertising for this round of primaries? First of all, these are real primariesthat send a good number of delegates to the convetnon. Secondly, this is the last bunch of primaries before Super Tuesday. If he doesn't make a respectable showing soon, he'll have the kind of fatal Joementum that has effectively killed the Lieberman candidacy by the time Super Tuesday rolls around. Then again, he could come back big with the use of magic and pixie dust. I am not writing anyone off anymore.

A Whale for All Seasons

Sperm whale explodes in Tainan City

A dead sperm whale being transported through Tainan City on its way to a research station suddenly exploded yesterday, splattering cars and shops with blood and guts.

Certified by authorities as the largest beached whale on record in Taiwan, the 17-meter 50-ton carcass was being transported by a flat-bed trailer-truck to a special research location after National Cheng Kung University officials and security guards refused to allow the whale on campus...

Lying on the trailer-truck was the dead whale - underbelly exposed with a large elongated tear where the biological gaseous blowout took place. Besides the shocking red bloody mess, large piles of whale intestines and guts were strewn along the road, leaving an unpleasant and ghastly scene for startled residents....

Trippi Is Out

Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi resigned after Dean tried to demote him. Howard Dean has now made former Gore aide his new campaign manager.

Dean is also running out of money, but so are all the other Democrats.

Rob Bluey caught ABC's John Stossel on his book tour at Cato. Stossel caused jaws to drop among colleagues when he insisted "Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say conservative the way people say child molester...[Conservative] is the worst thing for a reporter to be called. And I'm a little puzzled why they call me a conservative." Stossel said he has libertarian views when it comes to drug use, prostitution, homosexuality, and flag burning. -The Corner

Stossel also complained that conservatives are slaughtered for sport in the modern day Sodom of Manhattan and that watching conservatives getting fed to lions is the most popular sport among the dreaded Liberal Elite.

Jeeze, why can't we just crucify these sorts of people and get it over with. Everyone would be happy. Stossel and his friends would be happy because they are being oppressed and having their rights taken away liberals and provided with a perfect opportunity to revel in their victimhood and I get to see people like this getting put to death. Hell, I'd volunteer to play Pontius Pilot, Judas Iscariot or a Roman Soldier.

No Good Options

It is rumored that George W. Bush might dump Dick Cheney before the 2004 election. Dick Cheney, as everyone with eyes to see knows, is a class A creep and his massively unpopular. Getting rid of him would be a good move for Bush politically. However, the man who is said to be at the top of the short list to replace the current VP, Rudolph Guliani has liabilities of his own. Guliani, is a bit too New York for a lot of Bush's supporters. Remember that Rudy has endorsed Democrats in the past, had an affair, divorced his wife, married his mistress and is pro-choice. That isn't going to make a lot of christian fundementalists want to jump out of their pews and pull the lever for Bush-Guliaini. Then again, he tried to bully the Brooklyn museum for having an exhibit that was "anti-religious", needlessly antagonized New York's minorities (Bloomberg is much better about race relations than Rudy ever was) and loves rich people and big corporations, so it is possible that all will be forgiven.

Gaffes

From Tacitus

I've got Dean's speech on in the background while I'm working on some other stuff. In the midst of a lengthy rant about GWB allegedly playing the race card by using the word "quota" with regard to the University of Michigan's affirmative action program, he stated that the current Supreme Court was the most conservative since the one that issued the Dred Scott decision.

*Who's* playing the race card here, Howard?

Also, you might owe President Clinton an apology, since the last two appointees to the USSC were his--was the Court *less* conservative ten years ago when neither Ginsburg nor Breyer was on the bench?

Oh, and the Dred Scott decision was issued in early 1857--so, every USSC panel between then and now was less conservative than the current one? Including the ones that decided Plessy v Ferguson, blocked child labor laws, and blocked New Deal legislation? Really, Howard?

I'll be interested to see if anyone else noticed this--IMO, it's a much more serious reason to question his seriousness as a candidate than his little yell in Iowa, since it indicates rather strongly that he is either woefully ignorant of history or simply nuts.


While I don't think Dean's comments mean that he is "either woefully ignorant of history or simply nuts," I do find it interesting that the press didn't jump on him for this. I mean, they practically buggered him for saying that Saddam's capture did not make us safer (which was clearly true), but when he says things that are demonstrably false he gets a pass. I guess this reinforces Michael Kinsley's defintion of a gaffe: when a politician accidently tells the truth. Lies, I suppose, are expected and tolerated by those in the media and so they ignore them.

I am an angry person, but not this angry....

Judge Shoots Boy for Throwing Snowballs

BERLIN (Reuters) - A German judge took the law into his own hands and peppered a teen-ager with lead shot when snowballs went astray and hit the wall of his house, a court in the northern town of Lueneburg said Wednesday.

"Two 16-year-olds were having a snowball fight, and the judge's house got hit. Then the light went on, the door opened, and a shotgun fired off two rounds," said court spokesman Juergen Wigger. "The judge was alone at home."

He said one of the boys' mothers saw her son had been shot in the arm and called the police who arrested the 55-year-old judge and confiscated the firearm. Investigations were continuing.

Just imagine that for a second. The judge is sitting in his parlor after a hard day of sentencing people to death. He decides to relax with some brandy and Wagner, but his brief respite is interrupted suddenly. THUD! THUD! He hears the snowballs hit his house and maybe even one of boy giggling. Well, that does it for him and grabs for his shotgun (which he always keeps loaded, in case of emergencies) from the ubrella rack right by the door and fires on the rapscallions that would dare disturb his peace and quiet. The judge aims to kill, but the brandy has made this difficult and only manages to graze the troublemakers and before he can reload, the wounded boy limps home. "I'll find out where he lives and get him tomorrow," the Judge thinks has he re-enters his house and pours himself another healthy glass.

More Sully Soaking

I would like to bring up one last point about Andrew Sullivan's lame discussion with Atrios on the NPR special, the Blogging of the President. In between his boneheaded challenges to Atrios, Sullivan was asked why did have a comments section on his website. His answer was that he was afraid with an audience as large as his, he could have some real problems from troublemakers and his blog might get overloaded. That's funny, because Atrios gets more traffic than Sullivan's does and yet he has comments and they are mostly umoderated. Perhaps it is because Sullivan just wants limit the reader feedback on his site to selectively posted fan mail like the nonsense I blasted on this very site. Hey, I have a challenge for Sullivan: Andrew Sullivan, I challenge you to stop being a the blogosphere's premier tool.

Second Thoughts on Dean

For a very long time, I have been hard on Dean. I have always viewed Dean as a danger to the Democrats and a potential disaster for our party and the country. Recently, my views on Dean have begun to soften. I still think he would be a terrible nominee and a poor president compared with some of the other men running, but now that the chances of him actually being selected by the Democrats has decreased significantly, I am beginning to notice the good things Dean has done. It is like Atrios wrote:

Dean went out in front and made it "okay" to actually say nasty things about Dear Leader, something the rest of them were scared to do. I figured Dean would continue to force the other candidates to actually come up with a message and distinguish themselves from the Republicans...

Dean himself himself has made a similar point and I believe that he is right. Not only did he make the primary more exciting, mainstream harsh criticism of the President and his terrible record (I mean, POLITICAL HATE SPEECH and IRRATIONAL BUSH HATRED), Dean also provided a foil for the other candidates and acted as a kind of heat shield. If he doesn't get the nomination and another Democrat goes on to defeat George W. Bush, Dean will have been like a well placed kamakazee which throws the enemy into dissarray and makes a stunning counteroffensive possible. If this turns out to be the case, Governor Dean ought to be remembered as a good Democrat and a deserves the praise of everyone concerned with progress.

Results...so far

President
President - - 224 of 301 precincts reporting
Name Party Votes Pct Delegates
John Kerry Dem 57,670 38.3% 14
Howard Dean Dem 38,608 25.6% 8
Wesley Clark Dem 19,014 12.6% 0
John Edwards Dem 18,103 12.0% 0
Joe Lieberman Dem 13,463 8.9% 0
Dennis Kucinich Dem 2,182 1.4% 0
Randy Crow Dem 337 0.2% 0
Dick Gephardt Dem 283 0.2% 0
Al Sharpton Dem 240 0.2% 0
Gerry Dokka Dem 187 0.1% 0
Katherine Bateman Dem 77 0.1% 0
Edward Thomas O'Donnell Jr. Dem 65 0.0% 0
Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. Dem 63 0.0% 0
George W Bush (WI) (i) GOP 62 0.0% 0
Carol Moseley Braun Dem 59 0.0% 0
Willie Felix Carter Dem 59 0.0% 0
Vincent S. Hamm Dem 40 0.0% 0
Robert H. Linnell Dem 34 0.0% 0
Hillary Rodham Clinton (WI) Dem 30 0.0% 0
Caroline Pettinato Killeen Dem 26 0.0% 0
R. Randy Lee Dem 13 0.0% 0
Harry W. Braun III Dem 6 0.0% 0
Leonard Dennis Talbow Dem 6 0.0% 0
Fern Penna Dem 5 0.0% 0
Mildred Glover Dem 5 0.0% 0

Populism Did Not Sink Gore

It seems that everyone knows that Al Gore lost because he used a lot of populist rhetoric in 2000. The most obvious example of this was his convention speech, where he recited his "the people vs. powerful" schtick in front a huge national television audience. The result? Not something you'd expect if you had been listening to the pundits:

The latest Gallup poll, conducted August 18-19, shows Vice President Al Gore and Texas Governor George W. Bush in a dead heat, with 47% of likely voters saying they would choose Gore and 46% opting for Bush. This represents a 17-point swing from a poll conducted before the Democratic National Convention, when Bush led Gore by 16 points, 55% to 39%. -Gallup

Eh! Look at that! I know there are a lot of variables that can't be controlled for, but at the very least it seems that populism did not hurt Gore. After four years of Republican rule and economic stagnation, it seems that a populist campaign would be even better suited for the Democrats in 2004. It also gives them an excellent opportunity to avoid cultural issues which are basically a distraction and which many voters disagree with the Democrats on.

Don't Worry, Cut Taxes.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, director of the Congressional Budget Office and a former economist in the Bush White House, said on Thursday that making Mr. Bush's tax cuts permanent would most likely have a "modestly negative" impact on long-term economic growth.

Mr. Holtz-Eakin said the initial impact of Mr. Bush's tax cuts was positive, because the cuts lowered marginal tax rates and gave people more incentive to work and produce.

But to the extent the tax cuts lead to higher deficits and greater government borrowing, he warned, they could have a "cumulative corrosive effect on capital accumulation, on national saving and on productivity."
-NY Times

So, these tax cuts basically do nothing good and there is no reason on Earth to make them permanent. In fact, the only people that really benefit from them are folks that are really rich (I suspect the upper-middle class would be hurt by slowed economic growth more than it would benefit from upper-incom tax reductions). However, like the Great Bill Safire tells us, to say that this administration is prefers to help the affluent at the expense of ordinary people is "class warfare" and neocommunist.

Andrew Sullivan Gets Letters

I guess my last post knocking Andrew Sullivan's tendencey to post letters that either praise him or express the exactly the same opinions he holds has failed ot work. Maybe he forgot to check the B of P the other day. Today, it has gotten worse, much worse:

EMAIL OF THE DAY: "I go to Lucianne.com when I want to feel like I belong. I go to Andrew Sullivan when I want the painful truth. Thank you. Never stop."

Sullivan's habit is looking more and more mastubatory each day.

Pretty Intense

I was looking at this website peterbeste.com, it is pretty intense. Tons of photos of death metal bands and interviews, too. Anyhow, here is a sample:

alright, never mind....just check it out.

Kerry Is Unelectable

Well, not necessairly, but goddamn he can be a fool at times. According to ABC:

Jan. 26— Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., is discounting notions that any Democratic candidate would have to appeal to Southern voters in order to win the presidency, calling such thinking a "mistake" during a speech at Dartmouth College.

Kerry's remarks Saturday were so starkly antithetical to how many southern Democrats feel their party should campaign for the presidency, that a former South Carolina state Democratic chairman told ABCNEWS that Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, D-S.C., who endorsed Kerry last week, perhaps "ought to reconsider his endorsement."

He's right, the Democrats might be able to get along with out the South and might have to get along without it, but why on Earth would you say that? It can only cost you votes! Kerry has just said "I don't care what you have to say, you do not count." to an entire region of the country. How does he expect to beat Bush if he says stuff like that? Dean is not the only one who can produce "gaffes".

Resonding to Reader Responses (From Other Websites)

Andrew Sullivan approvingly posted an e-mail he recieved. I never really understood this practice, particularly the many political bloggers handle it. I mean, if you get an e-mail that is essentially just a confirmation of your prejudices (and this e-mail is an excellent example of this) by one other person, why do you feel the need to post it? To distance yourself from the opinions that are expressed while still endorsing them? To show that you are not insane and at least one other creature in the universe agrees with you? Or is it just a creepy form of ego tripping? Anyhow, the e-mail is full of holes (which makes it all the more likely that Andrew Sullivan is a sad, sad man, who writes letters to himself) and ought to be thoroughly torn apart:

I honestly don't know how to respond to the all the plaudits raining down on the oratory of John Edwards from conservatives who ought to know better. Watching him, I saw in him the worst traits of Clinton all over again. The demonization of those with honest policy differences, and the casting of those disagreements in moral terms, the encouragement to voters to think of themselves as victims of malevolent right-wing forces, to believe that only government programs can save them from market-induced destitution. Ok, the first three of those charges, with some slight variations (replace "right wing forces" with god-hating gays or whatever other bogey man you wish, for instance), could easily be levelled with greater accuracy against the President and his party. The Fourth charge of knee-jerk statism is absurd, Clinton introduce many market based policies (hell, that was the whole point of the New Democrats), like NAFTA (speaking of which, the last Republican to pass a multilateral trade treaty was Ike). So, this first section is basically all garbage, especially because the writer did mention any of Clinton's more obvious flaws, possibly because Edwards does not appear to share them.

His comments were directed at people in my middle-income bracket. I've always thought of myself as an independent person that can manage my own affairs and pay my way through the world by purchasing the goods and services that I need. I'm not rich, but I have more than enough money to pay for the basic necessities and afford a few extra material comforts while I'm at it, yet Edwards seems to think that I'm one paycheck away from the poorhouse, and that if he doesn't reach down to me and lift me up from my condition of incipient bondage, I'll be scraping to survive until I die. Well I don't need Edwards condescending pity, and I resent the insinuation that I need him to save me from the big, bad world... For the record, I'm no Grover Norquist flat-tax disciple. Fiscally, I'd say I'm a moderate, and some wealth redistribution doesn't bother me one bit. It's just that this guy is an opportunistic snake-oil merchant if I've ever seen one. I don't know what Brooks, Marshall et al are seeing that I'm not. He makes me physically ill."

Ah, and now here is the reader throws in their own personal story, a Horatio Alger tale of rugged individualism which conclusively proves that anyone interested in helping the disadvantaged and improving the lives of oridnary Americans much be some sort of huckster and the welfare state is an evil sham meant to enslave mankind. Naturally, there are tons of things wrong here. First of all, how much is this person really making? They insinuate that they are middle class, that does not mean a damn thing. For all we know, this could be one of those jerks that thinks pulling down "only" $200k a year is being "middle class". Anyhow, the letter writer never considered the possibility that Senator Edwards was not talking directly to them (hell, I bet this guy never thought anything was not about him). Is it possible that Edwards is talking about the millions living in poverty, the tens of millions more that are living just above the poverty line and families in highly precarious personal situations? Impossible, clearly, it is all about this one guy....and of course, Andrew Sullivan.

Update: To add to the ridiculousness of the letter writer/Andrew Sullivan's criticism of Edwards, this post appears right over a link on Sullivan's blog to a lengthy Time article the Nannyism of George W. Bush. Hmmm. When Bush wants to muck around with people's private lives and rescue them from the evils of personal immorality, I suppose that isn't as nearly as bad as when John Edwards talks about reducing the finacial burdens on the middle class.

Conservative Martyr Brigade

Another case of a conservative with victimhood envy. Remember how conservatives have always insisted that minority groups need to stop wollowing in their troubles? Or how those who complained that dissenting opinions were being marginilized were quickly dismissed by those on the right? Hmmm, it seems that conservatives wanted to hog the pleasure of being oppressed....

Blogging The President

I was listening to the NPR progam, "blogging the president". Atrios and Andrew Sullivan were sharing the airwaves in one segment of the show and it was pretty interesting. Atrios seemed quite sophisticated (and refused to give many detials about himself, since he tries to keep his identity secret), Sullivan tried really hard to seem sophisticated, but ended up looking like an ass. He kept badgering Atrios for not revealing his identity, the moderator and Atrios then pointed out that many great writers had written anonymously or assumed names, including Andrew Sullivan's idol, George Orwell. Sullivan also spent a lot of time attacking straw men and misrepresenting the statements of the other guests. At a certain point, he became so ergegious that host called him on it. Perhaps he'll write a nice post about being silenced by that ol'debil the liberal media.

Time for a Lawsuit

N.P.R. (all you latte sippers know damn well what I am talking about) is going to broadcast a show on blogging and politics tonight from 9 to 11. The program is called "the Blogging of the President" or BOP for short. Hmmmm, BOP, a bit like B of P! These swine are moving in on our turf and I think the B of P ought to strike back. After all, Microsoft is suing some Canadian kid named Mike Rowe for publishing Mikrowesoft.com. Surely then, the B of P, which is the blogging equivalent of Microsoft (at least in our own minds), can go after a government finance media company.

Most Americans Guilty of Political Hate Speech/Treason

Newsweek Poll: Campaign 2004
Saturday January 24, 11:12 am ET
Kerry Leads Dems With 30 Percent; Edwards Follows at 13 Percent; Dean Slips, Even With Clark at 12 Percent
52 Percent of Voters Don't Want to See Bush Re-Elected (44% Do), 37 Percent Strongly Want to See Him Re-Elected, 47 Percent Strongly Do Not
But a Large Majority (78%) Says That it is Very Likely (40%) or Somewhat Likely (38%) That he Will Get a Second Term

Ah hah, this is excellent news. The opposistions is both larger and more dedicated than the President's supporters and the extent of anti-Bush feeling is is greatly underestimated. So, when Bush starts trailing in the polls later in the year, it'll be a (reasonably) big news story. This will lead to a whole cycle of negative stories about the troubled Bush campaign and Bush's inability to win the support of the Public. Excellent.

Another Lazy Conservative Writer (Books Bashing Part XXIV?)

Earlier, I complained that in addition to being wrong and cold-hearted, Kate O'Brien of the National Review was also just plain lazy, because her article attacking Edwards' concern about poverty was basically a summary of a report by the Heritage Foundation. Well, it appears that Ms. O'Brien is in good company. It seems that the esteemed David Brooks is also a lazy hack. In his column bashing Senator Kerry, he "blatantly stole" some phrasing from a college newspaper. I wonder how much of the conservative press is comprised of people with the work ethic of Ishan.

Smooth

From Tacticus:

August J. Pollak has offered some helpful hints for how Howard Dean might get his candidacy back on track by appearing more Presidential. Pollak thinks Dean should:

-Announce proudly that no president has ever done as much as him for human rights
-Dress up in a crotch-accentuating flight suit and land a jet on an aircraft carrier
-Brag repeatedly about a sub-standard college grade point average
-Get arrested for public rowdiness at a football game
-Attempt to recite a cliché adage at a press conference and promptly forget how it goes in the middle of saying it
-Mount, and promptly fall off, an unpowered Segway scooter
-Drop his dog in front of cameras
-Consistently mispronounce the word "nuclear"
-Condescendingly mock the upcoming execution of a death row inmate
-Trade away Sammy Sosa
-Choke on pretzel bits to the point of losing balance and bruising his head
-Attend a public event in which Stevie Wonder is performing and wave to him from the balcony

(Apparently Pollok forgot about the chewing-gum bit and The Clymer Moment.)

No Joke

Bush Stops at Diner to Boost U.S. Economy

When reporters began hitting him with questions, he declined to cooperate and challenged them to buy something since "you've got plenty of money in your pocket."

"This is my chance to help this lady put some money in her pocket," Bush said. "Let me explain how the economy works. When you spend money to buy food, it helps this lady's business. It makes it more likely somebody is going to find work."

How dare those mean Democrats claim the President hasn't done anything for working Americans. He ate at a Diner. Like a regular Joe!

Neocon Boy Toy Bites Back

Key US Iraq ally backs Shia chief's elections demand

Ahmad Chalabi, one of Washington's staunchest allies on Iraq's interim Governing Council, on Friday added to Washington's difficulties with its exit strategy from Baghdad by joining calls for direct elections before the country returns to self-rule.

Speaking in Washington on Friday, Mr Chalabi said: "I believe direct elections are possible. Seek to make them possible and they will be possible. The date of June 30 [by when the US is committed to handing over sovereignty] is firm. We intend to abide by it and President Bush is committed to it."

I think this might be a political manuevar on the part of Chalabi, who has usually been seen (wrongly, I believe) as an American pawn. By challenging the US on this issue, his political fortunes in Iraq can only improve. For American policymakers who see Chalabi as an "ally" or "puppet", this ought to remind them that Ahmed Chalabi is a clever political operator and like all such men, is primarily concerned with his own interests and will not subordinate them to the American agenda. The INC and Ahmed Chalabi have a proven history of jerking the Americans around and really shouldn't be trusted.

Playing the God Card

I think its time that the Democrats used religion to their advantage, as Kevin Phillips recently suggested. Reverend Moon is major financial backer for many conservative causes and a close ally of the President. Moon and his religion, are also a little bit out there. In addition to being imprisoned in the US for tax fraud, hoping that God will eradicate homosexuality and homosexuals, insinuating that the Jews were partly responsible for the holocaust, being accused of brainwashing people to join his Church, Moon also considers himself the real messiah (unlike that miserable failure, Jesus Christ). Unification theology is actually a lot weirder than that, even, but that's all I have time for at the moment. Anyway, the Democrats ought to publicize Bush's connection with Moon more often. It will serve two purposes, a) making sure secularists (and other social liberals) remember to vote, because they certainly don't want a friend of Moon in charge (Bush has already given federal money to the Moonies as part of his faith based initiative) and b)will make Christian conservatives stay home, because the President is allied with a man who thinks he's better than Jesus Christ.

What a Lousy Hit Piece

The Weekly Standard has gone after John Edwards for what appears to be the first time, which according to CounterSpin means that he has "arrived" and is viewed by the GOP as a credible threat. Well, if this is the best the Republicans can come up with, I hope the rest of the conservative press follows in the Standard's lead. The message of this article is basically that Edwards is a good campaigner, except sometimes he's a bit off and then he isn't so good. Wow, that is some top-scotch oppo-research there, keep up the good work.

Dean Appears to Be In Trouble

A recent poll has Dean getting creamed in New Hampshire by Kerry. According to the University of New Hampshire poll, the Senator from Massachuesetes is leading Dean by 18% and Clark and Edwards may be closing in on the Governor. The American Research Group Poll already is predicting that Dean might come in third place in Vermont behind Kerry and Clark Dean's also falling behind in fundraising, with both Edwards and Kerry outdoing him in internet fundraising (on a side note, Joe Lieberman is $14,000 short of his $100,000 goal).

Are we going to see the end of Dean? Maybe. Though that might not necessairly be good for Kerry. As the New Republic blog warns, Dean might exact an awful revenge on Kerry by spending his war chest on bitter anti-Kerry ad, ruining both their chances. Perhaps the long predicted/hoped for Kerry-Dean murder-suicide and Edwards asendacny might take place after all.

Then again, these sorts of theories are made to be disproved. Johnthan's Chait's comparison of those that try to predict the course of a campaign are like the character Vizzini from the Prince's Bride, who attempts to use an elaborate chain of logic determine whether or not the glass he is has been offered by the Man in Black contains poison and ends of being poisoned because of factors he failed to even consider.

Total Victory over the National Review Online

I've always liked John Edwards, but lately I have become a more enthusiastic admirer. In the first place, he has become clear he remains a serious contender. In addition, he has started to talk about poverty while campaigning. I give him a lot of credit for this, because the issue of poverty has nearly completely disappeared from the political radar screen. The political benefits to discussing poverty are few and the political dangers are considerable and so I am very impressed that Senator Edwards is willing to stick his neck out on this matter.

The National Review, on the other hand, is not at impressed by Edwards' concern for the poor. No, John Edwards plans to make life better for the millions whose lives are blighted by poverty is met with scorn by National Review columnist, Kate O'Brien. According to O'Brien, poverty doesn't exist in America, or as she so cleverly puts it, "Someone should tell the excitable Edwards, "It's Nashua, 2004, Senator, not Appalachia, 1962."

However, Kate O'Brien's assertion is simply not true and her evidence is almost worthless. O'Brien bases her claim on a report by the right wing "think"-tank, the Heritage Foundation (an institution that aims to be the conservative answer to prestigious center-left organizations like the Brookings Institute, but falls laughably short of its goal and which spends more on lobbying than on actual research), which is reason enough to be suspicious. The Report denies the severity of poverty, by pointing out that certain percentages of poor people own certain items (DVD players, a television, etc.) However, as TAPPED pointed out in its critique of the study, that does not mean that poor person own all of these items. So, yes a poor person with a cheap piece of consumer electronics (DVD players are going for less than $50) is better off than someone living in extreme poverty, but the chances of them having a near-necessity like health insurance (which costs thousands of dollars a year) is pretty low. Seeing as how the poverty threshold (a figure that is derived from a formula developed in the early 60's and is widely considered to underestimate the needs of individuals) for a single mother and one child is a little over twelve thousand dollars, its hard to see how anyone could view the poor as well off or as living comfortably. Furthermore, with more than thirty million Americans living below the federal poverty line, it seems just a bit callous to dismiss their problems. The again, you should expect much from the National Review, this is the magazine that came out against private charity, because one of their columinsts knew one real-life poor person and they weren't all that nice.

It is not just the indifference to suffering exhibited by O'Brien that gets me, though. She strikes me as just plain lazy. Half of her article is made of quotes from the misleading Heritage Foundation study, another quarter paraphrases the report and the rest are just boneheaded attempts at wit. I am honestly suprised she gets paid for this.

Anyhow, I full expect to see much more of this sort of nonsense if Edwards or any of the other Democrats keep on talking about poverty. Hopefully they'll just brush these distortions aside and continue with their push for a renewed anti-poverty effort.

Update: TAPPED also appears to have gone after NRO Hack#218A.

Not a Good Sign

CIA warns of civil war in Iraq

“Both the Shiites and the Kurds think that now’s their time,” one intelligence officer said. “They think that if they don’t get what they want now, they’ll probably never get it. Both of them feel they’ve been betrayed by the United States before.”

Via Tacticus

Dean's Scream

Here is the clip of part of Dean's concession speech. I really don't think it is a big deal. Dean wasn't looking statesman like, but he was not going "insane" either.

TAPPED Misreads Dean's New Tactics

From "DOES ANYONE STILL CARE ABOUT THE WAR?"If, as Josh Marshall seems to suggest, last night's defeat leads Dean to de-emphasize the war and self-referential talk about his own campaign in favor of a discussion of his domestic policy agenda, that would be a good thing for his campaign and the country. The fact is that Dean's always had a pretty compelling set of ideas -- progressive social values, a balanced budget, and steady expansion of health care coverage -- in this area, along with a proven track-record of delivering on these fronts that his opponents largely lack.

Refocusing on Domestic Policy doesn't really sound like a good plan for Dean. His "compelling set of ideas" is virtually indistinguishable from those on any other mainstream Democrat. yes, its true that he has some experience implenting them as Governor, but all his main rivals (except Clark) have at least some experience doing the same thing. His opponents can also claim that they are (probably rightly) more electable than Dean is. Dean's complete opposistion (which included his anti-war posisistion) to Bush's agenda, was what won him the support of so many people in the first place, but if he moves attention away from this, his appeal will probably be weakened.

The End of Dean?

It is far too early to write off Howard Dean (how I have learned the dangers of writing off Dean). Iowa is not that important and Dean is still running the best funded campaign. However, Blogstar Josh Marshall does raise an interesting point:

If you concede the premise that he has pushed the other candidates in this [strongly anti-Bush] direction (and there's certainly an argument to be made), then it almost reads like saying he's acheived his historical purpose (pushing the Dems to confront the Bush) and now, well, what's the point? Maybe he pushed them in that direction, but he's not the best one to actually run against Bush. And if Kerry and Clark or Edwards have now adopted Dean's approach, why do you need Dean?

Other People's Reactions to Iowa

George Will and David Born to Kill" Brooks have weighed in on Dean's defeat in the Iowa Cacuses in their latest columns. Compare the quality of Will's (a man who I am not a fan of) and Brook's work. In his article, Will attempts to determine Dean's weaknesses, the strengths of Edwards and Kerry and the future of the Democratic primaries. Not brilliant stuff, but I believe, solid work. Brooks on the other hand spends 3/5 of his column to talk about a hypothetical 55 year old school teacher who is suppose to represent Democratic voters. While it isn't nearly as egregious as a lot of his other essays, this one is still nonsense and is not fit to be printed on the New York Times Op-Ed page.

State of the Union

To be honest, I didn't watch the President's speech last night. During the first two years of his presidency, I watched a fair number of Bush's speeches and press confrences. Since then, I think have come to know what to expect and have grow tired of his style.

It seems the speech has polled well, but not as well as last year's state of the union. It appears that Rove's strategy of "confuse the middle" (as Paul Krugman put it in his last column) is at least having some effect. Whether the SOTU will have a real impact on his approval/re-elect numebrs remains to be seen.

Oh yes, check out The Poor Man's State of the Union Speech summary.

Biting Both Ways

Recently this blog went after AP reporter Calvin Woodward for a news aritcle he wrote about the Democratic Presidential Debates. In the piece in question, Woodward adopted an irritating style, which aimed to provide "context" to the candidates' remarks, but amounted to nothing but a very shoddy pount-counterpoint. Its good to see then, that Woodward also uses this annoying style when writing about Bush. I'd prefer if he didn't do it at all, but at least he is being even-handedly idiotic.

Here is a sample:

Also in the speech, Bush cited an 11 percent drop in illegal drug use among high school students over the past two years -- accurately summarizing a study by the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research.

But the study also found slowing declines in the use of certain drugs by eighth-graders and a slight increase in their use of inhalants. That troubles researchers who say eighth-graders are often indicative of coming drug-use trends.

CW Dies An Ugly Death on National Television

Clark: .1%
Dean: 17.9%
Edwards 32.5%
Gephardt: 10.5%
Kerry: 37.7%

As of 9:27 with 1333 of 1993
precincts reporting.

The Truth Comes Out

George W. Bush lowered taxes so that The Jews, Ann Coulter, the Christian Coalition, and gun owners could invade welfare recipients.

I heard it here first.

My Prefrences

Since Mickey Kaus decided to rank his prefrences for President and I can't think of anything of substance to post, here is my list:

1. Clark/Edwards Tie.
2. Gephardt
3. Dean
4. Lieberman
5. Kerry
6. Jerry Brown/Michael Bloomberg/Half Empty 750ml Cisco Bottle/Hillary Clinton/Barry Goldwater's Corpse tie.
7. Spartacus/Luke (not a tie, just one animal with different names)
8. Lydon LaRouche/Ross Perot/Pat Buchanan tie.
8. Felix The Cat (not the famous one. Think fatter. Much fatter.)
9. George W. Bush

Novak on Crossfire

I was watching "Crossfire" a minute ago and out of the blue, Robert Novak makes a personal attack on James Carville. Novak accused Carville of doing a great deal to coarsen the (precious, precious) political discourse in America. In the first place, pre-confession Lee Atwater and his demon twin Karl Rove are far nastier political operators than Carville. I very much doubt that one campaign worker can really "coarsen" American politics on his own and despite all the recent tut-tutting by many in the press, I do not believe the rhetoric of today's politicians is anymore inflammatory than it has ever been. Finally, can Novak really criticizes anyone for anything when he says things like this:

BEGALA: It is embarrassing that Al Gore lost Tennessee. It is more embarrassing that George Bush lost America. Al Gore won that election. He won it in Florida, which is a Southern state.

(APPLAUSE)

BEGALA: And I don't take anybody making fun of Al Gore, who actually got more votes than George W. Bush.

NOVAK: You know, you can give that old -- that old -- those talking points any time you want, Paul. But the fact is, your party is in bad shape in the white South. And

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: Why is that?

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: Why is that?

NOVAK: It's because it's a conservative, patriotic area.

Brian Makes a Difference

Recently, I have been driven to write a LETTER TO THE EDITOR. What would make me take such a provactive and risky step? A column by Cal Thomas in the local paper. Thomas opens the column with this nonsense:

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill reminds me of a disgruntled former employee who returns to his old workplace and starts shooting to avenge his perceived mistreatment.

In a new book by Ron Suskind and in a series of interviews, O'Neill charges that President Bush planned to topple Saddam Hussein almost from Bush's first day in office. The White House denies it and says it followed the same policy of regime change in Iraq embraced by the Clinton administration.

Well, the White House denied it, I guess we can all go home now. It isn't like the administration would ever want to hide something? Why if there were any politically damaging facts we ought to know about, I am sure the White House would hold a televised press confrence to tell us all about it.

Anyhow, Cal Thomas has been stabbed in the back by his pals in Washington. Bush has come out and said "The stated policy of my administration toward Saddam Hussein was very clear -- like the previous administration, we were for regime change." and it has been reported that when "asked about O'Neill's contention that the first National Security Council meeting of the Bush administration in January 2001 discussed ousting Saddam, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan didn't deny that account." Well, I am sure Thomas will make a course adjustment in his next article and put himself in harmony with the party line.

On CBS' "60 Minutes," O'Neill grudgingly acknowledged that the improved economy and economic growth of more than 8 percent in the last quarter of 2003 were largely the result of tax cuts. But he claimed that if taxes had not been cut, growth would have been more than 6 percent anyway, plus we could have made progress on reforming the tax code and Social Security. This argument has been made by others, most of them Democrats, but when people who believe such things are in power, they do not use the revenue to reform Social Security or even spend the people's money more wisely.

Speak of spending money wisely, isn't that the exact opposite of what the President has been doing? Discretionary spending is growing faster than it did under Carter or Clinton and Bush is yet to veto one damn spending bill.

He also gives credit to Laurie Mylroie for debunking O'Neil's claims about Bush's plans for invading Iraq. I don't know anything about the substance of this specific dispute, but Mylroie is the last person to turn to for serious research. Laurie Mylroie wrote in one of her books that Saddam Hussein was behind the first bombing of the twin towers, a theory big with the tin foil hat crowd, but not with anyone else.

The Readable Righty

More than a year ago, I introduced the Chicago Boyz weblog as a home to some of the few readable conservative commentators I know of. Today, I would like to recommend Tacticus to you all. I've been aware of Tacticus for awhile, but didn't begin reading it untill recently. From what I have seen, I am very impressed. The bloggers at Tacticus have a deep knowldege of many issues and a strong set of principles. On balance, Tacticus is less partisan and more professional than even the magnificent B of P. So, I strongly suggest that you give it a look.

They Just Don't Give A FUCK...

Inevitability

I'd like to point out once again that Bush is vulnerable and the outcome of the 2004 race is far from certain. Right now, according to a CBS/NY Times poll, Bush would lose to an unnamed Democrat. Bush's approval rating is also falling in several different opinion polls. The political climate changes from week-to-week and so it is foolish to try make long-term predictions. Take what's happening in Iowa, for example. All along it looked like it would be Gephardt and Dean, but now Edwards and Kerry have come out of nowhere, after many (including myself) had more or less written them off.

When HIPublicans Attack

I always thought it was the PC Police (who have the nerve to suspend fraternities for paying homage to that great American cultural institution, the minstrel show) that was a threat to intellectual freedom on our college campuses:

A Democratic rally at Drake's Olmstead Center, urged young Iowans to get out and vote. It was targeted toward high school and college students. A group known for not voting. The rally featured comedian Janene Garafalo and classic rock star Joan Jett, but it got a surprise visit from some unwanted guests.

A group of college republicans at their Midwest caucus leadership conference heard about the rally and stormed in.

The college republicans in question were upset by the fact that their 7 student confrence (on the same day as the Democratic rally with b-list celebrities and day before the Iowa caucuses) wasn't getting any media attention, so they decided it would be a could idea to disrupt the Democratic event. Ah, those south park republicans and their high spirited brown shirt tactics.

My Day Has Been Made

Maureen Dowd got snubbed by Howard Dean. Dean arranged a phone interviewer with Dowd, but then never called and left Dowd waiting. I'm sure she'll write something really clever about it in her sunday column. She might even be able to work in allusions to "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" or greek mythology, that would demonstrate her hipness and intellectual seriousness.

eXtreme Nitpicking

From RNC chairman, Ed Gillespie's January 15th speech

Now, while Wesley Clark?’s rationale for becoming a Democrat may be funny, his increasingly careless comments about the President are not.

Just this week, he said that after the bombings of American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and the attack on the USS Cole the Clinton team spent months devising a special operations plan to dismantle Al Qaeda and turned it over to the Bush administration, but ?“this administration failed to do its duty to protect the United States of America before 9/11.?”

This is completely at odds with his own assertion right after September 11 that while it had been clear for some time that there were groups planning some kind of attack, ?“We didn't have the tools or co-operation or good enough information we needed to prevent it.?” But more importantly, it is refuted outright by former Clinton National Security Council Director Sandy Berger, who testified in September 2002 before the Intelligence Committees of the House and Senate saying, ?“[T]here was no war plan [to fight terrorism and Al Qaeda] that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition. And the reports of that are just incorrect.?”

General Clark?’s random assertions rarely pan out, but he continues to make them and the growing list is unsettling.

Just yesterday he said, ?“Let me be clear I have opposed this war from the start.?”

An odd assertion, because as the debate over a resolution to authorize the President to use force in Iraq started in Congress, Wes Clark told a Congressional candidate he supported the resolution and if she were in Congress she should too.

It seems Ed Gillespie got a word of the day calendar for Christmas. Maybe someone should get him a thesaurus for his birthday.

Over-analyzed Quote (out of context) of the Day

"[Reporters] don't represent the public any more than other people do. In our democracy, the people who represent the public stood for election. . . .I don't believe you have a check-and-balance function." -Andrew Card, Bush's Chief of Staff in the New Yorker

I think Card's comment is quite revealing. Some liberals in the press were put of by his denigration of the role of the media, but I don't find it that suprising. Every administration has its problems with the press and so its official are naturally hostile towards reporters. However, the part where Card sats "In our democracy, the people who represent the public stood for election" tells us a lot about the way Bush and his people think. This quote suggests that they view themselves as representitives of the general will (to steal phrase from a famous spankin fetishist and political theorist), despite the fact that they got fewer votes. Since they believe they represent America, anything that is good for the administration then is by definition good for the country. That is why we have one of the most mendacious and cynical administrations of recent times. In their world, almost anything is acceptable in order to preserve their hold on power and they are able to rationalize their actions with the conceit that the fortunes of the nation are tried to their political ambitions.

The Discourse is saved from the stain of negative campaigning! YAY!

Dean, Gephardt Pull Negative Ads in Iowa

Man, I don't know why everyone is so down on "going negative". My only objection is that in primaries, you can create a circular firing squad that damages your party's chance of succes. Other than that, I honestly don't see what's wrong with "incivility", particularlywhen your attacks are true. In such cases, negative ads probably elevate The (precious, precious) Discouse by shoving pat-the-bunny politiking aside and injecting a little substance.

Another Reason Not to Like Lieberman

Yesterday, Matt Drugde put out a "world exclusive"* news item about Clark's congressional testimony in 2002 on Iraq, which "proved" Clark had supported the war. Of course, this claim is only proved Clark was pro-war if you take out the his anti-war comments and ad sentences that weren't even there in the first place. I expect every huh-huh conservative out there to take this sort of nonsense seriously and repeat it whenever possible. However, it is disappointing (did I say disappointing, because I meant ENRAGING) to see Joe Lieberman spread these baseless smears, too. By peddling this trash, Lieberman has done the Right a tremendous favor. Now this stupid story can be kept alive even longer and the original allegation has a lot more credibility, because it isn't coming from some jerk with a web site, but a United States Senator and a Democrat to boot. Seeing as how this whole (idiotic) charge of inconsitency on Iraq will probably dog Clark for the entire campaign, it is easy to envision Lieberman's recitation of Drudge's claim appearing on a Bush attack ad in the fall, if Clark gets the nomination, of course. Next thing you know, Lieberman will be calling Dean a "unilateralist hawk". Anyway, nice work there, Joe. I'm sure you and Zell Miller most have some swinging times together.

Source: TPM

Ha ha.

Another classic from textfiles.com:

THE ABOLITION OF WORK by Bob Black

Work is the source of nearly all the misery in the world. Almost any
evil you'd care to name comes from working or from living in a world designed
for work. In order to stop suffering, we have to stop working.

That doesn't mean we have to stop doing things. It does mean creating a new
way of life based on play; in other words, a _ludic_ revolution. By "play" I
mean also festivity, creativity, conviviality, commensality, and maybe even art.
There is more to play than child's play, as worthy as that is. I call for a
collective adventure in generalized joy and freely interdependent exuberance.

Shorter Bob Black: Buh.

SatU.N.!

The following was listed by Slate as one of Clark's gaffes:

Fifty-five million voters are "ill-informed" dupes of the Christian right? "Now, there's one party in America that's made the United Nations the enemy. And I don't know how many of you have ever read that series of books that's published by the Christian right that's called the "Left Behind" series? Probably nobody's read it up here. But don't feel bad, I'm not recommending it to you. I'm just telling you that according to the book cover that I saw in the airport, 55 million copies have been printed. And in it, the Antichrist is the United Nations. And so there's this huge, ill-informed body of sentiment out there that's just grinding away against the United Nations." (Jan. 7, Fuller Elementary School, Keene.)

Well, Clark never actually said that they were all dupes of the Christian right, but honestly, anyone who believes that the United Nations is going to be a vehichle for the anti-christ is.

Pleasantly Surprised

I'm more sympathetic to Israel than Comrade Max is, but I found his proposed solution for the Israeli-Palestinian war rather agreeable:

...take Ariel Sharon's fence and move it to the 1967 borders. Dismantle all settlements and military installations outside the fence. Let the Palestinians sort out their governance tasks. Retaliate against terrorist attacks when terrorist targets can be reliably identified and surgically dealt with. No more missiles shot at automobiles with multiple inhabitants in crowded streets. Let it be understood that Palestine is not going to have or host armed forces beyond those required for internal law and order.

This would not make Israel any less secure than it is now. National sovereignty for Palestine need not imply a military threat.

I'd say that is the only alternative to the fantasy of an ethinically-cleansed Greater Israel. That way lies disaster, not least for the Jewish people.

I wouldn't go as far as complete withdrawal (maybe leave some military installations behind), for diplomatic and strategic reasons, but this is pretty much what ought to happen. Then again, what the hell do I know? Not a damn thing.

The Big Time

The B of P officially has an official dedicated hate site. "Big Tom E." has established a blog titled "Brian Pugh's Alternative Lifestyle EXPOSED". This anti-me/anti-B of P blog (the first of many, hopefully) claims that "Brian Pugh, a scummy private school misfit, has recently come out of the closet and designated this site to unveil his homosexuality." despite the fact that all the posts are by "Tom" and refer to me in the third person. Ah, the joys of being hated.

Ed note: I am aware that this post violates my pledge never to talk about Big Tom E. again, but...I thought the creation of a hate blog was worthy of notice. In the future, all comments on the Big Tom E will be handled by my id, I mean, Tom Taxter.

Sweet.

More Snow, Cold Blasts Northeast

No school. Time to Shovel.

Snubbed

I e-mailed a bunch of the big bloggers last weekend, asking if they would like to exchange links with me. So far, I haven't gotten any bites.

Hittin' Up the Crib

Dave's Crib is back. His template has been redone, his comments section is working again and he has begun posting again. Pay him a visit.

WMD! WMD! WM...never mind

Tests show no agent in Iraq mortar shells

Tests by Danish and American experts indicate there is no chemical warfare agent in mortar shells unearthed last week in southern Iraq, but more testing is needed to confirm the findings, the Danish military reported Wednesday.

How many times has something like this happened? They find somethin "suspicious", claim it proves the existence of an active weapons of mass destruction program and then the original claims turn out to be completely false after anyone looks into it. I don't know why they bother anymore.

The Latest from Newmax (Huh-huh conservatism at its finest)

Howard Dean, Unilateralist Hawk

Democrat presidential front-runner Howard Dean, while still governor of Vermont, pushed then-President Bill Clinton to take unilateral military action in Bosnia, though the candidate has criticized President Bush and his Democrat rivals for their support of the war in Iraq.

This is just as idiotic as those leftists who complain that Dean isn't a true peace candidate because he hasn't compelety renounced the use of force in international relations. I know New Max intends to smear Dean as a hypocrite, but this story might actually be helpful. As this blog and others have mentioned earlier, Dean has been looking to gain some more heft in the National Security/Defense/Foreign Policy Department and getting called a "unilateralist hawk" by the most conservative news source this side of American Renaissance and the New Nation , could only help.

Waning days of front-runnerdom?

Matt Yglesias is saying we have reached "an inevitable moment of evitability", in light of Dean's declining poll numbers and apparent loss of momentum. Let's hope things stay evitable for a bit longer.

The nail in the coffin

Nothing proves Micrsoft's overall suckiness than the fact that they are responsibe for the Overwrite bug...er..."feature" in MS Word.

Kristof, A Self-Hating Democrat

In today's column, Nick "Mrs. Manners" Kristof, writes:

One of the most unfortunate trends in the Democratic presidential race has been the way nearly all of the candidates, including Howard Dean, the front-runner, have been flirting with anti-trade positions by putting the emphasis on labor, environmental and human rights standards in international agreements.

Of course, Mr. Kristof fails to mention that President Bush has also done great harm to the cause of free trade and maybe more protectionist than many of the Democratic candidates. I guess big, dumb Nick was trying to score some Fair & Balanced points by unfairly attack his own side. I don't demand 100% loyalty from liberal opinion journalists, but when your main preoccupation seems to be tut-tutting Democrats there is something wrong.

It was bound to happen.

Ted Nugent Injured in Chainsaw Accident

Given how two thirds of this article are all about Nugent's new show, it seems like this could have been nothing but a crude (and painful) publicity stunt.

Blog Censorship

Lately this blog has been taking some flack for the censoring of some comments. While I feel that I should "prune" the comments section from time to time, I think I have gone to far recently. Will and Ivan, I apologize for the excesses of the Zen Fascist and the Puritan. However, contrary to what some have said, Tom Eliopolus does not have the right to do as he pleases. He can make any of the idiotic remarks he wants to, because he has admitted to urinating on himself during a LaX game and that basically discredits everything he might say or do. Ever. He also raised fruit flies. And is a boy scout. However, repeated posting of the same stupid comment will result in extreme censorship and the blocking of his IP address. I won't let the comments section of this blog be turned into a garbage dump. For my full views on Tom, click here.

Oh yes, to prevent this site from degenerating further, I will never again acknowledge the existence of Mr. Eliopolus in any of my posts.

The Kiss of Death!

Carter Will Praise Dean
Yep, that's just what a candidate whose looking to improve his national security and foreign policy credentials needs, the praise of Jimmy Carter. I'm not really a Carter-hater (and I think had he been re-elected, he would have made a better President than Reagan), but Carter isn't exactly a name most voters think of when they think of when they think of good foreign policy. Besides, given how Dean has come out in favor of really stupid policies like SDI, in order to make him appear stronger on defense, wouldn't it make sense for him to get an endorsement in the same vein? Surely there most be some notable and disgraced hawk out there somewhere. Robert McNamara is still alive, perhaps Dean could send some feelers out to him.

Greenspan Exposed.

In the past, this Blog has gone after Alan Greenspan for supporting the Bush tax cuts, support that was instrumental in legitimizing them. Now it appears that Greenspan himself did not believe the tax cuts were a good idea. In 2001, according to Ron Suskind's new book, Greenspan said "Without the triggers, that tax cut is irreponsible fiscal policy. Eventually, I think that will be the consensus view."

Hmmm. Alan, you know who could help make it the consensus view? Oh I don't know, perhaps the most respected economic policy maker in the country. Or not. But whatever, your a good Randian after all and if the tax cut ends us screwing the poor, busting the budget and shooting the economy full of holes, the weak will be crushed in accoradance with Almighty Market's wishes and thing will be as they should.

Club For Growth

In the beginning of January the bat shit...er...supply-side economics advocates at the Club for Growth released some anti-Howard Dean advertisments that criticized his plans to completely repeal the Bush Tax Cut. The advertisement, is fast becoming famous for the line:

WELL, I THINK HOWARD DEAN SHOULD TAKE HIS TAX HIKING, GOVERNMENT-EXPANDING, LATTE-DRINKING, SUSHI-EATING, VOLVO-DRIVING, NEW YORK TIMES-READING . . .
: . . . BODY PIERCING, HOLLYWOOD-LOVING, LEFT-WING FREAK SHOW BACK TO VERMONT, WHERE IT BELONGS

However, to truely appreciate the awfulness of the ad, you must watch it. Oh yes, don't forget to completely ignore any data mentioned on the site, because it has definetly be doctored to the extreme and does not resemble the truth in the least.

Given how much the Club For Growth dislikes "bizzare" behavior, I wonder how they get along with anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist. According to the Washington Post, Norquist:

....often described as an eccentric. For a bedside table, Norquist uses a giant green canister for Kraft parmesan cheese. He displays what he hopes will be the world's largest collection of airsickness bags. At staff meetings, employees say, he holds court while variously sitting on a giant red plastic ball, eating tuna from a can, rubbing his feet against a massager and sniffing hand lotion as he kneads it into his fingers. He excuses himself to go to "the ladies room."

Goddamn weirdo.

The Case Against Joe Lieberman

I think Amy Sullivan sums it up pretty nicely, here:

Regardless, it's important to remember that Lieberman himself has done his best to derail the Democratic Party's bids for power.

First, he was out early and often lambasting Clinton for the Lewinsky mess, providing ample fodder for the party's eager opposition. Then there was his disgusting performance as a VP candidate, culminating in his love-fest "debate" with Dick Cheney and his early capitulation in Florida. Oh yeah - remember those devastating Enron hearings that had the potential to really rattle Bush and his cronies? Yep - I don't either. We've got good ol' Joe to thank for that feckless non-move too - apparently his own pockets were too lined with Kenny-Boy's fake finances to get him up and moving on the worst financial scandal in the nation's history.

The Liberal Media

The Week's Headlines

Monday
Above the Fold, Page 1:DEAN OFF BY $20 ON SIZE OF TAX REBATES
Page B3: American Enters Second Gilded Age, Inequality At Record Highs

Tuesday
strong>CLARK WEARS SWEATER!
Bush's Economic Program Hundreds of Thousands of Job Short of President's Promises

Wendesday
DEAN HECKLED BY DUMBASS
Bush Speech Draws Thousands of Mean Mouthers

And on and on....

The TNR Endorsement

The New Republic endorsed Joseph Lieberman* a few days ago and while the endorsement doesn't carry much political weight, it was the topic of discussion for a few days in the blogosphere. A lof of liberals are rather displeased with the endorsement, but is it really a suprise or an outrage? Because TNR didn't get in line and back St. Dean doesn't mean it has ceased by being a legitimate center-left publication. Some liberal bloggers see this as preperation for an endorsement of Bush for the general election. I really do not see this happening, in the first place, Lieberman has much more in common with Dean and the other Democrats than he does with Bush (his rating for the American Conservative Union is very low and his Americans for Democratic Action rating is quite high) and Martin Peretz and most of the TNR staff are dyed in the wool democrats. As Peretz once said, "if I vote Republican, may might right hand wither".**


* I do not like Joe Lieberman.
**quote not exact.

Buh

from the Daily News

He didn't free the slaves.
He didn't rid the world of Hitler.

He didn't even - like his father - preside over the destruction of the Berlin Wall.

Yet George W. Bush tells New Yorker writer Ken Auletta: "No President has ever done more for human rights than I have."

George W. Bush tells New Yorker writer Ken Auletta: "No President has ever done more for human rights than I have."

Allow me to start a trend here (and rip off tactic often used by some conservatives): Even the conservative Daily News thinks Bush is a boastful buffoon.

Via Atrios

Blast.

Poll: Bush popular with Calif. Latinos

The Idiotic Pundit

From her sunday column, the "The Argyle General":

WASHINGTON--Can we trust a man who muffs his mufti?

Trying to soften his military image and lure more female voters in New Hampshire, Gen. Wesley Clark switched from navy suits to argyle sweaters. It's an odd strategy. The best way to beat a doctor is not to look like a pharmacist.

General Clark's new pal Madonna, who knows something about pointy fashion statements, should have told him that those are not the kind of diamonds that make girls swoon.

Someone needs to take Ms. Dowd aside and explain to her that she isn't in highschool anymore and isn't Kate Riley. Also, she needs to get fired, just like Safire and Brooks.

Text Files

Man, I remember a few years ago when Kiran told me about textfiles.com. It is a pretty good site, I am not sure if I have recommended on the blog yet, I probably had, my memory is going and soon I'll be reduced to telling the same old shaggy dog stories untill they set me a drift on an ice floe. Anyhow, it has some interesting text files. Here are my picks:

100 Ways To Disappear
And Live Free

Butchering the Human Carcass for Human Consumption

Shooting Tea

THE FOLLOWING ARE COMMON SENSE WARNINGS WHEN DEALING WITH A UFO

W H Y C O P S H A T E Y O U

Enjoy.

Attack of the Non-White Boogie Men

The Japanese have immense technical knowledge and are....
GOING TO STEAL YOUR JOB!

The Mexicans work for nothing and are...
GOING TO STEAL YOUR JOB!

The Chinese also work for nothing and are...
GOING TO STEAL YOUR JOB!

The Indians have immense technical knowledge, work for nothing and are...
GOING TO STEAL YOUR JOB!

Funny how we have been hearing this sort of demagoguery for decades (at least since the late 70's) and the apocalypse is yet to happen. It appears to be just the product of politicians eager to dodge the blame for failed economic policies, hack politicians who can't come up with real solutions and half-bright journalists and arm chair experts* looking for clever talking points.



*for the Record, my chair does not have arm and the next time of these clowns brings up this, or anything else, I will spill my drink on him or her and expel him from the cocktail party circuit and they will never meet all the right people again!

Another Pround Achievement for the White House

The IMF is warning America about the dangers our exploding deficit, which may been damaging to the global economy as well as the fiscal health of this country. But what do they know? They're foreigners. I bet a french guy wrote the report or something.

Brooks Is a Talentless Hack Redux

Here's my last jab at Brooks' column on the neocons. In the article in question he wrote:


Do you ever get the sense the whole world is becoming unhinged from reality? I started feeling that way awhile ago, when I was still working for The Weekly Standard and all these articles began appearing about how Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Doug Feith, Bill Kristol and a bunch of "neoconservatives" at the magazine had taken over U.S. foreign policy...

We'd sit around the magazine guffawing at the ludicrous stories that kept sprouting, but belief in shadowy neocon influence has now hardened into common knowledge. Wesley Clark, among others, cannot go a week without bringing it up.

Ah yes, how absurd. Where would anyone get that notion? Probably from a third rate bat shit publication published bytrogldytes and lunatics from beyond the moon...

p>

Zip Zoom

US plans moon base, sets Mars goal
This expansion fo the space program is worthless election year grandstanding. However, if it is implemented, I suspect the Administration will low ball the costs and forget to provide the astronauts with supplies for a return to trip. I mean, that is basically what it did with Iraq, which is much more important than a Stakhanovite space mission.

Those Democrats Better Watch Out! More Good New for the President.

The unemployment rate dropped to 5.7% this December! Whoooooo! Yowza, another piece of good economic news which completely justifies Bush's enormous tax cuts slated towards the wealthy. Oh wait, the shrinkage of unemployment was do almost entirely due to people dropping out of the work force? Well, then I guess...buh. Those DEMONcrats need to stop with the politics of class envy.

-snark off-

Seeing as how the Republicans and their friends in the media were giving the President credit for recent gains in GDP and employment, I guess he can also be blamed for an economy that leaves so many workers depressed that they give up hope in finding employment.

Clark Fails and It Is All My Fault

Hmmm, I knew there was something I was forgetting. Over the holiday break, I went down to Clark's New York campaign offices and offered to gather signatures to put him on the ballot, but then things got in the way and I didn't do it. Now, it turns out that Clark appears to have insufficient signatures. Blast. Well, fortunately, he's still making the ballot and if his campaign gets things taken care off, can also send delegates to the convention.

Populism

I've written about populism before on this blog and I wasn't really planning on doing it again, but this paragraph from Joe Klein's latest article sort of got my goat:

Populism has a long, unsuccessful and fairly dreadful history in American politics. There was one brief, shining moment in the 1890s when rural populists organized themselves into a political party and produced a brilliant cache of reform initiatives. Their best ideas—antitrust laws, federal food-and-drug regulation, the income tax, the Federal Reserve System—were soon appropriated and enacted by mainstream political parties. More often, populism has been a demagogic and reactionary force, the province of left-wingers who hope to profit from public resentment of the rich, and of right-wingers eager to blame the vagaries of life on shadowy cabals—bankers and fat cats, immigrants and foreigners, blacks and Jews. Happily, this most optimistic of republics has never had much use for such tawdry darkness.

This is nothing but repitition of supremely hackneyed Conventional Wisdom that circulates around the elite opinion press like so much fun in a hot tub. Almost every respectable pundit considers populism an ineffective style of campaigning and lousy approach to politics, but this just isn't true. Yes, the Populists failed to achieve their objectives, but that does not mean that populism doesn't work. In fact, populism probably predates the actual populists (just look at Andrew Jackson) and has been successfully used in different varities by many candidates. Roosevelt's 1936 campaign for example had decidedly populist overtones (during that campaign, FDR declared that he welcomed the scorn of the propertied class) and conservatives have been able to use cultural populism fairly well. No one so glibly should dismiss populism the way Klein has.

The article had a number of other major flaws (flaws as in things that irritated me), such as when Klein compared Howard Dean to George Wallace, but I don't have the patience do detail them here. If you want to torture yourself and see what I mean, you can read the article here.

Brooks Comes Clean

In his reponse to wide spread criticism of his article on neoconservatism, Brooks writes:

"I'm aware of how foolish I was to write the column in the way I did."

But some people bought snow mobiles! SNOW MOBILES!

The Weekly Standard, like the rest of the conservative press, has taken to crowing about the improving state of the economy. However, unlike many other conservative publications, the Standard also claims that the benefits of economic growth have been distributed equitably or as columnist Irwin M. Stelzer (or at least his headline writer) put it, "2003: The Rich Got Richer . . .
. . . and so did everyone else. ". What evidence does Mr. Stelzer use to ... support his thesis? He points out that Americans own a lot of ATVs. Clearly, the popularity of ATV's proves that the economy is delivering the goods for ordinary Americans, far better than any actual economic statistic. Who cares if your neck deep in debt and are worried about your job, someone somewhere has just bought a an ATV. I guess annoying economic data is avoided, because it isn't all that impressive. For example, despite growing GDP, average hourly wages increase a grand total of one cent in November. Not that the Standard would every mention something like that, not when we have the BEST ECONOMY EVER and some people have ATV's and all those facts and stuff just kind of get in the way of that message.

Blogstar Josh Marshall Stings Again

For any of those who tried to come to understand neoconservatism, I highly recommend this post by Josh Micah Marshall. Not because the post actually explains the movement, but because it eliminates one of the most common smoke screens deployed by the neocons, that they aren't really a political movement and any claims to the contrary anre insane anti-semetic conspiracy theories. I never believed in a neocon cabal, but the more the neoconservatives deny that the neoconservative movement exists at all, the more I think there is something to that charge. Why on earth would a political movement deny its existence? The neoconservativism clearly is a distinct ideology with its own propaganda apparatus (the ZOG machine!*...I mean...er...uh...blast), so why deny its existence? Highly supsicious. Speaking of which, liberalism doesn't exist and it has no sway in the Democratic party. If you don't think so, you clearly are the worst bigot this side of Stormfront.org and are objectively pro-Saddam, Idi Amin, Hitler and Stalin.

*There you are, Jon.

I Win Again

Coffee Perk: Lowers Risk of Type 2 Diabetes

The study of more than 126,000 men and women found people who drank more full-test coffee had a lower risk of the blood sugar disease than those who drank less or none of the beverage. The effect was greatest for men whose coffee intake topped five cups a day. This group had about half the odds of developing diabetes as men who didn't drink any regular coffee.

Soon it will be revealed that sitting in the basement and thinking about how better you are than other people will prove to be better for you than vigorous cardiovascular exercise.

The AP is too fair and balanced

The lefty blogosphere has been irritated with the Associated Press for sometime. It seems that the AP really is becoming more and more biased by the day. An article cover the last Democratic primary debate was titled "Democrats go adrift on taxes and trade in debate", which sounds a lot more like a press release from the RNC than the work of a real news service.

Here are some choice quotes:

For a brief time in their debate Sunday, Democrats seemed to be hewing to a New Year's resolution to stick more carefully to the facts on taxes, the budget and more. But old habits die hard.

The reporter decides to open the article by accusing all the Democrats of being pathological liars. I guess that is now a matter of fact rather than opinion thanks to constant repetition by huh-huh conservatives.

This, despite the fact he [Dean] has not worked out his plans for middle-class tax relief, a crucial chunk of any balanced budget plan.

I see, cutting taxes is essential to balancing the budget, just like increased food consumption is crucial for an effective weight loss program.


He said 60 percent of Americans got a tax cut of $304 from Bush -- revising a statement in an earlier debate that 60 percent saved $325.

Those cuts appear to be in the ballpark when it comes to the poorest 60 percent of Americans -- many of whom pay little federal income tax to begin with.

But the independent Tax Policy Center has calculated much larger tax cuts for middle income earners -- $1,012, for example, for someone making $40,000 to $50,000. Even people making $20,000 to $30,000 saved $638 on average, the center found.

So, even when Dean tells the truth (that 60% of Americans got around $300 from the Bush tax cut), he's is in fact lying because he didn't mention what other taxpayers recieved.

I can't believe this nonsense is a News Article for a respected news service. This is completely insane! If my writing was this biased I'd fail my journalism class and be hounded out of my third rate school paper! Damn it, this piece could have been written by a partisan hack from the National Review or the Weekly Standard. Burhmmmm.