Week of: |
10:57 AM
The beef goes on
Crusading carcass splitter Dave Louthan is back. A few weeks ago, he told the New York Times that the mad cow he killed in Washington last year almost slipped through the USDA's testing system. Now "the guy who has been beating the hell out of the USDA from a hundred different directions at once" has a website that includes a "BSE weblog" and photos of "so-called safe cuts of meat". Louthan's advice to wary beef buyers? "You people have got to stop buying beef. You have got to stop feeding that stuff to your kids. If you don't give them any money I guarantee you they will start testing in short order. Vote with your checkbook."
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
4:15 PM
What does Dean mean?
One of the big unknowns of the coming election is this: where will the Dean supporters go when their man calls it a day? Granted, there aren't as many of them as we once thought, but they're numerous enough, they're energetic, and they're mad as hell at Bush. But do they love Dean more than they hate the president?
Until this week, it seemed a safe bet that Dean's people would get behind whichever candidate Dean himself endorsed. And, as Dean seems to want Bush out of the White House, you'd expect him to get behind whoever wins the nomination, which looks like being John Kerry. Right?
But then came this:
"We're not going to win this election if in October George Bush turns to the Democratic candidate and says: 'You were with me on the war; you were with me on No Child Left Behind; you were with me on tax cuts. Why don't you just support me?"'
He's not talking about John Edwards. And this:
"We did not come all this way to change one Washington insider for another Washington insider."
And this:
"This is not the person we need to head the Democratic Party," Dean said midweek at a Milwaukee event. "I think Senator Kerry is clearly not the person to carry the banner of the Democratic Party because he has acted so much like a Republican."
What is Dean thinking? Maybe he thinks he still has a chance. Maybe he can't get out of the habit of being noisily righteous. But he probably doesn't have a chance. And if Kerry gets the nod, are the Deaniacs going to go over to him after this? Not, you'd think, in large numbers. If the election comes down again to slim margins, and the Deaniacs stay home, could they swing it against Kerry? Is Dean making a Bush victory more likely? In other words, does Dean love Dean more than he hates the president?
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
1:00 PM
Mass hysteria
Wondering what conservative talk radio is going to throw at presumptive nominee John Kerry between now and the November election (leaving aside, for now, the latest from Drudge)? Wonder no more. The Weekly Standard has rolled out a new "Kerry Files" column by Hugh Hewitt offering talking points for the battle ahead. He opens:
With less than 38 weeks until the November 2nd vote, radio hosts have got to sharpen the message. That's less than 200 broadcast days, and even with 15 segments per three hour show, that's only 3,000 opportunities to present a four-to twelve-minute segment that focuses on some aspect of John Kerry's record.
Among the suggested angles of attack: Kerry, being the "Swiss-educated son of a foreign service officer," is apparently willing to sell out the U.S. interest to the United Nations at every opportunity. He is also weak on defense, having voting against missile defense, among other weapons systems. Kerry suffers from "impaired moral judgment" -- he has implied, after all, that George W. Bush's Vietnam "service" was somehow less than hornorable. He's pro-gay, pro-abortion ... he's a Democrat, dammit!
And, worse, he's from Massachusetts:
Kerry is a stand-in for Senator Edward Kennedy, the latest in a long list of failed Massachusetts liberals who wanted to be president--a list that includes Michael Dukakis, Paul Tsongas, and of course, Teddy himself. A vote for Kerry is, in effect, a vote for Kennedy, as well as the East-coast elitism that has never successfully governed the country . . . or understood the world as other than a very contentious faculty meeting that can be calmed with the judicious application of soothing words and the distribution of small perks.
Discounting for unhinged hyperbole, Hewitt might be on to something here. Gregg Easterbrook of The New Republic puts it more credibly:
Easterblogg is in a phase of feeling good about John Kerry as the Democratic nominee--and not so good about Massachusetts as the site of the Democratic National Convention. Isn't a Boston candidate anointed in Boston going to seem to the country like one state has taken over a national ticket? Many swing voters were turned off in 2000 by the sense that Texas had taken over the Republican ticket; surely this cost Bush-Cheney votes. Will the Kerry-in-the-Commonwealth convention turn off some swing voters for 2004? Surely, at least, it will raise unwanted memories of the last Democratic presidential candidate from the Scrod State, Michael Dukakis.And needless to say, social conservatives will hammer Democrats about having their convention in the first state to legalize gay marriage, whereas Republicans are likely to get a pass from social conservatives about having their convention in New York City, Sodom-on-the-Hudson.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
11:45 AM
Bad to worse
Democrats might wish it otherwise, but George W. Bush isn't entirely responsible for the economic downturn. There is such a thing as the business cycle, after all. But there's no shortage of evidence out there that the Bush administration has made a bad situation worse. The Center for American Progress (a Democratic think tank) has thrown together a handy compilation, culled from news stories, of Bush policies that have encouraged "job flight and benefit reductions."
Some highlights: The administration
- sponsors conferences to help companies to help companies move jobs to China
- supports new tax breaks for companies moving offshore
- proposes weakend pension protection for workers
- allows companies to cut off eight million workers from overtime
- repeals workplace safety protections
- gives tax breaks encouraging companies to avoid paying workers overtime
There's more. For the full rundown, go here.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
6:00 PM
Where did all the jobs go?
This from the MaxSpeak blog:
ALL THE PRESIDENT'S JOBS: DUBYA DOUBLES DOWNWe've blogged here ad nauseum about the President's unbelievable claims that his tax cuts would generate over 300,000 jobs a month. We are two million short of that pace thus far.
The Bushists' solution: make even more outlandish claims -- that we will now see over 400,000 jobs a month. Press release/summary is here, and report done jointly by EPI and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is here.
Below is a chart from the report showing the devolution of Administration soothsaying over the past three years. Although they have downgraded their prediction of overall employment, the short time before November compresses the period over which progress they need to claim for political reasons can transpire. The upshot is ever more implausible predictions. Given this pattern, by September they will be claiming a million new jobs in October.
Here's the chart.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
2:13 PM
Blowing the whistle on Halliburton
Two former employees of Halliburton are giving Democrats in Congress an inside look at the company's record of wasteful spending and overcharging in connection with work the Texas company and its Kellog, Brown & Root subsidiary does for the Pentagon.
The two, former employees of Halliburton's procurement operation in Kuwait, provided examples of waste ranging from spending up to $7,500 per month on leased vehicles to $100 per sheet for plywood. Based on the evidence, Sen. Henry Waxman of California and Rep. John Dingell of Michigan have sent a letter to William Reed, the Pentagon's chief contract auditor, calling on him to investigate the allegations.
So, will Dick Cheney's former charges be held accountable?
Well, last month, Reed's office asked the Pentagon's inspector general to look into allegations that Kellog, Brown & Root overcharged the military by tens of millions for oil delivered to Iraq. Then, the company agreed to fork over $6.3 milllion to cover potential overbilling charges until the IG investigation was finished. (In a fascinating bit of logical ju-jitsu, the company announced at the time that it found the problem through "strong internal detective work.")
But it's not like KBR is being pushed away from the Pentagon trough.
A month ago, the Army Corps of Engineers awarded yet another contract to the Halliburton subsidiary, extending its work rebuilding oil fields in southern Iraq. And just weeks earlier, the Corps quietly gave KBR a free pass, ruling that the company wouldn't have to provide "any cost and pricing data" regarding the oil delivery contract.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
11:48 AM
Bush's nuclear double-speak
It was refreshing to hear President Bush recognize that nuclear weapons are a constant threat to humanity. It was refreshing to hear him support beefing up the International Atomic Energy Agency. It was refreshing to hear him recognize the threat posed by the nuclear detritus of the Cold War. Finally, it was refreshing to hear him call on the world to "strengthen the laws and international controls that govern proliferation."
Refreshing, and a little galling. After all, this president has built an impressive record of gutting, ignoring, or rejecting arms proliferation treaties. He abandoned a U.N. accord on enforcing the 1995 Biological Weapons Convention; gutted a U.N. pact on stemming the flow of small arms; scrapped the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty; refused to sign onto the 1997 Land Mine Ban Treaty; flatly rejected the 1997 treaty creating the International Criminal Court; killed the 1993 START II nuclear disarmament treaty; flouted the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
What's more, as the Los Angeles Times argues in an editorial, even the efforts Bush has vowed to support have suffered under his presidency.
The 1992 Nunn-Lugar program of destroying Cold War-era Russian nuclear weapons to prevent them from falling into terrorist hands is scheduled in Bush's 2005 budget to drop to $409 million from $450.8 million this year.
When it comes to spending money, The Times notes, Bush has been far more interested in funding weapons production than weapons controls.
The administration wants to increase the potency of the nuclear stockpile, including development of "bunker busters" — battlefield nuclear weapons that would lower the nuclear-use threshold. The "Star Wars" missile defense system, unproven and concocted for a Cold War-style conflict, is to receive $10.7 billion. Neither would do anything to stop terrorists from detonating a nuclear bomb in a U.S. city.The administration's National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction, released in December 2002, is based on the notion that the U.S. can enhance its missile force while asking the rest of the world not to build such weapons. But as nonproliferation expert George Perkovich notes in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, a double standard "seems destined to reduce international cooperation in enforcing nonproliferation commitments rather than enhance it."
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
11:29 AM
Web of Intelligence
David Kay may have packed his bags and come home, but the hunt for missing Iraqi WMDs continues in the Internet cafes of Baghdad. The CIA’s Iraqi Rewards Program provides a secure online form for would-be tipsters to pass on information about “stocks of recently made chemical or biological weapons munitions, missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, or their component parts.” The site also offers rewards for info on Ba’athist leaders and anti-American insurgents. For those worried about getting lots of annoying intelligence-community spam, the agency promises to keep informants’ personal details confidential. Let’s just hope this isn’t a substitute for a real human intelligence program on the ground.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
4:44 PM
O'Reilly unspun
Like all stand-up guys, Bill O'Reilly keeps his promises. As long as somebody forces him to.
A year after saying he would apologize to the nation for supporting the Iraq war if no weapons of mass destruction were found, the Fox News pundit did just that -- but only after being reminded of his vow while on ABC's 'Good Morning America.'
"Well, my analysis was wrong and I'm sorry," O'Reilly said."I am much more skeptical of the Bush administration now than I was at the time," he added.
For being so skeptical, O'Reilly seems to have little difficulty adopting the White House line on this whole debacle, steering blame for the WMD crisis away from the White House or the Pentagon and towards the CIA. "I don't know why Tenet still has his job," O'Reilly said, declaring that he does not believe that Bush intentionally misled the nation.
Memo to Bill O'Reilly: Read our cover story and let us know if you still think it's all the CIA's fault.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
4:22 PM
Bringing it on, Senate-style
"They want a full-fledged investigation — bring it on." - Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penn)
No, the Bush loyalist Santorum wasn't talking about the inquiry into pre-war intelligence, or about the investigation into the 'outing' of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Santorum, the chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, is talking about the internal investigation into the leaking of memos from Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee.
As The Hill reports, the inquiry is rapidly becoming nasty partisan tussle. Initiated as an investigation of whether two former senate staffers used a computer to access the memos, the probe has grown to coveer how the information in those memos got released to the media, starting with The Wall Street Journal.
Senate Sergeant at Arms Bill Pickle, who is heading the probe, briefed members of the Judiciary Committee in a closed session in a secure Capitol room yesterday morning, the day after a group of Judiciary Democrats said the probe warranted a criminal prosecution.But Santorum angrily rejected that notion. "If there’s anything criminal, it’s the behavior of the Democrats in trying to rig cases and work with outside groups," he said, referring to the content of leaked memos about Democratic contacts with outside groups to develop strategy on judicial nominees.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
12:58 PM
Two Americas
Bread-and-butter economic issues are getting more of an airing than usual this political season. John Edwards is working the "Two Americas" angle to great effect, and John Kerry is proving an effective, if unlikely, champion of the little guy against the "powerful interests".
This renewed interest in the hard-done-by is no accident, but it's not because low-wage workers (that's one in four working Americans, by the way) and the unemployed are suddenly a political force; they're the least likely Americans to vote. It's because the ranks of the less fortunate have swelled to include a lot of middle-class Americans.
This from Ruy Teixeira, writing for Tompaine.com. He's referring to the most recent CBS poll.
Americans overwhelmingly (78 percent) believe their family has not made financial progress during Bush's time in office -- 49 percent say they've stayed the same and 29 percent report they're worse off. Just 20 percent say they're better off. Americans are also very unlikely to believe Bush administration policies have had a positive effect on the number of jobs in the United States; a mere 19 percent believe this to be the case. In contrast, 29 percent believe these policies have had no effect and an astonishing 45 percent believe Bush's have actually decreased the number of jobs.Finally, assessments of the effects of Bush's tax cuts are not very positive and, in fact, haven't changed much since September of last year. At this point, only 27 percent believe the tax cuts have been good for the economy, while most (68 percent) believe either they haven't much difference (51 percent) or have been bad for the economy (17 percent). And how about this: more people believe Bush administration policies have made their taxes go up (32 percent) than believe these policies have made their taxes go down (19 percent)! The rest (44 percent) believe Bush administration policies have had no effect on their taxes.
To give the president further pause, this week comes word from the Economic Policy Institute that the highly educated are the latest victims of the weak recovery.
Noting a rise in long-term unemployment, EPI points out that:
Both the increase in overall unemployment and the increase in the number of long-term unemployed have differed by education level. Total unemployment has increased 40%, 74%, and 95%, respectively, for workers with a high school degree or less, some college education, and a bachelor's degree or more. But long-term unemployment has increased at much greater rates—156%, 259%, and 299% for each educational group, respectively.
Translation: if there are Two Americas, the second, less fortunate one is expanding to include people who vote. George Bush take note.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
10:24 AM
White Lies
Over at the National Review's The Corner, John Derbyshire entertains some far-fetched ideas about South Africa:
...the rumor mill in South Africa says that when Mandela dies (he's 85) there will be a general massacre of whites. Mandela seems to be aware of the rumors. South African whites are aware of them too, and all sorts of preparations are being made. Is there such a thing as a self-fulfilling rumor?
His source? A questionable story from the often-questionable right-wing news site WorldNetDaily. Without naming a single source, WND breathlessly relates a hodge-podge of scare stories about how Mandela's death will lead to "70,000 armed black men" going on a rampage and a "Communist plot" to depose Thabo Mbeki.
A quick search of the South African media proves the story to be bunk. A recent article by the South African Press Association shows why: the rumors originated with a white supremacist group called Boermag. This revelation came out during the trial of 18 Boeremag members accused of murder, treason, terrorism, and sabotage. According to police, the accused obsessed about racial conspiracy theories when they weren't plotting to overthrow South Africa's democratic government. The WND dispatch is suspiciously similar the SAPA story– its references to "70,000 armed black men" and the so-called "communist plot" against Mbeki match the SAPA piece almost verbatim.
It seems that Derbyshire has fallen for a piece of inflammatory racial folklore. As South African urban-legend collector Arthur Goldstuck documented in his book The Aadvark and the Caravan, these recurring "white apocalypse" stories have been making the rounds since the 1960s and have never had any basis in fact. But they say a lot about those who repeat them. They are, writes Goldstuck, "an indictment of whites‚ own stereotypical views of the supposed ignorance and savagery of the black population."
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
7:55 PM
Poll and prejudice
The religious right is supposedly adept at mobilizing moral outrage, but here's a piece from Boston's Weekly Dig that suggests it might be losing its touch.
Back in November, after the [Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court] ruled that the state's legislature must do something to provide for gay marriage, the American Family Association (AFA), a nearly 30-year-old nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting "traditional family values," posted a poll on their Web site asking people where they stood on the issue of gay marriage. Upon conclusion, the results would be sent to Congress to show just where public opinion stands on the issue. By the end of December, however, the results weren't looking too good for the folks at AFA. With over 600,000 respondents having made their feelings known, the voting stood as such: Only 32 percent opposed gay marriage and civil unions, with an additional 8 percent against gay marriage but in favor of civil unions, while a whopping 60 percent were in favor of full marriage rights for gay couples.Not long afterward, the poll disappeared from the AFA Web site.
The Dig got on the phone to AFA, where "no one ... seemed to remember any such poll." The paper claims to be in possession of an email listing the results of the poll as of noon on December 28.
Certainly the AFA web site makes no mention of any such poll. Gratifyingly, though, the home page real estate given over to "Marriage and Family" carries the headline, "Are Proponents of Homosexual 'Marriage' Afraid of the Truth?"
(Puzzling sidenote: Google the word "poll" and AFA comes up second. Religious conservatives might not be good at fixing polls any more, but they can still game a search engine.)
The Dig notes that AFA isn't the only conservative group to have conducted a poll and then sat on the results when they didn't quite work out. Evidence, says the paper, that "the religious right is beginning to show signs that they may not be the unstoppable force they once were."
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
6:15 PM
Smearing the antiwarrior
Conservative pundits and bloggers have a pair of military service crises on their hands. The first, of course, is President Bush's less-than-complete record with the Texas Air National Guard. The second is Sen. John Kerry's more-than-complete record as a Naval officer in Vietnam. Reviewed side-by-side, the records are as different as Texas and Massachusetts -- and that's not good news for the GOP. It's hardly surprising, then, that the Team Bush foot soldiers and their friends in the conservative press are taking aim at Kerry's second act, his record as a leader of the antiwar movement. Clearly, somebody in Karl Rove's considerable political orbit has concluded that, given the current mood of the country, painting Kerry as a radical peacenik might be productive.
That certainly was the approach adopted by Stephen Sherman in a January 26 Wall Street Journal op-ed. A Vietnam vet himself, Sherman argues that Kerry doesn't deserve the support of the thousands of other Americans who served in Indochina. Why? Because Kerry, having decided the war was wrong, spoke out.
"Service in Vietnam is an important credential to me. Many felt that such service was beneath them, and removed themselves from the manpower pool. That Mr. Kerry served at all is a reason for a bond with fellow veterans; that his service earned him a Bronze Star for Valor ("for personal bravery") and a Silver Star ("for gallantry") is even more compelling. Unfortunately, Mr. Kerry came home to Massachusetts, the one state George McGovern carried in 1972. He joined the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and emceed the Winter Soldier Investigation (both financed by Jane Fonda). Many veterans believe these protests led to more American deaths, and to the enslavement of the people on whose behalf the protests were ostensibly being undertaken."
So that's the strategy for the veterans in the GOP: Argue that Kerry turned his back on his brothers in arms, and even put them at greater risk by dissenting. But what's the strategy for the scores of Republican satraps and power-brokers who can't fire from behind the political cover of a service record? David Skinner offers a glimpse in a brief Weekly Standard column. Written with a certain light flair, Skinner considers Kerry's contributions to 'The New Soldier,' a 1971 book published by VVAW. While Skinner dutifully notes that Kerry doesn't actually seem to have contributed much, that isn't going to stop him from taking a shot at the senator. Skinner's strategy? Guilt by assocation.
"John Kerry seems to have had a way of eluding the bad odor that clings to his old associates. On "Meet the Press" in 1971, he appeared with VVAW member Al Hubbard, a veteran who was exposed around this time for lying about his rank and combat experience (he had seen no combat). While this confirmed suspicions about the dubious identities of many of the winter soldiers, it didn't keep Kerry from becoming famous. The young politician was able to have his cake and eat it, too, becoming the establishment, patriotic face of a radical, anti-patriotic movement. Quite a trick, really."
So now we know the GOP story line.
At worst, Kerry is a turncoat who somehow put his fellow soldiers in jeopardy because antiwar protests "led to more American deaths"; at best, he's an irresponsible gadfly who hung around with radical anti-patriots. And Bush? He's a patriotic guy who did his duty (even if nobody can remember him actually doing it). Talk about a trick.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
3:20 PM
Leaving Bush and his bill behind
"By passing the No Child Left Behind Act, you have made the expectation of literacy the law of our country. We're providing more funding for our schools -- a 36-percent increase since 2001. We're requiring higher standards. We are regularly testing every child on the fundamentals. We are reporting results to parents, and making sure they have better options when schools are not performing. We are making progress toward excellence for every child in America."
That's how Bush packaged his record on education in the State of the Union. And, considering the stump-speech nature of that addresss, it's probably how he'll package his vision for schools in the upcoming campaign.
If that's true, Bush might want to steer clear of Vermont, Maine, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Utah, and other states in which parents and educators are raising a rebellion against No Child Left Behind and its mandated testing. The reaction isn't new -- a handful of decorated, high-power school districts in affluent New York suburbs announded they would reject the Act even before it was signed. But, as The Christian Science Monitor reports, the revolt is growing. And that's bad news for Bush.
"The rebellion, in some cases led by GOP lawmakers, could endanger a signature achievement of the Bush administration in an election year. At the least, it highlights the frequent tensions between policies in Washington and their effects in the classroom."I think Bush got maximum benefit for this bill on the day he signed it," says Jack Jennings, director of the Center on Education Policy, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington. "Now that we're into the very difficult implementation problems, he's probably going to get tarnished with the backlash."
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
2:00 PM
Kerry beats Bush on spending
A new Rasmussen poll has voters trusting John Kerry over George Bush to control government spending. That's right -- to control government spending!
Says the accompanying release:
The political implications of this are significant in a nation where 63% of Americans say they prefer smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes. Only 23% want a more active government with more services and higher taxes. Being seen as a big spender is far more damaging than running up deficits.
Even more shocking: only 60 percent of Republicans say their party leader is better at controlling government spending than the Democratic contender (21 percent of conservative voters prefer Kerry -- the "Massachusetts liberal" -- on spending). Democrats and unaffiliated voters say that Kerry is better.
The president outpolls Kerry on cultural issues (notably gay marriage) and the role of religion in American society, but overall the numbers show Bush is far more beatable than he looked just a few weeks ago.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
3:32 PM
Just like the bad old days
In a move uncomfortably reminiscent of the judicial crackdowns on campus activists during the Vietnam War, a federal judge has ruled that Drake University must turn over all information related to individuals who attended an anti-war gathering at the Iowa college on Nov. 14. What's more, the Associated Press reports that federal prosecutors have ordered four activists who attended the forum to appear before a grand jury this week. And the government wants Drake to turn over any records it has relating to the local chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, which sponsored the gathering.
"Those served subpoenas include the leader of the Catholic Peace Ministry, the former coordinator of the Iowa Peace Network, a member of the Catholic Worker House, and an anti-war activist who visited Iraq in 2002.They say the subpoenas are intended to stifle dissent.
'This is exactly what people feared would happen,' said Brian Terrell of the peace ministry, one of those subpoenaed. 'The civil liberties of everyone in this country are in danger. How we handle that here in Iowa is very important on how things are going to happen in this country from now on.'
...
The targets of the subpoenas believe investigators are trying to link them to an incident that occurred during the rally. A Grinnell College librarian was charged with misdemeanor assault on a peace officer; she has pleaded innocent, saying she simply went limp and resisted arrest."
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
3:09 PM
For God and the Party
Much has been made of the recent survey, conducted by the Pew Research Center, which shows that Americans who frequently attend religious services tend to vote Republican. It's seen as another indicator of the GOP's unassailable strength in the Bible Belt, another sign of the ways the parties have become divided by decades of 'culture war.'
Joe Feuerherd offers another interpretation in a piece on TomPaine.com. The Washington correspondent for National Catholic Reporter, Feuerherd suggests that Republicans, by adeptly appealing to white Evangelical Christians, may have cloaked themselves in religiosity, but that hardly means the GOP has a lock on religious voters.
"Perhaps it's somewhat our own fault," said the Rev. Brenda Bartella Peterson, executive director of the newly formed Clergy Leadership Network. "The religious voice has been too much turned over to conservative voices and we feel that most of America lies somewhere in the center. The radical right has taken over the religious microphone."
Now, groups like Peterson's are trying to take back what the left has lost. And, as Feuerherd writes, they're hoping to do so by "using techniques honed by their political doppelgangers on the right."
"From their small offices across the street from Democratic Party national headquarters, the Clergy Leadership Network aims "to educate and activate clergy on issues of faith surrounding the 2004 election."The Rev. Albert Pennybacker, former director of the National Council of Churches Washington Office, serves as the new group's unpaid CEO. Among its National Committee members: the Revs. Jesse Jackson and William Sloan Coffin; the Rev. Joan Brown Campbell, former General secretary of the National Council of Churches; and Benedictine Sr. (and NCR contributor) Joan Chittister.
Don't look for the group to wade in on the religious right's litmus test issue: abortion. "One reason the moderate-to-left religious community has been silent is that we are so diverse that we don't often speak with one voice," said Peterson. Divisive issues such as abortion would interfere with the group's "reason for existence," said Peterson."
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
11.50 AM
Every bulldog has his day
So how did he do? No, not George W. Bush -- Tim Russert.
The Los Angeles Times notes that Russert subjected Bush to "persistent questioning," and a "steady grilling" on Meet the Press; the New York Times says Russert "baited" the president; and the London Independent found the interview to be "the most sustained media grilling Mr Bush has undergone since he took office."
Really? For a corrective take, see this from blogger Bob Somerby, by way of Brad DeLong's blog.
"Bulldog Tim rolled over and died. Can we stop calling Russert a bulldog?: Can you find any hint of an answer to Russert’s question? Bush was asked why he dragged his feet on setting up a probe. His answer? Terrorists are people who hide in caves. Bush’s languorous “answer,” by the way, lasted a minute and 32 seconds. That was 92 seconds the slow-talking guest had managed to take off the clock.
But readers, you know that ol’ bulldog, Tim Russert! Surely he got in Bush’s face with a tough-talking follow-up question, a question designed to force his guest to get himself back on the mark! After all, Russert is the toughest pundit in all punditdom, pundits say. He’s just “like a prosecutor,” they like to say. You can run—but you can’t hide from Russert.
But no, Russert didn’t follow up when Bush gave a speech to avoid his first question. As he did throughout the hour, he simply moved on to Question 2 when Bush failed to answer Question 1. What happened to that frightening bulldog—the one the press has talked up for years? You saw it—that bulldog turned to a puddy-tat, coughed a hairball and died. What became of Bulldog Tim? That “dog” didn’t bark, hunt or slobber.
Irrelevant “answers” went without follow-up. Blatant misstatements by Bush went unchallenged. Bush was allowed to give long, windy speeches—speeches so long and so slow that it sometimes seemed that Russert must have left the building. And where, on where were those film clips Tim loves—the clips where he highlights his target’s past statements? Such clips had been sent down the memory-hole, along with the “bulldog” your fake pundits love. “No no no no no no no?” Russert loved lecturing Dean last June. This Sunday, the phrase wasn’t heard.
But don’t worry—pundits immediately began pretending that Russert really put Bush through the hoops. They know the script, and they love to recite. We’ll examine the clowning all week."
But concludes DeLong: "Actually, this time I don't think so: there's too much negative instant reaction stuff out there. Russert's failure to ask follow-up questions is indeed 'puzzling.'"
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
10.00 AM
Caveat Preemptor
You wouldn't think you'd have to burrow down to page A17 in the Sunday Washington Post to find a story with the following lead paragraphs:
"In its fall 2002 campaign to win congressional support for a war against Iraq, President Bush and his top advisers ignored many of the caveats and qualifiers included in the classified report on Saddam Hussein's weapons that CIA Director George J. Tenet defended Thursday.In fact, they made some of their most unequivocal assertions about unconventional weapons before the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) was completed."
Kind of a big deal, you'd think. Anyway, on Aug. 26, 2002, for example, Dick Cheney said: "Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon," and worried that Saddam would give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists. "Deliverable weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terror network, or a murderous dictator, or the two working together, constitute as grave a threat as can be imagined," Cheney said.
Apparently, though, U.S. intelligence analysts had said that Saddam would give terrorists weapons only if faced with annihilation, and that, as a senior CIA official told the Senate in October, 2002, "the probability of him initiating an attack . . . in the foreseeable future . . . I think would be low."
The American public is no more likely than Bush's Democratic opponent to accept at face value David Kay's breezy explanation, shared with senators last week, that caveats tend to get skipped "the higher you go up" the bureaucratic chain because "you're busy, you've got other things to do."
Link this
E-mail this
Print this