Presidential mad libs

Our Journey Is Not Done

The voters hand _____ a historic victory but send a message, not a mandate: work with the _____

(TIME, November 6, ____) -- A nation born of a distrust of kings won't easily forgive a President who behaves too much like one. And so every four years, the people give a test: first we hand someone the most powerful job in the world. Then we demand that he not be too proud of himself for having it, too desperate to keep it or too sure that he alone knows what to do with it. And then we sit back and watch, until it's time to decide whether to re-elect him.

In four years _____ learned that it is not enough to be smart or charming or plump with vision. His triumph on Tuesday night, for all the records it broke, was a victory for studied modesty; for a willingness to swallow his pride to preserve his power, embrace his enemies to steal their ideas and march into history as the first two-term _____ since _____, not with great leaps forward but one baby step at a time.

The President in question is Bill Clinton, and the year was 1996. Clinton defeated Dole by 8 percent - "NOT A MANDATE". The year is now 2004. Bush's margin of victory is less than 3 percent. I'm curious to read what TIME will write next week. We already know what Bush thinks. How does less than half of a non-mandate equal a mandate? Easily, when you hold a degree in fuzzy math.

And the day after that

My last thoughts on Tuesday. Well, just stuff collated from daily newspapers. Good stuff.

In The Day the Enlightenment Went Out, Garry Wills calls it William Jennings Bryan's revenge for the Scopes Trial:

This election confirms the brilliance of Karl Rove as a political strategist. He calculated that the religious conservatives, if they could be turned out, would be the deciding factor. The success of the plan was registered not only in the presidential results but also in all 11 of the state votes to ban same-sex marriage. Mr. Rove understands what surveys have shown, that many more Americans believe in the Virgin Birth than in Darwin's theory of evolution.

The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz collates a few more post-mortems (of democracy?) in Media Notes. Most of them aren't very insightful. Kurtz summarizes the New York Times editorialas saying that Bush is a uniter in "part of the country". That's like saying a someone is partly male. Either you're a uniter or a divider! Thwe LA Times reports that Democratic strategists and political analysts (quoting oneself, eh?) claimed that the Kerry campaign lacked one thing: "a boldly rendered portrayal of himself and his vision for the country." Well, for one thing, that's two things. And the first is not accurate. Kerry did have a boldly rendered portrayal of himself, as a man dedicated to service and country all his adult life, and committed to making American safer at home and respected in the world. The second part could have used more fleshing out. He needed to be more aggressive about the Bush administration's character flaws. Not personal flaws, though many they may be. But the administration's pathology, its refusal to listen to other voices (be they other countries or others in the administration itself), and connect that with the failures of intelligence. When you believe something ideologically, it's that much harder to consider the evidence impartially. Unfortunately, that's also a flaw of many Americans - "faith-based intelligence" is not an insult to them. Or at least not the same kind of insult. The Chicago Tribune notes that the war and poor economy made people cling even more to Bush. This sidestepping of reason I can understand better - fear is a evolutionary motivator. I just find it ironic that we are rewarding someone for putting us at risk both at home and abroad. What are we, scared yet dependent 16-year-old child brides in polygamous marriages? Such thinking does not become citizens in a democracy, only subjects in an authoritarian regime. I can be patient for regime change. Four years, or even forty - then all the militant fundamentalists whether in America or abroad will be dead. But global warming, nuclear proliferation, and imminent challenges of social justice require attention today.

Harold Meyerson writes in The American Prospect:

"The Democrats' America looks increasingly like a discontinuous ghetto -- the Northeast, the Pacific Coast, the industrial and upper Midwest, minus (it seems) Ohio. These states are home to the interesting, and promising, demographic changes in the U.S. They are the focus of much Latino immigration, and it's to these states that college-educated young professionals tend to move. Unfortunately, though these developments may make blue states bluer but they also make red states redder."

Aside from the terminology ("discontinous ghetto" is an oxymoron, and in fact ghetto better describes the red state folk, the half of America who live within 50 miles of their birthplace), I think Meyerson alludes to an important point. Many educated people are fleeing the red states, which only makes them less cultured and less amenable to change. But blue states are not inherently blue - "blueness" instead is the result of migration, immigration, the interaction, toleration, and education that is a glad consequence of such movement. And that is a climate change I'm proud of.

Some morning after thoughts

Atrios says "Move On-ward":

People tend to take a loss like this as "proof" that their personal pet peeve about the campaign was correct, and too much discussion of it reinforces the tendency to try to keep trying to fight the last campaign. Elections are not deterministic things, and the binary nature of their outcomes tends to obscure the underlying complexity. What matters isn't what was done wrong, but what needs to be done right for the '06 elections.

Josh Marshall calls on the president to be a uniter, not a 51% divider:

It would be up to the president...to show concrete signs of a willingness not to govern in the divisive and factional spirit from which he's governed in the last four years.

And then there's this from his comments today: "We've worked hard and gained many new friends, and the result is now clear -- a record voter turnout and a broad, nationwide victory."

This is the touchstone and the sign. A 'broad, nationwide victory'? He must be kidding. Our system is majority rule. And 51% is a win. But he's claiming a mandate.

"A broad, nationwide victory"?

It would almost be comical if it weren't for the seriousness of what it portends. This election cut the nation in two. A single percentage point over 50% is not broad. A victory that carried no states in the Northeast, close to none in the Industrial midwest is not nationwide, and none on the west coast is not nationwide.

And yet he plans to use this narrow victory as though it were a broad mandate, starting right back with the same strategy that has already come near to tearing this country apart.

Margaret Cho takes the, ahem, larger prespective:

Although it might be said that we can't expect change overnight, there really was a very rapid shift in the way we view politics. We have become unafraid of voicing our opinions, using our power, pooling our resources, and allowing our differences to aid us instead of keeping us apart.

These new ways of looking at ourselves politically redefine what it means to be an American. It takes what used to be a very passive identity and turned us all into revolutionaries. In a short time, we activated activism, something that lay dormant in many of us and had not been awakened until now.

The Bush administration will be sorry they won this battle, for they now look forward to losing the war. Ultimately, a government cannot defeat its people

Dante Chinni, who is not seeing red:

some of the party's social moderates - the last holdouts against Democratic realignment such as Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island and both of Maine's senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins- are not happy with direction from the top. Given the Republicans' present course, one can only wonder how much longer they will stay in their party, or how much longer those seats will stay in the GOP column in the Senate.

And then there is the question of what the cultural issues mean to the nation's well-being. If cultural issues are going to be the hallmark of the next four years, it's probably safe to assume the divisions that were there in 2004 are only going to be deeper in 2008. When it comes to dividing a nation, tax cuts have nothing on values.

A Daily Kos reader reveals the so-called "moral values" for what they are:

This is not about Republicans or Democrats.
This is not about the war.
This is not about the economy.
This is not even about counting the votes.

This is the final step in the 20-year creeping coup by the theocrats

And finally, read Katrina vanden Heuvel's incisive affirmation of America's split personality. She quotes John Dos Passos from his USA Trilogy:

America our nation has been beaten by strangers who have turned our language inside out who have taken the clean words our fathers spoke and made them slimy and foul

their hired men sit on the judge's bench they sit back with their feet on the tables under the dome of the State House they are ignorant of our beliefs they have the dollars the guns the armed forces the power plants
they have built the electric chair and hired the executioner to throw the switch

all right we are two nations."

America is in many ways composed of words: a few old documents; certain speeches by Presidents and religious leaders; our neon vernacular of lyrics, showtunes, sales pitches. And common words are imbued with sacred meaning in this land. I am proud of the words that give America its shape and color. But the dark forces in our country have taken the sacred - "family", "moral values", even "America" and made those words as slimy and foul as they are.

Jeb + Jeanne = Florida

So I "miscalculated" the election results. But I am right about Kerry and Bush.

THE CONSERVATIVE CASE AGAINST GEORGE W. BUSH

Subject: THE CONSERVATIVE CASE: 41 Republican reasons

PLEASE send this message to your Republican and conservative friends. It's an updated version of the Orange County Weekly list of 33 reasons. Alas, the list keeps growing and growing... This is my last election forward. Y'all have been great! - Phil

THE CONSERVATIVE CASE: 41 REPUBLICAN REASONS TO REJECT GEORGE W. BUSH AND VOTE FOR JOHN KERRY:

"To announce that there should be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American people."

-Theodore Roosevelt, "Lincoln and Free Speech", Kansas City Star, May 7, 1918

1. "George W. Bush is no conservative, and his unprincipled abandonment of conservatism under the pressure of events is no statesmanship. The Republic would be well served by his defeat this November. . . . American conservative politics championed private property, an institution sacred in itself and vital to the well-being of society. It favored limited government, balanced budgets, fiscal prudence and avoidance of foreign entanglements. . . . The policies of this administration self-labeled ‘conservative’ have little to do with the essence of tradition. Rather, they tend to centralize power in the hands of the government under the guise of patriotism. . . . For an American conservative, better one lost election than the continued empowerment of cynical men who abuse conservatism through an exercise of power unrestrained by principle through the compromise of conservative beliefs. . . . George W. Bush is no conservative, no friend of limited, constitutional government—and no friend of freedom."

—William Bryk’s "The Conservative Case Against George W. Bush", New York Press, August 4, 2004

2. "The American people are not going to absorb this kind of chaos for several years. I know this country; I know myself. If I’m seeing 10 bodies a weekend over the last weekend in October, that’s going to influence my vote."

—Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly, in early April

3. "The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, served notice that a cruel and relentless set of enemies desires to do damage to the United States. It should also be noted that they represented a massive failure by the government agencies sworn to protect us and a defeat (one may hope only temporary) for the free American way of life. Since those attacks, no government agency leader has been fired. Failure was rewarded with larger budgets. And instead of undertaking a pinpoint yet relentless counterattack on those who actually planned the attack, the government has frittered away resources and credibility in a war against a country that was not involved in the attack. That war bids fair to continue for years, diverting precious attention and resources from the stateless terrorists who may well be planning the next attack even now. Those are sobering thoughts, but three years on Americans should be ready—must be ready—for a dose of realism. Realism is essential in the task of remaking intelligence gathering, its leadership and its execution, essential to understanding the uneasyrelationship between liberty and security and the public policies that mediate the two. It was not an abstraction called ‘terrorism’ that attacked America but a specific group of terrorists. Instead of engaging in a vague crusade to reshape the world, why not renew America’s resolve to inflict damage on those who inflicted damage on us?

—From the lead editorial in The Orange County Register, September 10

4. "I’m dismayed that the campaign turned out, when he was running for president, turned out so different from the policies. And as a politician, your credibility is everything. And to run as a compassionate person—and someone who said in the
debate to the question—"How will you conduct your foreign policy?"—and he answered as a candidate, "It’s important to be humble, and if we are arrogant, countries will resent us." And then be the absolute opposite. I don’t think anybody would argue that there is an air of arrogance about this, about our foreign policy, it’s very deliberate. And so that’s my criticism: that if you are going to run, tell the people exactly how you are going to govern and don’t do something differently."

—Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-Rhode Island), Providence Phoenix interview, July 26, 2003. Chafee recently said he probably won’t vote for Bush

5. "The philosophical collapse of the GOP came with the 2000 campaign of George W. Bush, who ran without calling for a single spending cut, much less the elimination of programs, agencies, or departments. Worse, neoconservatives moved to fill the philosophical vacuum created by the supply-siders. The neocons openly support big government and consider FDR to have been a great president. They are the intellectuals who came up with the ‘faith-based initiative’ and like to frame the political debate as one between people who want religion in the political square and the secularists who don’t. The neocons are the ones who pushed Bush to call for greater federal government involvement in K-12 education than any president in American history. And now the neocons are calling for American Empire. We have, indeed, come a long way from Reagan and Goldwater."

—Edward H. Crane, Cato Institute President, "The Rise and Fall of the GOP", December 2003 Cato Policy Report

6. Reagan family spokeswoman Joanne Drake said Tuesday that permission is needed for anyone to use Reagan's likeness in an ad because doing so implies that he endorsed one candidate over another. "No one has requested the permission to use his image in an ad, nor would we feel it appropriate to give such permission at this juncture," Drake said. "We protect his image very carefully, particularly as it relates
to politics."

—"Reagan's Family Criticizes Use of Reagan in Anti-Kerry Ad", Associated Press, June 15

7. "Reagan was a religious man and a social conservative, but he never tried to get the federal government into the business of funding religion, as Bush has done with his steady push for ‘faith-based initiatives.’ Reagan’s opposition to California’s
anti-gay Briggs Initiative in 1978 stands in stark contrast to the homophobia of the Bush campaign. . . . [Reagan’s] eloquence on behalf of limited government and his success in slowing the growth of government are sorely missed today. I met Ronald Reagan. I campaigned for Ronald Reagan. I was inspired by Ronald Reagan. George W. Bush is no Ronald Reagan."

—David Boaz, executive vice-president of the Cato Institute, in "Reagan’s Heir," an editorial in the August 2004 Cato Policy Report

8. "George W. Bush is not only not a good Republican, but he hasn’t been a good president. President Ronald Reagan said, "Trust but verify." President George W. Bush started a war based on, at best, a one-sided reading of badly flawed intelligence. Doesn’t the president owe it to the American people to check his facts before starting a war?"

—From RepublicansforKerry.org

9. "This is the Republican Party that has embraced as its own every liberal initiative, from Lyndon Johnson’s Medicare to Jimmy Carter’s Department of Education to Bill Clinton’s AmeriCorps. This is the Republican Party preparing to enact a Medicare drug benefit that would represent the largest expansion of the welfare state in 40 years. This is the Republican Party that is increasing federal education spending as if doing so had something to do with the quality of local schools. This is the Republican Party that is increasing spending faster than during the Clinton years. . . . [D]espite occasional exceptions, the Bush administration, backed by the Republican-controlled Congress, has been promoting larger government at almost every turn."

—Doug Bandow, syndicated columnist and former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, in "The Conservative Case Against George W. Bush" in the Dec. 1, 2003, The American Conservative

10. "The answer, alas, is that this president has decided [same-sex marriages] will help him politically to tear us apart. His base is restless over spending and Iraq, and this is a means to placate and energize them. If that means turning a tiny minority into a lethal threat to civilization, so be it. If that minority’s sole crime is to seek to live up to the same responsibilities as everyone else, to uphold the family, to support responsibility, then that also is beside the point. In this battle, the president has shown his true colors. He is a divider, not a uniter."

-Andrew Sullivan, in a July 20 essay for conservative British newspaper Sunday Times

11. "When the president endorsed this constitutional amendment against gay marriage, conservatives should have asked, ‘What’s conservative about it?’ He jealously guarded state prerogatives as governor but now wants to nationalize marriage and family law to create a ‘no-homo-need-apply’ exception to the Constitution. What happened to the president’s reverence for 50 individual state laboratories? When the president chastises so-called ‘activist judges’ in Massachusetts and California, someone should remind him that activist judges put him in the White House.

—Brian O’Leary Bennett, Republican Congressman Robert K. Dornan’s chief of staff from 1977 to 1989, in a March 14 op-ed for The Orange County Register

12. "Then the president uses the phrase ‘if Congress is wise with the people’s money.’ But the point is that, in the past three years, the Congress has, by any measure, been grotesquely unwise with the people’s money. And the president vetoed not a single spending measure. In fact, his own budgets exploded spending on both war and homeland security and every other government department, from Labor to Agriculture, before the pork-sniffers in Congress even got started."

—conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan, in the Feb. 9 New Republic

13. "No one should be surprised when economic or budget forecasts coming out of Washington are influenced by politics, especially during an election year. But when economic history is rewritten -- with political consequences -- that's going too far. President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, chaired by Harvard economist N. Gregory Mankiw, is trying to get away with exactly such revisionist history. Instead of using the accepted start date of March 2001, the CEA announced that the recession really started in the fourth quarter of 2000—a shift that would make it much more credible for the Bush administration to term it the ‘Clinton Recession.’. . . [Not only is this ploy dishonest, it] masks an attack on one of the few remaining bastions of economic neutrality. For almost 75 years, the start and end dates of recessions have been set b the National Bureau of Economic Research, a private nonpartisan research group based in Cambridge, Massachusetts."

—Michael J. Mandel, "Bush's Council of Economic Advisers re-writes economic history to blame Clinton for recession", in the Feb. 23’edition of BusinessWeek

14. "This regime—and I will now call it a regime—has gotten absolutely bizarre. Between Ashcroft and Cheney . . . and their puppet Bush and Powell and his son [FCC chairman Michael Powell] . . . I mean, this has gone berserk. I mean, I’ll be off the air, and I won’t be able to talk to you about it anymore, but, listen, it’s bad. This is the most unbelievable thing, what’s going on, where people are being thrown off the air without a trial. . . . These fascist, right-wing a-holes are getting so much freaking power, you gotta take back the country. [Those are] my last words to you. I don’t know how many more days I have [left] on the air."

—Radio personality Howard Stern, a former Bush supporter, on his Feb. 26 show

15. "It’s possible that the vice president has spent so little time studying the terrorist phenomenon that he doesn’t know about the successes in the 1990s. There were many. The Clinton administration stopped Iraqi terrorism against the United States through military intervention. It stopped Iranian terrorism against the United States through covert action. It stopped the al-Qaeda attempt to have a dominant influence in Bosnia. It stopped the terrorist attacks at the millennium. It stopped many other terrorist attacks, including on the U.S. embassy in Albania. And it began a lethal covert-action program against al-Qaeda; it also launched military strikes against al-Qaeda. Maybe the vice president was so busy running
Halliburton at the time that he didn’t notice."

—Richard A. Clarke, former head of counterterrorism for the National Security Council under George W. Bush, responding to a question by Salon.com’s Joe Conason regarding Vice President Dick Cheney’s assertion that no U.S. administration had ever responded to the terrorist threat

16. "[I] left the Republican Party because I feared the Bush administration and the GOP-controlled Congress were moving too far to the right and not listening to moderate Republicans such as myself. Much of what we have seen since then has only confirmed those fears. We are in a war that we shouldn’t be in; the wealthy get tax cuts while our schools get shortchanged; the deficit grows by the day while millions of jobs are lost here at home. Meanwhile, the White House tries to placate the far right by supporting a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, diverting the nation’s attention from where it should be focused. We are headed on the wrong course, and it troubles me deeply."

—Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords, former Republican and now an independent, speaking to Salon.com on March 26, 2004

17. "I’d like to know more about exactly what has been happening. Was this an isolated incident. Was it a pattern of misconduct? Who was involved? Was it military, CIA, reservists, people on contract with the government? We don’t know the answers to all that yet. But, frankly, Joe, that’s one of the problems. Apparently, this investigation and a report have been in the process for weeks. Nobody in Congress seems to have been notified that this was going on. The conduct was totally ridiculous, intolerable."

—Senator Trent Lott (R-Mississippi) , on the May 4 broadcast of MSNBC’s Scarborough Country regarding the Administration’s withholding information on the Abu Ghraib prison scandal

18. "Since the conclusion of the war, the Bush administration has shown a dismaying capacity to believe its own public relations. . . . Ultimately, even if our choices now can help or hurt, it is Iraqis who have to save Iraq. It is their country, not ours. In coming weeks and months, we will have to defer to the authorities we hope will eventually take control, in the process endorsing compromises that we will consider less than ideal. But it is time for reality to drive our Iraq policy, unhindered by illusions or wishful thinking."

—"An End to Illusion," an editorial in the May 3 National Review

19. "During George W. Bush’s keynote address to the 40th anniversary black-tie banquet of the American Conservative Union last week, diners rose repeatedly to applaud the president’s remarks. But one man kept his seat through the 40-minute oration. It was no liberal interloper, but conservative stalwart Donald Devine. As ACU vice chairman, Devine was privileged to be part of a pre-dinner head-table reception with President Bush. However, Devine chose not to shake hands with the president. . . . What most bothers Devine and other conservatives is steady growth of government under this Republican president. If Devine’s purpose in devoting his life to politics was to limit government’s reach, he feels betrayed that Bush has outstripped his liberal predecessors in domestic spending."

—Conservative columnist Robert Novak, in his May 20 column

20. "I would not have voted for [President Bush’s] taxcut based on what I know. . . . There is no doubt that the people at the top who need a tax break the least will get the most benefit. . . . Too often, presidents do things that don’t end up helping the people they should be helping, and their staffs won’t tell them their actions stink on ice."

—Former Republican North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms, in an interview with a North Carolina business magazine via Salon.com’s "War Room ’04" feature

21. "In the lead-up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw, at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility; at worst, lying, incompetence and corruption. False rationales presented as a justification; a flawed strategy; lack of planning; the unnecessary alienation of our allies; the underestimation of the task; the unnecessary distraction from real threats; and the unbearable strain dumped on our overstretched military."

—Retired General Anthony Zinni, former commander-in-chief of U.S. Central Command, in his book "Battle Ready"

22. "For all their brilliance, [Bush-Cheney campaign manager Ken] Mehlman and Karl Rove (who no doubt vetted this lineup) have made a very serious mistake with this convention’s lineup. It is one that the rank and file should not tolerate. If the president is embarrassed to be seen with conservatives at the convention, maybe conservatives will be embarrassed to be seen with the president on Election Day."

—Paul M. Weyrich, in a July 12 article for newsmax.com, criticizing the Bush administration’s decision to bar true conservatives from addressing the Republican National Convention in favor of free-spending RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, Rudy Giuliani and George Pataki

23. "We are fighting undeclared wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and an open-ended war against terrorism worldwide. If the president claims extraordinary wartime powers, and we fight undeclared wars with no beginning and no end, when if ever will those
extraordinary powers lapse? Since terrorism will never be eliminated completely, should all future presidents be able to act without regard to Congress or the
Constitution simply by asserting, ‘We’re at war?’ Conservatives should understand that the power given the president today will pass to the president’s successors, who may be only too eager to abuse that unbridled power domestically to destroy their political enemies. Remember the anger directed at President Clinton for acting above the law when it came to federal perjury charges? An imperial presidency threatens all of us who oppose unlimited state power over our lives."

—Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) on the libertarian website www.antiwar.com

24. "Retrospectively, now that the inadequate intelligence and faulty conclusions are being revealed, that all things being considered, it was a mistake to launch that military action, especially without a broad and engaged international coalition.
The cost in casualties is already large and growing, and the immediate and long-term financial costs are incredible. Our country’s reputation around the world has never been lower, and our alliances are weakened. From the beginning of the conflict, it was doubtful that we for long would be seen as liberators, but instead increasingly as an occupying force. Now we are immersed in a dangerous, costly mess and there is no easy and quick way to end our responsibilities in Iraq without creating bigger future problems in the region and, in general, in the Muslim world."

—Representative Doug Bereuter (R-Nebraska), a senior member of the House International Relations Committee and vice chairman of the Select Committee on
Intelligence who voted for a House resolution authorizing the president to invade Iraq, in an Aug. 18 letter to his constituents

25. "As Republican former governors, senators and public officials, we urge our party to renew its allegiance to the proven, common-sense values that unite America. Instead of partisan ideology—which increasingly has led moderates to leave the
party—what’s needed is a speedy return to the pragmatic, problem-solving mainstream. Here’s how the president and Republican-majority Congress can send that clear signal to the nation:

•Stop weakening environmental law—and once again protect our air, water and public lands as Teddy Roosevelt and other great Republican leaders intended;

•Restore fiscal responsibility—with ‘pay-as-you-go’ budget discipline to end record deficits that jeopardize economic growth;

•Put the health of millions first—and clear the way for embryonic stem cell research;

•Appoint mainstream federal judges—and respect the Constitution;

•Make America safer—and protect cities and towns, still vulnerable three years after Sept. 11, by securing chemical and nuclear plants and shipping containers;

•Rebuild our alliances—with real partnerships and restore America’s standing in the world.

•By returning to the mainstream in these ways, our party can regain the trust of a divided nation and earn a vote of confidence in November."

—Statement signed by 17 former Republican governors, senators, state attorney generals, and members of the Nixon and Ford administrations that appeared in a full-page ad if the Aug. 30 New York Times

26. "It’s because of the influence of [neo-conservatives] on the president that Mr. Bush may have ‘overreacted’ to the threat of al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, said Mr. Scowcroft, and that the ‘preoccupation with terrorism’ meant that ‘we are maybe not paying enough attention to other problems in the world that have nothing to do with terrorism but are really significant.’ Mr. Bush had squandered opportunities to avoid war in Iraq, said Mr. Scowcroft, who also speculated that the Bush administration had exaggerated the threat of weapons of mass destruction because it provided ‘the only reason which you could use to propel a war [in] a particular time frame.’ He fretted that the ongoing fighting in Iraq made it impossible for the administration to confront nations much closer to actually acquiring nuclear weapons, like Iran. Most of all, Mr. Scowcroft reiterated his skepticism about the prospects for gunship democracy in the Middle East—outlining the kind of realism for which George W. Bush’s father was known around the world. ‘It’s not that I don’t believe Iraq is capable of democracy,’ said Mr. Scowcroft. ‘But the notion that within every human being beats this primeval instinct for democracy has not ever been demonstrated to me.’"

—From a Sept. 6 New York Observer profile on retired General Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to George H.W. Bush

27. "Log Cabin has proudly supported the President’s firm leadership in the war on terror. As principled Republicans, we believe in our Party’s commitment to a strong national defense and a confident foreign policy. We especially applaud the President’s leadership in cutting taxes for American families and small businesses, his belief in free market principles and his compassionate and historic leadership in the global fight against HIV/AIDS. . . . At the same time, it is impossible to overstate the depth of anger and disappointment caused by the President’s support for
an anti-family constitutional amendment. This amendment would not only ban gay marriage, it would also jeopardize civil unions and domestic partnerships. . . . Some will accuse us of being disloyal. However, it was actually the White House who was disloyal to the 1,000,000 gay and lesbian Americans who supported him four years ago. Log Cabin’s decision was made in response to the White House’s strategic political decision to pursue a re-election strategy catered to the radical right. The President’s use of the bully pulpit, stump speeches and radio addresses to support a constitutional amendment has encouraged the passage of discriminatory laws and state constitutional amendments across America. Using gays and lesbians as wedge issues in an election year is unacceptable to Log Cabin."

—Excerpts from a Sept. 8 press release by the Log Cabin Republicans, an advocacy group for gay GOPers, announcing it was withholding endorsement of President
Bush’s re-election

28. "Anyone who was involved in the 2000 McCain campaign, as I was, knows exactly who is responsible for the ‘Swift boat’ slime attack on Senator Kerry—in Bush World, all low roads lead to [Karl] Rove. When I was at the Christian Coalition, I witnessed first-hand the alliance of the deregulation, no-tax crowd with the religious conservatives. Ironically, the rank and file of the religious right are hardly the country club set. They are largely middle-class Americans who don’t rely on trust funds or dividend checks for their livelihoods. But the leaders of the religious right have betrayed their constituents by failing to champion such economic issues as family leave or access to health insurance, which would relieve the stresses on many working families. The only things the religious conservatives get are largely symbolic votes on proposals guaranteed to fail, such as the gay marriage constitutional amendment. The religious right has consistently provided the ground troops, while the big-money men have gotten the goodies.

—Marshall Wittmann, who ran the "Bull Moose" website before leaving to work for John McCain. A Teddy Roosevelt fan and McCain Republican, he says he’s voting for John Kerry

29. "The fact is a crisp, sharp analysis of our policies are required. We didn’t do that in Vietnam, and we saw 11 years of casualties mount to the point where we finally lost. We can’t lose this. This is too important. There’s no question about that. But to say, ‘Well, we just must stay the course and any of you who are questioning are just hand-wringers,’ is not very responsible. The fact is we’re in trouble. We’re in deep trouble in Iraq. We need more regionalization. We need more help from our allies. We need the Iraqi people to come around us in a more supportive way. That means more jobs, more development. The hearings we held this week in the Foreign Relations Committee were an eye-opener on the long side of this.

—Nebraska Republican Senator and Vietnam veteran Chuck Hagel, on CBS’s Face the Nation, Sept. 19

30. "We have to have better coordination between our people who are doing the bombing and the military side and the Iraqis who are doing the police work so that we do not alienate further the Iraqi people by intrusions that are very difficult and are costly in terms of lives. We’ve got to get the reconstruction money out there. That was the gist of our hearing this week, that $18 billion is appropriated a year ago and only $1 billion has been spent."

But why isn’t that happening?

"Well, this is incompetence in the administration."

—Indiana Republican Senator Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on ABC’s This Week, Sept. 19

31. "I think President Bush needs to get the message from people across this country, including Republicans, that his strategy in national security and his economic policies need revisiting."

—South Charleston, West Virginia Mayor Richie Robb to the Wheeling News-Register on Sept. 10, explaining why he might not cast his Electoral College vote for Bush

32. "As son of a Republican president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election
of 2000, I was. With the current administration’s decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and
barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic presidential candidate, Senator John Kerry."

—John Eisenhower, in a Sept. 28 guest column in the Union Leader and New Hampshire Sunday News

33. "Four items trouble us the most about the Bush administration: his initiatives to disable the Social Security system, the deteriorating state of the American economy, a dangerous shift away from the basic freedoms established by our founding fathers,
and his continuous mistakes regarding Iraq."

—From the Sept. 29 lead editorial in the Texas Iconoclast endorsing Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry. Based in Crawford, President Bush’s hometown, the paper endorsed his 2000 presidential bid and the war on Iraq. That was a mistake, it now acknowledges: "Instead we were duped into following yet another privileged agenda."

But wait, there's more!

34. "Republicans used to believe in balanced budgets. Republicans used to believe in fiscal responsibility, limited international entanglements and limited government. We have lost our way. We have come loose from our moorings. The Medicare reform bill is a good example of our lack of direction, purpose and responsibility. If we don't get some control over this out-of-control spending and policy-for-the-moment
decision-making, we will put America on a course that we may not be able to recover from."

- Chuck Hagel, "This Meaure WIll Not Strengthen Medicare", editorial for American Conservative Union Foundation, November 26, 2003

35. "I have no problem with war in principle. I kind of enjoy it, and I'm good at it. What I don't like and what drove me out of the Republican Party was carelessness and slipshod work of the kind we've seen from this administration."

- Retired General Merill "Tony" McPeak, Air Force chief of staff during Persian Gulf War and co-chair of Oregon veterans for Bush-Cheney 2000, "Ex-Air Force chief critical of Bush's Iraq policy", the Oregonian, August 31, 2004. McPeak now advises John Kerry.

36. "Though the disappearance of police is a universal condition of most post-conflict situations, the Bush administration completely failed to anticipate that, and it should have..... If we had gone into Iraq with the understanding it would take [an extensive] level of commitment, we might accomplish something. That is
not the case. The Bush administration's lack of planning underscores the lack of seriousness with which the war was undertaken".

- Francis Fukuyama, New Perspectives Quarterly interview, March 29, 2004. Fukuyama, a founder of the
neo-conservative movement, declared in July he would not vote for Bush, and has called on Rumsfeld to resign.

37. "If John Kerry wins the presidential election, he can thank Donald Rumsfeld."

- Bill O'Reilly, on BillOReilly.com, October 28, 2004

38. "It's painful for me... and for many other Republicans to oppose our President. But loyalty has to be earned, not just expected."

- Tom Pelikan, board of directors for REP America, the national Republican organization for environmental protection.

39. "This president has pursued policies pandering to the extreme right wing across a wide variety of issues and has exacerbated the polarization and the strident, uncivil tone of much of what passes for political discourse in this country today....


My Republican Party has always been a party that stood for fiscal responsibility. Today, under George W. Bush, we have the largest deficit in the history of our country -- a deficit that jeopardizes economic growth that is so desperately needed in a nation that has lost 2.6 million jobs since he took office."

- William Milliken, Republican Governor of Michigan from 1969 to 1982 and Kerry supporter, Why I'll Vote for John Kerry", Detroit Free Press and other newspapers, October 19, 2004.

40. "Although I'm a lifelong Republican, I will vote for John Kerry on Nov. 2. The choice seems simple under traditional principles of the Republican Party.


I first met John Kerry in the spring of 1971. Each of us was just back from Vietnam -- he as a Navy officer and I as a member of Congress -- and were appalled by what we had seen there. I found Kerry to be idealistic, courageous and, above all else, truthful to a fault. He demonstrated courage in Vietnam, but as Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. once said, the courage to speak against prevailing opinion in civil strife is
often greater than that demanded on the battlefield....


A return to the ``speak softly but carry a big stick'' philosophy of Teddy Roosevelt should be far more effective than the bluster, bravado and ``shock and awe'' firepower of the neocon advisers who have commandeered White House foreign policy....


In truth, John Kerry and John Edwards come far closer to the Republicanism of Teddy Roosevelt, Earl Warren, Barry Goldwater, George Bush the elder and, yes, even Richard Nixon, than does the present incumbent.


Ending secrecy and bringing truth and honesty back to the White House are reasons enough to elect Kerry and Edwards."

- Pete McCloskey (R-CA), member of Congress from 1969 to 1983 and decorated Korean War veteran, "If you're a true Republican, you'll vote for Kerry", San Jose Mercury News, September 10, 2004.

A wonderful evening

About 100 people turned out in Irvine's Democratic headquarters on Friday night to watch John Kerry explain his domestic plans and reiterate his incisive criticisms of Bush's foreign policy. Last week over 300 they were anxious, but in a good way. Tonight, they were loose and confident. What a difference a few days can make.

They also got to see more of the same from Bush. Same tired and lame defenses of the Iraq invasion. Same phrases, working hard, run but can't hide, wrong war wrong time, as if they were conjunctions to his infrequent thoughts.

My thoughts? I think that Bush struck back more often, but at times seemed out of control.

In the walking and talking style, he got kinda uncorked after being told by moderator Charlie Gibson a second or third time (the firm warning) that they were moving on (Bush had had his reply already), but Bush cut him off (they were talking over each other for about five seconds) and then kept talking. This is Charles "Good
Morning America" Gibson. I could not believe my eyes. So this is the bullheaded young man who wanted to go "mano a mano" with his dad.

You can run an ideological presidency, but you can't run an ideological election. Particularly if the ideology and ideologues have led you, and the nation, down the garden path. And Bush simply doesn't understand when slightly over half the country doesn't see things his way. Facts never seem to change his thinking, or his "values" as he likes to call it.

"When a drug comes in from Canada, I want to make sure it cures you and doesn't kill you."

"I guess you'd say I'm a good steward of the land."

"He's got a record. He's been there (in the Senate) for 20 years. You can run, but you can't hide."

Articulate lie, un-credible opinion, non sequitur. Take your pick. (You can run, but you can't hide?? He says that a second time when it makes even less sense.) The crowd laughed, jaws dropped, and people went home happy and charged for the final stretch. Thanks George, for reinforcing our low opinion of you.

When voters ask you a question, they're saying "Convince me." A pro-life woman asked a question about embryonic stem cells, another about federal funding for abortion, and Kerry said in both cases, first, I respect your belief, or I respect the faith
behind that question. I am a Catholic. But I don't put my faith over the laws (i.e., Roe v. Wade) And if it's lawful we shouldn't bar people an important
choice just because they're poor. I thought that was a great answer. A long one, but now he's so on message and more concise that the long ones sound okay
too. In contrast, Bush was asked, what could be changed about the Patriot Act, given the violations of civil liberties. And he completely rejected the premise of the voter, which is unheard of. Later, a woman asked him to name three mistakes that he made as president, and he all but said he didn't make any mistakes, except he implied in some appointments (I'm assuming people who later had a falling out with him).
The woman wasn't an opponent, just a questioner. And then it hit me, everyone who questions him becomes his enemy. At the very least, the GOP's spectacular success at limiting ordinary voter access to Bush has backfired, created a hothouse flower that has wilted under the white light of the electorate.

Hidden in most news reports and in the above summary were some interesting moves about Kerry's domestic agenda - his health care plan, his pledge not to raise
taxes on incomes under $200,000. As well as the lack of principle behind Bush's "values" - even on his own terms. Take the ethics of stem-cell research. Bush opposes using embryos on moral grounds, but supports existing lines that were developed from embryos. What's his response? Well, they already died! That's a justification, but it's not a moral one. And it's also consistent with using
embryos that doctors will destroy in the future. Am I right about that? What do you think?

In other news: in their zeal to cover the Nick Clooney-Geoff Davis campaign for Congress, the Los Angeles Times and Houston Chronicle mistakenly referred to Fourth District incumbent Ken Lucas as Kentucky's lone Democratic representative. That assertion might surprise Democrat Ben Chandler, who in February won a special election to the Sixth District. Now I know that there are 435 members of Congress, but it's not too much to ask the LA Times to fact-check Kentucky's delegation. Especially as Chandler was running for the only open seat in February.

Bush has 'wrong impression' about Philippines

from the Manila Bulletin Online

Recto hits Bush remarks

Sen. Ralph Recto yesterday tagged as "false" the claim of US President George W. Bush that the Philippines is a major battleground in the war against terrorism.

This incorrect description made by Bush during a televised 90-minute debate with Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry meant the country’s already bruised reputation suffered another beating, added Recto.

"This is a global effort. But the front on this war is more than one place. The Philippines...we’ve got help...we’re helping them there to bring...to bring an Al Qaeda affiliate to justice," Bush said in response to a question on how he was going to pursue the fugitive Osama bin Laden.

But Recto’s reaction: "Well, the world’s most powerful man had just told a worldwide TV audience of half a billion, to the effect, that the Philippines is a major battleground in the war against terror.

"This is not the kind of publicity that we want. First, it is false. If Mindanao is being referred to, all is quiet in the Southern front; in fact, it’s not a front anymore. Guns have long been turned into ploughshares in that area. Peace is about to be won."

Recto added "we’ve been hit as collateral damage in the Bush-Kerry verbal war. There is no Al Qaeda presence here as there are no atomic bombs in Iraq."

He then said there is no Philippine intelligence report tagging the Moro Islamic Liberation Front as an organization of having direct links with the Al Qaeda.

Recto expressed hopes that people planning to visit or invest in the Philippines would not be scared of by the "imprecise remarks" of Bush and get the "wrong impression that the Philippines is an Al Qaeda hotspot." (Mario B. Casayuran)

Undecided Voter Blog

I've decided to blog a bit for the undecided voter. You can find the original article here. McCloskey is a real Republican, having represented the party in Congress for 16 years. Moderates and even conservatives should stop and listen to him.

Fri, Sep. 10, 2004
San Jose Mercury News

If you're a true Republican, you'll vote for Kerry

By Pete McCloskey

Although I'm a lifelong Republican, I will vote for John Kerry on Nov. 2. The choice seems simple under traditional principles of the Republican Party.

I first met John Kerry in the spring of 1971. Each of us was just back from Vietnam -- he as a Navy officer and I as a member of Congress -- and were appalled by what we had seen there. I found Kerry to be idealistic, courageous and, above all else, truthful to a fault. He demonstrated courage in Vietnam, but as Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. once said, the courage to speak against prevailing opinion in civil strife is often greater than that demanded on the battlefield.

During Kerry's public career after his election to the Senate, he has clearly grown and matured. I believe he is incapable of deliberate deceit or dissembling. This alone represents a refreshing hope for a return of public faith in our government.

That Kerry has attained the solid support of former Secretary of Defense William Perry, with whom he has worked for years on issues of nuclear proliferation, confirms his ability to study, listen and reach sound judgments.

The primary issue in November will be who can best lead us in the bitter struggle against the Islamic fundamentalists who perpetrated 9/11 and are willing to die to kill Americans throughout the world. The Iraq occupation has caused thousands of new suicide bombers to join the jihad against us; with Kerry as president, the nation will properly refocus the battle away from Iraq and against the true enemy, Al-Qaida.

As Kerry has stated, we desperately need the cooperation of every country in the world, friend and enemy, where terrorist cells can germinate and operate.

We need to be more humble in asking for this assistance. A return to the ``speak softly but carry a big stick'' philosophy of Teddy Roosevelt should be far more effective than the bluster, bravado and ``shock and awe'' firepower of the neocon advisers who have commandeered White House foreign policy.

There are many other reasons to support John Kerry.

The incredible budget deficits projected to be $2.3 trillion or more in the next decade, disrespect for the United Nations, international law and Geneva Conventions, secrecy in government -- all of these are positions Kerry would certainly reverse.

As a Catholic, Kerry is sure to maintain the constitutional separation between church and state, recognizing that while we are indeed a nation under God, everyone is free to choose his or her own faith in God.

He will also end the inordinate secrecy that has characterized this administration. It seems incredible that a matter as important as our national energy policy could be decided in secret by Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force -- individuals whose very names have been withheld from the public.

Kerry's record on environmental issues is superb, an area where the Bush administration has been a disaster.

Finally, there's the matter of John Ashcroft and prospective judicial appointees who could undo Roe vs. Wade, a woman's right of choice and many of the civil liberties we have earned over 225 years.

Each of the foregoing reasons for supporting Kerry is based on traditional Republican values of fiscal responsibility, limited governmental intrusion and the accountability of individuals.

In truth, John Kerry and John Edwards come far closer to the Republicanism of Teddy Roosevelt, Earl Warren, Barry Goldwater, George Bush the elder and, yes, even Richard Nixon, than does the present incumbent.

Ending secrecy and bringing truth and honesty back to the White House are reasons enough to elect Kerry and Edwards.

PETE MCCLOSKEY represented the San Francisco Peninsula in Congress from 1967 to 1983. He earned a Navy Cross, Silver Star and two Purple Hearts as a Marine rifle platoon leader during the Korean War. He wrote this column for the Mercury News.

John Kerry-George W. Bush Debate, Round 1

Left out are the great zingers, like Kerry's remark that Bush outsourced the hunting of Osama bin Laden to Afghan warlords! But this thread of back-and-forth is substantial, and worth reading. You can see that Kerry is responding to Bush, and to the facts on the ground, and our current standing in the world. Bush is simply repeating what he always says. Yes Saddam is a threat, but no you didn't really try to bring in the UN (before or immediately after), no you didn't have a plan to win the peace, and no you didn't find any weapons of mass destruction - points left out of the excerpts! In sum, Bush's words would fit if the situation in Iraq were 180 degrees different from the disaster it is now. And then it hits you, maybe his view is 180 degrees from reality...

Debate Excerpts
By The Associated Press
Excerpts from Thursday's presidential debate at the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Fla.:

___
PRESIDENT BUSH:
"I believe I'm going to win, because the American people know I know how to lead. I've shown the American people I know how to lead. I have -- I understand everybody in this country doesn't agree with the decisions I've made. And I made some tough decisions. But people know where I stand."
SEN. JOHN KERRY (news, bio, voting record):
"I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are. But we also have to be smart. And smart means not diverting your attention from the real war on terror in Afghanistan (news - web sites) against Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) and taking if off to Iraq (news - web sites)."
BUSH:
"My opponent looked at the same intelligence I looked at and declared in 2002 that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was a grave threat. He also said in December of 2003 that anyone who doubts that the world is safer without Saddam Hussein does not have the judgment to be president. I agree with him. The world is better off without Saddam Hussein."
KERRY:
"This president has made, I regret to say, a colossal error of judgment. And judgment is what we look for in the president of the United States of America."
BUSH:
"First of all, what my opponent wants you to forget is that he voted to authorize the use of force and now says it's the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place. I don't see how you can lead this country to succeed in Iraq if you say wrong war, wrong time, wrong place. What message does that send our troops? What message does that send to our allies? What message does that send the Iraqis?
"No, the way to win this is to be steadfast and resolved and to follow through on the plan that I've just outlined."
KERRY:
"Yes, we have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am. And I will succeed for those troops, now that we're there. We have to succeed. We can't leave a failed Iraq. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake of judgment to go there and take the focus off of Osama bin Laden. It was. Now, we can succeed. But I don't believe this president can."
BUSH:
"My opponent says help is on the way, but what kind of message does it say to our troops in harm's way, wrong war, wrong place, wrong time? Not a message a commander in chief gives, or this is a great diversion. As well, help is on the way, but it's certainly hard to tell it when he voted against the $87 billion supplemental to provide equipment for our troops, and then said he actually did vote for it before he voted against it."

KERRY:
"Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse? I believe that when you know something's going wrong, you make it right. That's what I learned in Vietnam."
BUSH:
"I understand how hard it is to commit troops. Never wanted to commit troops. When I was running -- when we had the debate in 2000, never dreamt I'd be doing that. But the enemy attacked us ... and I have a solemn duty to protect the American people, to do everything I can to protect us."
"But a president must always be willing to use troops. It must - as a last resort."
KERRY:
"The president just said something extraordinarily revealing and frankly very important in this debate. In answer to your question about Iraq and sending people into Iraq, he just said, 'The enemy attacked us.' Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us. Al-Qaida attacked us."
BUSH:
"First of all, of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that. And secondly, to think that another round of resolutions would have caused Saddam Hussein to disarm, disclose, is ludicrous, in my judgment. It just shows a significant difference of opinion."
BUSH:
"I fully agree that one should shift tactics, and we will, in Iraq. Our commanders have got all the flexibility to do what is necessary to succeed. But what I won't do is change my core values because of politics or because of pressure. And it is one of the things I've learned in the White House, is that there's enormous pressure on the president, and he cannot wilt under that pressure. Otherwise, the world won't be better off."
KERRY:
"I have no intention of wilting. I've never wilted in my life. And I've never wavered in my life. I know exactly what we need to do in Iraq, and my position has been consistent: Saddam Hussein is a threat. He needed to be disarmed. We needed to go to the (United Nations (news - web sites)). ... But we didn't need to rush to war without a plan to win the peace."
BUSH:
"I've got a good relation with (Russian President ) Vladimir (Putin). And it's important that we do have a good relation, because that enables me to better comment to him, and to better to discuss with him, some of the decisions he makes.
KERRY:
"I regret what's happened in these past months. And I think it goes beyond just the response to terror. Mr. Putin now controls all the television stations. His political opposition is being put in jail. And I think it's very important to the United States, obviously, to have a working relationship that is good. This is a very important country to us. We want a partnership. But we always have to stand up for democracy."
KERRY:
"Let me look you in the eye and say to you: I defended this country as a young man at war, and I will defend it as president of the United States. But I have a difference with this president. I believe we're strongest when we reach out and lead the world and build strong alliances. I have a plan for Iraq. I believe we can be successful. I'm not talking about leaving. I'm talking about winning. And we need a fresh start, a new credibility, a president who can bring allies to our side."
BUSH:
"If America shows uncertainty or weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. That's not going to happen, so long as I'm your president. The next four years we will continue to strengthen our homeland defenses. We will strengthen our intelligence-gathering services. We will reform our military. The military will be an all-volunteer army. We will continue to stay on the offense. We will fight the terrorists around the world so we do not have to face them here at home."

Weekend worrier

If anyone's noticing... I returned to the older format for this blog. It was called "The Daily Orange" for about two weeks, hence the brightly coloredmargins. I switched back for two reasons: one, I found that the Syracuse campus newspaper already goes by that name; and two, I don't particularlycare to spend more than the occasional moment decrying the conservative biasin the Orange County Register or the civic close-mindedness of local yokels, many of them as ignorant as they are wealthy. It's a waste of my time. Or rather, it's MORE a waste of my time than other wastes of my time. Toparaphrase Green Day, I don't want to be an American Idiot, but I also don'twant to be preoccupied with their redneck agenda. Or orangeneck agenda,as I think of certain Sunbelt suburbanites.

This weekend was the first I really enjoyed in a while. It didn't start smoothly - my dad and I wentto see "The Bourne Supremacy" on Friday at the bargain theater in Woodbridge. And what a bargain - something was wrong with the sound during the trailers,got better during the movie, which went completely silent after 40 minutes - loose crystals, caused by bumping into the projector, the kids at the frontcounter said. We'd get a free pass if we stayed through the movie, which I figured was just as good as getting our money back - even better, as itwas a matinee, but as I mentioned the sound went completely out, so we tookour money and left. Which was too bad, as the action was just heating up,and I was left slightly dizzy by the cuts and handheld realism. I don't mind that technique, but I minded missing the "payoff" of seeing the plot unfold. And these days, the Bourne character is one of the few mainstream creations who is not working FOR the CIA! All over the TV, you see the CIA or some cousin agency as the good guys, ala Alias or ThreatMatrix or what have you. Folks outside the US must wonder how we can do this after the revelations about the coup against Allende in Chile, Arbenz in Guatemala, and Mossadegh in Iran, plus the funding of the same Afghan groups supported by Osama bin Laden.

Ironically, the CIA's misjudgments in Afghanistan that has ultimately led to the disaster that has elevated its reputation - or maybe not its reputation, but its relative standing - among the American public. In "The Bourne Supremacy", the CIA is seen fairly close to how it really is - another self-interested bureaucracy dedicated to preserving its own standing, and its members interested in covering their hides. Yes, there's the public service/national security bit, but the Agency's overreaching as even more bad consquences than their underreaching - hence the creation of robot assassin types like Jason Bourne. It's not inherently evil. But its aims, or perhaps the aims of this country, put in, and sometimes on, the path of evil. Well, this weekend I put those thoughts largely out of my mind.

I'll probably not return to that theater - Captain Blood's, an odd name for the Irvine "family theater" - you know the kind that shows "family" fare like "The Passion of the Christ" and the above film. But I'll remember it fondly. As a kid, I went to the movies very infrequently. But most movies I saw in the 1980s were at this theater, like "Revenge of the Nerds II" and "Troop Beverly Hills". Ah, the classics! Back then it belonged to the Edwards Cinema chain, before it went bankrupt under the huge expansion spending spree of James Edwards. A pleasant byproduct of this spree is the fact that Irvine has seven movie theaters, with roughly 60 screens. Even nicer, the University 6 (near UCI) plays limited release films, some might call them "indie" films, while others call them "art" films (aren't movies supposed to be?) - and occasionally, so does the one at Irvine Spectrum 21.

After the botched film excursion, my dad and I went to Barnes and Noble. I glanced at the various current non-fiction titles, including the increasingly numerous political books that expressly or by implication favor of disfavor Bush or Kerry. The difference, if anyone takes care to notice, and not many do, is that the "pro-Kerry" or "anti-Bush" books are often written by conservatives or moderates such as Eisenhower Center head David Brinkley (Tour of Duty), Reagan adviser Kevin Phillips (American Dynasty), and Bush I's Ambassador to Kuwait Patrick Wilson (The Politics of Truth). Not to mention Rand Beers and David Brock. "Anti-Kerry" or "pro-Bush" book authors tend not to have any independent standing outside of the right-wing media, such as talk-show brother David Limbaugh, and WSJ OpinionJournal editor Tony Taranto. In other words, the blowhard candidate are being supported by blowhards. So what's new.

After glancing at the new titles, I finally found what I was looking for: In the Shadow of No Towers by Art Spiegelman. Who better than this New Yorker and author of Maus to depict the tragedy and tumult of September 11th and its crazy aftermath? I found a couple good reviews at the San Francisco Chronicle and New York Times. My own observations: for a oversized (11" by 17") book, it's very hard to find. That's because the hard cover is black, like the New Yorker cover following the terrorist attacks. Inside though is an almost zany world of colors, starting with the inside cover page, which was the September 11, 1901 edition of Joseph Pulitzer's New York World. Front page headlines? The assassination of President McKinley, by a man with anarchist beliefs who was thought wrongly to be a foreigner. Sideline? The arrest and questioning of Emma Goldman, the famous immigrant labor activist, feminist, and revolutionary, about the assassination which of course, she had nothing to do with at all. The more things change...

racial profiling is un-American

Funny, I thought the 'war on terror' was an attempt to protect our democratic and free society, not to eviscerate it.


Amnesty condemns US use of racial profiling

Mon Sep 13, 7:16 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Racial profiling by US law enforcement agencies has grown over the past three years to cover one in nine Americans, rights group Amnesty International said in a report.

"State and federal agencies, under the guise of fighting terrorism, have expanded the use of this degrading, discriminatory and dangerous practice," said Curt Goering, deputy executive director for Amnesty International USA.

According to its study, some 32 million Americans have been subjected to profiling, defined as the targeting of people because of their ethnic or religious background.

And some 87 million Americans are at risk of racial profiling during their lifetime.

Amnesty said use of profiling has seen a major increase since the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington.

The practice "violates human rights, undermines national security and simply does not work," said Goering.

Timothy Lewis, a former district court judge and federal prosecutor, said that racial profiling is not only ineffective, it violates the US Constitution. "It is wrong, and nothing that happened on September 11, 2001 makes it right," he said.

The Amnesty report pointed to "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh, British shoe-bomber Richard Reid and Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh -- who escaped as police searched for Arab suspects -- as examples of people who did not fit the standard terrorist profiles.

President George W. Bush vowed to end racial profiling in US law enforcement in February 2001, but the ban is a policy -- not law -- and has no enforcement teeth, according to the report.

Bush "has failed to support any federal legislative effort" to eliminate racial profiling in the country, Amnesty said.

Cathy Harris, a senior US Customs inspector, complained in 1998 about racial profiling practices that included strip searches of black and Hispanic women. Following the complaints Harris said that Customs changed their practices and the group saw drug arrests increase by 300 percent.

But following the September 11 attacks and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, Customs merged with the Immigration and Naturalization Service and 20 other federal agencies -- and Customs "is slowly going back to its old ways," Harris said.

"The targeting of certain groups -- specifically Arab and Muslim Americans and travelers who are citizens of Arab and Muslim nations -- has increased," she said.

According to Amnesty, people of Middle Eastern or South Asian descent and those of the Muslim and Sikh faiths are most at risk, especially since the September 11 attacks.

Amnesty wants the US Congress as well as state and local governments to enact comprehensive legislation banning the practice.

Amnesty's 50-page report documents cases of people pulled over by police and treated as suspects solely based on their looks, as well as people of Middle Eastern and south Asian descent who do not call police or the fire department because they fear they will be targeted based on their race.

--

"A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws." - Justice Anthony Kennedy

at home in the world

A few days ago, I read a random blog authored by a medical student or resident doctor in Saudi Arabia. I was reading about him and his friends, who all had odd non-Arabic names and then I scrolled to see photos of a bunch of Asian men about my age. Like so many productive denizens of Saudi Arabia, they were Filipino.

I didn't plan this introduction, and in fact I have no idea where to find this blog of - let's call him Mr. F. But I learned a lot more about the importance of Mr. F and his friends, to his family, his country, and the intricate weave of the world economy, all of which are threatened by a war of choice.

In July, the Philippine government decided to withdraw from the "coalition of the willing" in occupied Iraq. I don't recall much coverage of this event in the U.S., though it reveals how willingly they participated. Anyway, here is how Radio Singapore analyzed the decision.

The Philippines has begun pulling its forces out of Iraq, after a militant group has threatened to execute a Filipino hostage.

The pullout was initiated after another group of kidnappers in Iraq said they beheaded one of two Bulgarian hostages.

Despite the pullout, Manila had no information on the situation of Filipino hostage, Angelo de la Cruz.

Asiri Abubakar (AA) is the Professor of Asian Studies at the University of Philippines, and he updates RSI's Melanie Yip on the contingent pullout.

AA: I think the final figure now, the remaining contingent in Iraq is about 43.

Now, on the issue of the hostage taking. Other countries like South Korea and Japan did not pull their troops out of Iraq despite public pressure. So why did the Philippines decide to withdraw their troops now and earlier than their scheduled pull out date in August?

AA: I think that on the part of our government, the Arroyo Administration is, for the first time, facing a tremendous internal pressure on this issue. You see, we have around 8 million Filipinos working abroad, and there is tremendous pressure from families of these millions of Filipinos who are working abroad. They leave the country in search for jobs abroad because our country is not in any position to give the people that many jobs. This is purely internal pressure, which is tremendous. The Arroyo Administration cannot set aside this pressure.

But do you think that by pulling out the troops, it will help President Gloria Arroyo's political standing in the country?

AA: Well, it is a terrible choice for the administration, it must be admitted. But the [Philippines Presidential] elections have just concluded, there are so many political and economic issues facing the administration, so these are some of the factors the administration had to consider the pressure coming from the families, and other sectors to take advantage of the ongoing hostage taking situation.

Now, how is the United States reacting to the Philippines' decision to withdraw its troops from Iraq?

AA: I think it is a great displeasure for the United States, particularly for the Bush Administration, when he is facing re-election this year. It is understandable for the Bush Administration to be displeased with the decision of our government. This is the first time that any Philippines Administration has openly defied its decision to support an American policy, particularly in the case of Iraq.

What message will this current situation of the Philippines withdrawing their troops from Iraq, how would this set a precedence for the coalition of the willing in future?

AA: Well, other countries have done it, like Spain. We are doing almost like Spain, although in their case, Spain has experienced such horrible happenings like the train bombings before their elections. The new Spanish government decided to withdraw their troops. I hope it doesn't set an example for other countries to follow. As far as the Philippines is concerned, it is unique to us. We have this tremendous number of Filipinos working abroad, most of them in the Middle East. So there is tremendous pressure on this administration.

Will the terrorist groups get the upper hand?

AA: I don't know whether we can influence, and how much our decisions matter. It may not also help that the terrorist threats the Philippines is facing on the domestic front. The Philippines went to Iraq on the basis of our commitment to help the international community laid by the US to fight terror. But there is also a problem with respect to the war in Iraq. Even the US officials and some members of the coalition of the willing, including the UK are saying that there was not much justification for going to war. So that's also one problem.. The war was not internationally recognized, and even some Filipinos feel that the war is immoral.

Some people have said that a truly international coalition desired by the realists ala the Gulf War would have been very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. But the fact that the U.S. didn't even try but instead created a multilateral facade to hide its singular arrogant face, means that even the facade will be very difficult, if not impossible, to duplicate.

I didn't realize how globalized our society has become, for everyone. Not just the very rich or very poor nations, but especially for those in between like the Philippines, whose human talent is not matched by its economic might. So its doctors, nurses, engineers, and maids are flung across the world, applying their skills where the financial rate of return is greater.

But all the flinging and border crossing depends on stability, and the more far-flung your pool of talent becomes, the greater becomes your desire for international political stability. By diving into Iraq under American pressure, President Arroyo put her nation's welfare at risk. And domestic terrorism or insurgency doesn't even play into the decision, because that occurs anyway. The concern are the 8 million living abroad and sustaining home who are potential hostages.

And the retractions regarding "weapons of mass destruction" by US and UK leaders really unhinge the screws from the facade. Americans may be alright with the war of choice and regime change, but the rest of the world really sold this on terrorism. But we sold our satellites' leaders a bill of goods, and forced them to sell it to their people. Either sale will be much harder when we need to make the hard sell - say, in fighting real terrorism or preventing a nuclear threat. Or how about averting genocide? International law aside, those political consequences are arguably worse than leaving a brutal dictator in power.

As the town elder told the shepherd boy who cried wolf, "You must tell the truth, not just now and then, but all the time."

A deficit in objective reporting

I opened up our local paper today to find on the front page, right-hand column, the following headline:

"CBO sees federal deficit shrinking from predicted size"

Underneath the title is the lead, in small font:

Deficit - The Congressional Budget Office projected that this election year's federal deficit would be a record $422 billion, a shortfall that would be smaller than analysts predicted earlier this year. The projection became instant fodder for both political parties. News 13

So I turned to page 13, where I saw the headline in even bigger type:

"Congressional analysts lower deficit forecast"

And then below it, the subheader: "However, the latest federal projection - a $422 billion shortfall - is still the biggest dollar amount in history."

It seems obvious to me that the most significant and newsworthy fact is that this deficit is $422 billion dollars, and that is a record deficit. After that, one can add that however, the new projections are lower than before. Certainly Alan Fram thought so. Fram is the Associated Press writer of this article. The headlines, however, were produced courtesy of The Orange County Register, probably the most conservative daily paper of its size in California, and certainly one of the most conservative in the nation. A reader can see that slant in the editorial pages, and come to expect that bias.

What once surprised and now just offends me, is the way the bias bleeds into the news and even the copy (headlines, graphs, placement of stories). It's fine to reflect one's opinion in the opinion section, but it seems unethical for a publisher to massage the facts like with the record deficit story, particularly in an election year. Of course, being who they are, that's even more reason for the Register folks to soft-pedal bad news for the Republicans.

Am I reading too much into the headlines? If I didn't, I would not have caught their sleight of hand. But let's test my hypothesis. Other dailies surely picked up this AP wire story. What do their headlines look like? I turned to Yahoo! News and searched for the article using deficit and Fram. You can even repeat my experiment. I posted the results below.

The top 20 hits come from 14 unique sources. Of those 14 unique sources, NINE mention $422 billion, TEN mention record deficit, and just TWO mention the lowered prediction. One of those two, from the Philadelphia Inquirer, said "Record deficit but less than forecast". The other mention comes from fredericksburg.com, a site that registered seven separate hits because it takes all AP feeds and does not produce any copy of its own.

No other news site crafted headlines like the OC Register, even though the article itself was virtually the same across the board. And to say that the CBO sees the deficit "shrinking" from its predicted size falsely implies that the deficit situation is materially improving. I mean, the CBO announcement is a prediction too. In fact, no "real" shrinking of the deficit has or will happen - especially not with the current administration. But that conclusion is exactly what the Register wants to obscure from plain view.

NEWS STORIES

Results 1 - 20 of about 183 for deficit fram.

Sort Results by: Relevance Date

1. Analysts predict record deficit ALAN FRAM; The Associated Press
   Tacoma News Tribune - Sep 08 1:25 AM
   WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Congressional Budget Office projected Tuesday that this election-year's federal deficit will hit a record $422 billion, a shortfall that would be smaller than analysts predicted earlier this year.


2. CBO Projects $442 Billion Federal Deficit By ALAN FRAM
   Fredericksburg.com - Sep 07 8:15 PM
   The federal deficit will swell to a record $422 billion this election year but fall short of even more dire forecasts, Congress' top budget analysts projected Tuesday in a report that became instant fodder for both political parties.


3. CBO Projects $442 Billion Federal Deficit By ALAN FRAM
   Fredericksburg.com - Sep 07 8:15 AM
   The Congressional Budget Office is projecting that this election-year's federal deficit will reach $422 billion, congressional aides said Tuesday, the highest ever, yet a smaller shortfall than analysts predicted earlier this year.


4. Analysts Expect Smaller Budget Deficit By ALAN FRAM
   Fredericksburg.com - Sep 07 5:16 AM
   Congress' top budget analysts still expect the 2004 federal deficit to set a record, though a smaller one than they and the White House anticipated earlier in this election year.


5. Federal Budget Deficit To Reach $422B This Year, Pressure on Medicare
   Medical News Today - Sep 08 4:14 PM
   The federal budget deficit will reach a "record" $422 billion, or 3.6% of gross domestic product, in fiscal year 2004 and is expected to rise to $2.3 trillion over the next 10 years, in part because of the rising cost of programs such as Medicare and Social Security, according to new figures released Tuesday by the Congressional Budget Office, the Washington Post reports.


6. Federal deficit expected to be record $422 billion
   Miami Herald - Sep 08 12:22 AM
   Congressional analysts projected a record $422 billion deficit this year, a figure that falls short of earlier forecasts.


7. Federal deficit will increase to record $422 billion this year
   The Ohio University Post - Sep 08 6:45 AM
   WASHINGTON -The federal deficit will swell to a record $422 billion this election year but fall short of even more dire forecasts, Congress' top budget analysts projected yesterday in a report that became instant fodder for both political parties.


8. Record deficit projected
   Kansas City Star - Sep 08 12:48 AM
   WASHINGTON — The federal deficit will swell to a record $422 billion this election year but fall short of even more dire forecasts, Congress' top budget analysts projected Tuesday.


9. Deficit predicted to reach $422B
   Long Beach Press-Telegram - Sep 08 12:53 AM
   Parties seize record figure as political fodder. WASHINGTON — The federal deficit will swell to a record $422billion this election year but fall short of even more dire forecasts, Congress' top budget analysts projected Tuesday in a report that became instant fodder for both political parties.


10. Year's deficit to reach record $422 billion
    Denver Post - Sep 07 8:08 AM
    Washington - The Congressional Budget Office is projecting that this election-year's federal deficit will reach $422 billion, congressional aides said today, the highest ever, yet a smaller shortfall than analysts predicted earlier this year.


11. Deficit numbers still a record
    Albany Democrat-Herald - Sep 07 3:06 PM
    WASHINGTON - The Congressional Budget Office projected today that this election-year's federal deficit will hit a record $422 billion, a shortfall that would be smaller than analysts predicted earlier this year.


12. A record deficit but less than forecast
    The Philadelphia Inquirer - Sep 08 12:22 AM
    At $422 billion, the projection fell short of what had been expected. Each party had its own spin.


13. for
    SanLuisObispo.com - Sep 08 6:29 AM
    Parents, coaches and rec league officials are invited to submit their stars of the week. Please remember that kids can appear only once a month. And if your star doesn’t make it the first time, try, try again.


14. CBO Projects $442 Billion Federal Deficit By ALAN FRAM
    Fredericksburg.com - Sep 07 5:59 PM
    The federal deficit will swell to a record $422 billion this election year but fall short of even more dire forecasts, Congress' top budget analysts projected Tuesday in a report that became instant fodder for both political parties.


15. CBO Projects $442 Billion Federal Deficit By ALAN FRAM
    Fredericksburg.com - Sep 07 4:30 PM
    The federal deficit will swell to a record $422 billion this election year but fall short of even more dire forecasts, Congress' top budget analysts projected Tuesday in a report that became instant fodder for both political parties.


16. CBO Projects $442 Billion Federal Deficit By ALAN FRAM
    Fredericksburg.com - Sep 07 10:29 AM
    The Congressional Budget Office projected Tuesday that this election-year's federal deficit will hit a record $422 billion, a shortfall that would be smaller than analysts predicted earlier this year.


17. CBO Projects $442 Billion Federal Deficit By ALAN FRAM
    Fredericksburg.com - Sep 07 7:31 AM
    The Congressional Budget Office is projecting that this election-year's federal deficit will reach $422 billion, congressional aides said Tuesday, the highest ever, yet a smaller shortfall than analysts predicted earlier this year.


18. Analysts forecast record $422 billion deficit
    The Olympian - Sep 08 5:28 AM
    WASHINGTON -- The federal deficit will swell to a record $422 billion this election year but fall short of even more dire forecasts, Congress' top budget analysts projected Tuesday in a report that became instant fodder for both political parties.


19. Congressional analysts say deficit will be record
    Daily Bulletin - Sep 08 12:46 AM
    WASHINGTON - The Congressional Budget Office projected Tuesday that this election-year's federal deficit will hit a record $422 billion, a shortfall that would be smaller than analysts predicted earlier this year.


20. CBO Projects $442 Billion Federal Deficit
    Lebanon Daily Record - Sep 07 3:04 PM
    WASHINGTON - The Congressional Budget Office projected Tuesday that this election-year's federal deficit will hit a record $422 billion, a shortfall that would be smaller than analysts predicted earlier this year.

* Note: the San Luis Obispo headline, which does not show in the hyperlink, reads CBO Projects Record $442 Billion Federal Deficit. Check it out.