Happy Holidays

Taking off for a week, but in the meantime, here's a good piece by Krugman on the success of Social Security privatization around the world. And here's Bush defending Social Security reform apparently by just accusing reporters of trying to change his mind...??? Glad to know he's really put a lot of deep consideration into the issue...

In case you needed more reasons to fear Bush's economic plan

How about the abysmal track record of one of the few remaining economists who give it the thumbs up, now appearing at Bush's 'economic conference' (aka Kill Social Security Now For No Rational Reason gathering)?

Bill O'Reilly takes it on the virtual chin

David Brock of Media Matters takes Big Bad Bill to task for being a big spineless hypocrite and coward. But will O'Reilly take the bait....? (The link links to a page that's nice and easily emailable to all yer friends...)

Senate Democrats plan to roll over for Gonzales

It appears that, for whatever political reasons, there will be no serious opposition to the appointment of Alberto Gonzales (lover and defender of torture, indefinite imprisonment of US Citizens, indiscriminate and unreflective use of capital punishment, and secret government) to the position of Attorney General. While everyone seems to agree that anyone (even, as Pat Leahy says, Attila the Hun) would be better than John Ashcroft, it is hard to understand how Gonzales is really substantially better. If anything, the fact that his fingerprints are all over so many of the most troubling aspects of the Bush Administration makes him far more frightening than the almost cartoonishly self-righteous Ashcroft.

The Nat Hentoff article is a good one, and this quote(from late Supreme Court justice William O. Douglas) is particularly apt:

"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air—however slight—lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."

Brooks on Bush's "Economic Conference"

David Brooks usually drives me up a wall with his frustrating pseudo-analyses that always read like insipid, transparently lame conservative apologia. I figure if the New York Times is going to go through the effort to have token conservatives on their staff, they can actually be strong ones, and by that I don't mean LOUD ones, a la Coulter or Limbaugh (or maybe it's asking too much to have someone who can actually in all honestly intellectually defend current conservatism). Safire, God knows, shot his credibility out of the water years ago, and is now stepping down in any case. And Brooks far too often, on the Times op-ed page, seems to be the conservative version of the liberal role Allan Colmes plays against the gale force of blowhard Sean Hannity on Fox.

So an article like this from Brooks is encouraging to say the least (of course, am I just saying that because he's being somewhat disparaging of politics in general?.... hmmm....)

By the way, if you're wondering what a "loya jirga" is (I did), you can find out here.

Privatization's track record

Very not so hot. I'm glad Kevin Drum is all over this issue.

The fix is in

Bush has apparently one thing in mind and one thing only at the moment: Social Security privatization. Which means that we are about to get faced with a debilitating flood of misinformation guaranteed to scare the bejeebis out of Mom and Pop Applepieamerica and open the floodgates for the trillions of dollars of debt that will accrue from a change that DOESN'T NEED TO TAKE PLACE IN THE FIRST PLACE. This is Bush's second term Iraq, and we all know what happened the first time around.

Forget the hype. Here's what it's all about. Right here.

Krugman is on the case, and both of these articles, part I and part II are clear, easy to follow and to the point.

Soon enough, we're going to be hearing more and more from "men on the street" like "common man" Tom DeHaven.

Be A Deadbeat at Any Cost

This is an extremely interesting investigative report on the credit card industry by PBS. Who ever knew a deadbeat was a GOOD thing to be? (Read the article and you will understand...)

Mr. Mxyzptlk, or Nothing But Clear Skies

I realize now the gut sensation that I get from the Bush Administration as a whole. It is the sensation that I used to get when I would read about Superman’s evil doppelganger Bizarro, living in the Bizarro World where everything is what everything here is not. Perhaps this administration is just the result of a visit from Mr. Mxyzptlk.

I realize I’m once again accusing Bush of being evil, but in a world where evil is good, am I not instead Bush of being good? You see how this works…

Rumsfeld, certain to learn what he knows that he does not know what he would know when he knows what he does not know

Rumsfeld, once again proving himself more than ready to serve on a Bush Cabinet for four more years.

Isn't it reassuring to know that in a war that has been going on now for nearly two years, they have been working on the shortage of armor problem "for months"? Yes, reassuring as always...

Snow Job

Well, John Snow is going to stay on as Treasury Secretary after all. So it's good to refresh our memories about the capable staff that Bush is keeping in place, and we can start with this inspiring piece by Arianna Huffington.

Connecting the Dots

Every once in a while, when I get a chance to step back from the absurd Orwellian nightmare that is the current Presidential administration, I realize that with all of the smaller atrocities that they perform on a regular basis, and all the political games that they are constantly playing, it becomes increasingly difficult to see the forest for the trees, to understand the bigger picture that is what induces (or should induce) terror in the heart of any well-meaning American citizen. When they are planning on creating an illusory $1 TRILLION DOLLARS in order to pay for unnecessary Social Security reform, when they are planning to pay for what they have no money to pay for by destroying corporate incentives to help employees get health insurance, when they are talking about their great plan for democracy in the Middle East while in fact causing our standing in the eyes of the citizens of the Middle East to plummet through the floor, it gets more and more difficult to look at the WHOLE thing and try to figure out – what in the hell are they doing anyway, and why are they doing it? Because the sum total of the Bush agenda is no less than the demolition of the federal government and the social safety net as we know it. "Ownership society" means nothing except "every man for himself" and more specifically "government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich" with no recourse for the weak and the poor, and it doesn't take much imagination to picture the outcome of a modern oligarchy run entirely on unrestrained social Darwinism. So it helps when someone comes along to simplify matters, to put them in perspective, and to give a good idea of a bigger picture.

Ed Kilgore provides a good rant about this here, and a good meditation on why good, honest Republicans, and yes they do exist, are allowing the current cynical, hypocritical bunch to run this country into the ground. This article by Molly Ivins is a good micro-macro picture, wherein she describes the Texasification of America (and she should know, good Texan that she is). And this article by Paul Krugman gives a good clear picture of the monstrosity that is the planned privatization of Social Security, and the trumped-up "Social Security crisis" that is being invented by the Bush Administration to justify it.

For the bigger picture, I think it's good to keep in mind as well the Economist article cited below (in my post called The Falling Dollar). If we think the financial picture is bleak now, largely because of the massive amount of debt we're bending under, imagine if the government just randomly decided to create a fictional additional trillion dollars - i.e. took out another trillion dollars in debt - to fix a problem THAT DOESN'T EVEN EXIST. Put this together with the fact that - as depicted in the Ivins article - our government is apparently becoming nothing more than an endless series of cover-ups for cynical bastards whose highest aspiration in life seems to be finding out just how much bilking of their fellow citizens they can get away with before getting caught. If you can find another driving motive, please, help me out...

This ain't no Michael Moore documentary

You'd think that a document this incriminating regarding America's (and specifically the Bush Administration's) abysmal failure in the war for the hearts and minds of the people in the Middle East would have to be from the hands of an "America-hating" liberal like Michael Moore. Maybe the CIA, that bastion of Bush-bashing. The fact that it is really the product of the Pentagon makes it downright staggering.

DailyKos gives a good selection of bits, plus a link to the entire document. More can be read about it in this scathing article by Sidney Blumenthal at Salon (do the Salon Day Pass for non-subscribers).

The falling dollar

Here is a painful report from The Economist about the falling dollar. The Economist is no liberal rag full of Chicken Little Cassandras, it's a strongly fiscal conservative British magazine (it will be noted for example that Bush is never brought up by name in the article). Reading an article like this in The Economist makes me particularly nervous about having no control while the lunatics are running the asylum.

The plan to kill incentives for employee health insurance

Chris Ferris at The Gadflyer has a very good breakdown describing Bush's plan to eliminate business tax deductions for providing employee health care, describing what it is, and why it would be very bad indeed.

So Rummy stays on

So, sooner rather than later, John Snow gets shown the door. Reading this article by Arianna Huffington from a short year and a half ago, one marvels (and yet doesn't, this is the Bush League after all) that he was ever chosen to be Treasury Secretary in the first place.

Staggeringly, and yet absolutely not worthy of raising an eyebrow if you think about it (this is the Bush League after all), the cabinet member who made the most notable hash of his job the first time around, Donald Rumsfeld, is going to survive the current round of house cleaning. Bull Moose has a brief commentary here.

I've figured it out. If Bush has figured out how to get away with the most mind-bogglingly bad choices he possibly could, he will (see his current plan to fund the new addition to the tax cut by taking away business incentives to help with employee health insurance). I think it has something to do with keeping liberals (and anyone else paying attention) in a constant state of paralyzed disbelief...

The proverbial picture worth a thousand words

This picture is just so perfect in so many ways, it speaks for itself...

Speaking of Moral Values - the "DeLay Rule"

Everything you could possibly want to know and more about the Delay rule can be found at Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo. He's been fairly obsessive about the whole thing, to the point of doing individual posts for every congressman who has come out with whether they were for or against the new rule.

What I've been wondering is how long it would take before the DeLay thugs started going whole-hog smearing the Texas DA, Ronnie Earle, who started the proceedings that have led to the indictment of two DeLay cronies, and is threatening to lead to the indictment of DeLay himself. Fortunately, Ronnie Earle has lobbed a wonderfully concise and eloquent preemptive strike, in the form of this editorial in the New York Times. Among other things, it's kind of hard to accuse a man of partisanship against a Republican when the vast majority of the elected officials that he's brought to justice over the years have been Democrats. But the article goes far beyond that. A very good read.

More on the Moral Right

This is a long transcript from a great interview on Now with Bill Moyers with, among others, Sister Joan Chittister, a brilliant, liberal Catholic nun. My favorite quote, a great condensation of an enormous hypocrisy that I've questioned my parents on countless times over the years:

But I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking. If all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed and why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth.

The Moral Right

Meanwhile, I’ve been holding off on sending a missive I’ve been compiling for my parents comparing the “moral” red states with the “amoral” blue states. Sick and tired as I am of them reading these damn stupid books by the likes of Tammy Bruce detailing the pagan scourge that is the “liberal elite agenda” in this country, I found it curious that Massachusetts, the state which is such a notorious bastion of “activist judges” who are trying to undermine marriage in this country by making it available to homosexuals, strangely enough has the lowest divorce rate in the country, and has for a long, long time. Meanwhile, the rest of the top ten states with the lowest divorce rates are also liberal blue states, while all of the worst states for divorce rates are conservative red states, mostly planted right in the Bible belt. Which makes me understand why they don’t want those damn liberal activist judges “devaluing marriage”, since they’re having such a damn hard time valuing it themselves… Domestic violence rates and homicide rates follow a similar trend. The only statistic I saw that gave credence to the moral righteousness of the moral conservative half of this country was the fact that they do give a sizably higher percentage of their incomes to charity – a lesson from which we blue-staters could learn.

William D'Antonio has written a fantastic article about this subject...

Fun with Republicans

I needed to take a break from politics for a while (not that I did, not really) and step back – start reading “real” books again – and in whatever manner get a little perspective again. Also, I was curious to see what would happen this go around, and possibly just let myself be entertained by the absurdity of it all. Thus far, only three weeks post-election, the Republicans have not disappointed. Kevin Drum has a good summation of recent congressional hijinks here.

For Bush’s part, the antics haven’t been quite so free-spirited. Mostly so far we’ve seen Colin depart to make room for Condi (a switch that most are eying with a great deal of skepticism), and Rummy not making any moves to leave. Ann Coulter, of course, suggests that liberals who talk about their misgivings with Condi are just “typical racist, anti-feminist liberals”. While she’s just doing her “shocking” thing, I wonder how this accounts for liberals (and not-so-liberals) who have even graver problems with Rummy staying on as Defense Secretary. I guess not only do we have problems with black women, we’re apparently not so keen on white men either. Time to bring in the Asian eunuchs…

No longer so reassured

Apparently, evidence has mounted that maybe the elections weren't so free and clear of gaming after all...

Some words of wisdom from Thomas Jefferson

Thank you Richard for sending me the following:

"A little patience, and we shall see the reign of
witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the
people, recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in
the meantime we are suffering deeply in spirit, and
incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of
enormous public debt......If the game runs sometimes
against us at home we must have patience till luck
turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of
winning back the principles we have lost, for this is
a game where principles are at stake."

Thomas Jefferson, 1798, after the passage of the
Sedition Act

I feel reassured somewhat

Call me crazy, but knowing Bush won legitimately makes me feel better. I read this article by Farhad Manjoo in Salon, and it did have some reassuring statistics. So I'll let the black box voting thing go for the moment. I know one of my conservative friends thinks I enjoy blaming Bush's wins on "the evil gaming of the system" but frankly that isn't the case - win or lose, I'd like at least the reassurance that our basic democracy is intact. The state of voter's brains is another issue entirely....

Reaching out to the red states

I realize from a lifetime of "reaching out to the red states" - i.e. to my parents - the apparent impossibility of making a dent in obstinate minds, so while I always hold out hope, there's always a realist to bring be back into line. Here's Janet Sullivan from Salon (through the free medium of The Gadflyer) reminding us all what we're up against if we imagine we're going to work our well-meaning way into the heart of the heartland.

Black box voting

One thing that has mystified me is that no one, nobody at all on a national level, is addressing the issue over electronic voting. Here's a small taste I found, but this is it.

It would be one thing if, while there was no paper trail, there was at least an electronic trail of the votes. But in many counties, there isn't even an electronic trail! So what would stop anyone, anyone at all, from entering any damn number they chose? Um, the answer to that would be...NOTHING, NOTHING AT ALL. And we call this a democracy?

Before 2006 rolls around we need to hit this and hit it hard. The problem is that no one in the media wants to be labeled a (horrors!) CONSPIRACY THEORIST. But dammit they need to get over it, or else nothing of any value in this administration is going to get reported at all over the next (I hope only) four years. Look at it this way, and put it this way to scoffing Republicans: if Dems had won the election and there was any question about the vote at all, you know Republicans would be all over this, Fox would be talking about how Dems "mysteriously stole the vote" (they say that anyway of course, even when we lose), and on and on, and no peace would be had until we'd finally put a locked-in standard into place that made sense. But as long as the Republicans are benefiting from this mysterious gap in a rational electoral system, do you think we'll see substantial change in the system? That's a rhetorical question by the way.

From a friend of a friend

A friend of mine in NYC sent this around in an email from a friend of his and I asked if it would be possible to post it because I thought it spoke eloquently for a lot of us. She wrote back and okayed it, adding the extremely interesting November 4th entry...

November 4, 2004.

I feel as though I should premise what I wrote below with the fact that, though I am ashamed of it, it was my first year voting. I’m 34 and for various reasons I had not voted before. Some of the strongest reasons are probably that nobody in my family had ever registered or voted themselves. My parents are immigrants who barely escaped a communist regime and who have lived their entire lives with the hopes of steering clear of the government’s radar, even after we immigrated to America and became citizens. Though I was raised in suburban America, when the doorbell rang, we were taught to lie down in the dark, away from windows so that nobody would know we were home.

I thought this background info might help give more context to my reaction to this year’s election. Maybe it was especially devastating for me because it was my first time out and I had hope pumping through the veins of my wobbly new voting legs. Perhaps in my greenness I felt more was possible when I only really had a 2-dimensional view of how all of this really works. In any case, it was a big deal for me. And though I was still a little shaky after pulling that lever and crying after I heard the results, I guess in the end, I still accomplished something if not in the outside world, then at least in my own little private world.

Many are saying that we’ve a lot to be proud of. Many are encouraging me to look at the upside… almost half the country dissents. We’ve mobilized and have organized in a new and useful way that can only help us in the future. I want to agree. And I hope once my shock and disappointment wear off, I can feel again optimistic. I do want to believe we are all really the same… with the same vulnerabilities, with the same suffering, and with the same possibilities. But for now I’m still gravely disappointed and in some odd way hurt. I think I will emerge from this soon though and be able to believe and hope again.

Today, November 3rd, 2004.

I had a dream last night that Kerry lost a tooth. I guess that was the omen.

Today, I woke up in a foreign country. In a way, my greatest fears came true. I was right. Most of America is not like me. People ultimately vote for the person they are most comfortable with, someone with whom they can identify, even if they know the person isn’t making any logical sense. It’s like in relationships where people gravitate towards those who meet their emotional needs even if their politics or lifestyles don’t seem compatible. I am realizing as I get older that people for the most part are not logical creatures. After today I am convinced that most of America is not like me. Most of America looks and thinks like Bush. They want “family values” more than they want civil rights or an economy that works. I have awoken to a rude reminder that this is not Europe. I know living in NYC I often forget this and think because I live in this liberal bubble, I am in Europe or somewhere similarly idealized in my head. Today I woke up to discover what my mother always told me... NYC is another country. I don’t know why after having driven across America more than three times I haven’t realized that I do not belong here... that what I think of as America, is only in my head or is actually only made up of a few liberal cities in the U.S. Last night and most painfully this morning I realized that most of what is geographically America is not like me.

My boyfriend thinks that people will see the mistake they’ve made once they realize how they’ve been lied to. But I don’t believe it. I think that people may or may not be dumb to the lies Bush tells. But it doesn’t matter. He represents what they want to cling to. What they prioritize as most important to them. They want the country they voted for. People are vain. They want something in their image to represent them. Most Americans want a marriage of church and state, a religious fundamentalist right wing country because they are for the most part, a religious fundamentalist right wing, conservative people who believe in imposing their exclusive morality on others.

I wanted to believe like the others who voted for Kerry that if only enough people had the chance to freely vote, they would choose Kerry. I even refused to go canvassing for Kerry on the principle of “free will” and that people are aware enough and have the responsibility to themselves to discover the better choice. I felt uncomfortable trying to cajole someone into voting a certain way. I wanted to believe, like the Kerry camp did, that the American people were intelligent enough to see the consequences of not voting for Kerry. I, like the Kerry campaign, was gravely wrong. It is against my beliefs to treat people like children when they are not. America is choosing a path that they want. I feel like I, along with other Kerry hopefuls, have deluded myself and been out of touch with the reality of the country I live in.

Now more strongly than ever, I realize I cannot leave NYC or that I can only live in a few cities that are like NY. I feel lost today. But in a way, I am found in that I know who I am not, and that not everyone is as much like me as I so crave to believe. On some basic philosophical level, I want to believe that we are all essentially the same. But today the differences are so glaring they are blinding my better vision. I want to be more optimistic than I can be today.

On some level I want to agree with my boyfriend that the pendulum will have to swing the other way. That most of America will have to learn their lesson and live out the ramifications of their decisions. They will get what they want and have to live in it. And perhaps my boyfriend is right, the tide will then turn after reaching a critical mass and most of America has changed fundamentally in their hearts. But today, I don’t feel like I want to suffer through that long process and spend all my energy and days fighting or trying to navigate through the system that is in many ways determined to damn me. Today, I want to live in the America in my head. The United States of My Own Illusion. I want to believe that NYC is my own little America. I want to live in a country that struggles to embrace diversity and tolerance, and to tell the truth. I want to live in a community that is not afraid to admit to the messiness of life and that, more often than not, the right answers are usually not so simple. I want to live in a country for whom compassion is not just a campaign slogan and only for the select few that are chosen by me, and where the social welfare of the greater public is a higher priority than individual power and vanity. I want to live in a different America than the one I woke up in today.

Accountability

Another thing to keep in mind is that Kerry would have had a hell time as President, with the hard right blaming him for everything going wrong as a result of Bush's foibles. Bush has no choice now but to face up to the messes he's created. Sully goes into that in this entry:

Here's an email with which I concur entirely:

I didn't vote for Bush for lots of reasons. But it seems to me that maybe the result, much as it was not what I wanted, will be good for the country. We are in the middle of a war whose outcome is very much in doubt. We have a fiscal policy that may or may not prove successful. Issues that have seemed remote to many like abortion and the Patriot Act's definition of rights and privacy are likely to become more immediate over the next few years. Had we changed leadershop now, it would have been difficult to assign accountability, for good or bad, for these policies and decisions. I always feared, in fact, that Kerry would have had little chance of success in the face of a conservative chorus of "everything was going in the right direction in Iraq when we handed it over to you". Whatever the result, over thee next few years we all will be better able to asses the success or failure of many things that are unfinished now, and hold one team accountable.

Exactly. My main fear with a Kerry victory was that the hard right would never have given him a chance in the war, and would have savaged him as commander-in-chief in order to pave the way for a victory in 2008. Ratcheting the country back to fiscal sanity would also have been a thankless task. Now, Bush will face the consequences of his own policies and we will be able to judge him on that. He has no excuses any more. I hope he succeeds in Iraq, in reforming social security. But no one should give him an easy pass if he fails.

Not the end of the world

Everyone on the left feels a little gutted today, I think that's a given. Not only did Bush win again, but the Senate and House both got filled with yet more and more right-wing ideologues, and anti-gay marriage amendments passed in 11 states. And of course there's the little matter of the Supreme Court. So yes, pretending things don't look bleak on the national level is ridiculous. But I think we have to keep some perspective - against the odds - and continue the uprising that's occurred over the past couple of years. And I really think that it's time for us to become severely informed as to what goes on in the middle of this country. As distasteful as it is, as painful as it is, to lend an ear to a Sean Hannity or an Ann Coulter or god forbid a Rush Limbaugh, it's time for liberals to learn to take three breaths and just listen - without arguing - to everything they have to say. Listen to understand what it is in what is being said that appeals as much as it does to those on the Right.

I was listening to Ron Silver last night - a Hollywood actor and producer who has helped Bush during this campaign - and he was talking about how impossible it is to sit down for a peaceful conversation with a liberal in Hollywood. My first reaction was to groan and say, "Oh God, here comes these stupid accusations of liberal intolerance again...", and to think, oh yes, I'm sure an evening spent talking to Ann Coulter is a peaceful, civilized way to pass the time for a liberal. But then I thought, the only possible way to turn this thing around is to actually withhold our distaste and actually... listen... to what it is that appeals to middle America. Not just our prejudiced version of it, but the thing itself. And then to engage them, peaceably, on their own level with their own language. The way my brother, who knows his Bible, loves to invite Jehovah's Witnesses in because he knows he can work them on their own ground.

Which brings me to another possibility: if we ever want to engage the middle of this country, I think it's time for all of us to know the Bible, better than the Christian Right knows it themselves... It's just one book, albeit a big frickin dull-as-dirt book, but it's THE Book, the Book that every social conservative politician holds by their side as they're wending their way to the White House, and if we're serious about engaging this increasingly hard-right country, it's imperative that we learn how to engage them on their own terms, terms which are largely drawn from the Good Book. Maybe this is a crazy suggestion, but I really don't think so. We need to listen, and learn, and not let these failures turn us into sputtering Tourette's ridden lunatics... after all that's what they expect from us apparently...

And Lord we have to figure out a way to wean people off of Fox....

Citizen of the country of California

Well, it's over. Years of good political superstitions down the tubes. (What are they going to do the next time the Redskins win or lose before an incumbent election? That one is dead. So sad...) Months (okay, years) of anxiety for not, with more years of same on the way. I don't like those Florida numbers, meaning I don't believe those Florida numbers, but however they were achieved (and we'll never know as a good many of the votes that comprised them are no longer going to exist soon enough thanks to the glory of the touchscreen voting machine) there they are. There's no getting around them, as there is apparently no getting around the immovable rock which is reactionary social politics in this country. I'm almost more depressed about the eleven state constiutional amendments that passed banning gay marriage.

So for my sanity, I'm officially declaring myself a citizen of the country of California, soon to be once again a member of the country of New York, with occasional stop-offs in my native country of Minnesota. All smart, safe, blue countries. I have to realize, though it is hard, this is still America, I'm still free to pretty much be however I want to be, I mean things are just not that oppressive here in the country of California. I have to remember that. Sensitive artists have lived in countries with oppressive, corrupt governments from the beginning of time and did they sit around fucking moaning about what an asshole the king was, how he was always lying out his ass and the peasants were never calling him on it? Yes, they probably did, but they probably had far more cause to do so because the living conditions were probably a thousand times worse, and they probably had about forty years in which to dot their political bitching. I have to remind myself on occasion that I lived in Prague and I know firsthand how the other half lives, and especially past tense lived. And yet my old friends from Prague - who have lived through Communism and Communist repression - can stand our President even less than I can. So what does that say? Tonight I'm not going to there...

One thing surprised me - I was a little amazed to find out that Kelley was actually more depressed than I was. I was bucking HER up. I guess I've just had longer to be resigned. A week ago this is exactly where I imagined I would be so the only real disappointment is that it was looking so damn good the last few days. The other thing - and I just read this on Daily Kos - is exactly this: whatever happened in this election, there is nonetheless a much stronger, much more energized progressive community happening. And there is now a President who is going to have no choice but to deal with the messes he's made over the past four years. Hopefully (and I mean this, I know you don't believe me but I do) the economy will suddenly go full-blown, maybe Iraq will turn around magically and become a solid democratic Mideastern state, maybe the budget will balance, maybe people will stop dropping into poverty and homelessness, maybe new jobs that pay decent wages will actually start appearing in this country. The campaign is over, it's out of our hands now. I have to start meditating again (no this is not a non sequitir). While I don't meditate with namh yoho renghe kyo - "I believe in the law of cause and effect" - it is something I need to start concentrating on again. The Christian version is, "It's in God's hands." And there are times when it's good to remember that ultimately it's true. I'd love to forcibly change a hundred million minds in this country, two hundred million - not just to vote for a different president, but to live differently, to think differently, to be genuinely more open-minded and kinder and less victims of stupid fears and prejudices. But it's not going to happen and I would just end up making myself insane in the membrane or at the very least unbearably smug and self-righteous if I tried.

I actually feel okay right now. And I live in the beautiful, peaceful, kind, forgiving country of California. Where unlike in the equally wonderful but for different reasons country of New York I can resign myself to four more years of a Bush presidency, have time to write about it post-mortem, and still be able to go to bed at a decent hour.

2 More Days

Things look good for Kerry... and then they don't look as good... and then they look good again... and then they don't... Every blog I go on (pro-Kerry) sounds extremely optimistic, while Bush blogs sound frankly downbeat and as though they were preparing for the worst. All of the polls show a stastical dead heat, and with Bush not breaking 50%, as everyone likes to point out, as an incumbent that is all very bad news. Zogby shows Kerry ahead in Florida. Let's pretend we live in a world where the vote can't be gamed and I too am feeling very confident that Kerry is going to win this. But then there's the real world, the one we live in, where the vote can, and is gamed, and... it's one of those things that zen master Rumsfeld describes as either one of the things that you know you don't know, or one of the things that you don't know that you don't know...

But there is that anxiety, palpable amongst Bush followers, and as I was reading one article about this in the Washington Post, I came upon a very curious quote that makes me realize all the more how important it is that Kerry is elected - because there are honestly those among the Bush flock who have somehow elevated him to some kind of religious iconic status, a sort of latter day Christ holding back the final days:

But Young is not blinkered; she reads the newspapers, knows how hair-thin a margin Bush has in Ohio. Only this week she began to consider the impossible, that Bush could be right and still lose -- and put that together with her conviction that God knows what He's doing.

"If that happens, the Lord must want Kerry to be in there," she says. "If that happens, it must be the Lord is telling us we're living in the Last Days, and we'd better prepare."

This is just a beautiful sight

The Boss and Kerry in Madison. DailyKos links from this page to Althouse, a Bush supporter who attended and took more photos. DailyKos's point is spot on - you'll notice Bush supporters with Bush posters in attendance - no one bothered them, they weren't required to sign "loyalty" pacts in order to be allowed in to a Kerry event. It's almost... hell, it's almost democratic!

Wow

The Spanish-speaking community apparently gets the BEST POLITICAL ADS.

Don't lose yer head

Yes, okay, maybe it is time to take a little time off...

Kerry Haters for Kerry

I've heard this line again and again from Republicans, "Y'know, most democrats don't even like Kerry that much." (Unstated is how many Republicans don't like Bush all that much either...)

I'm like, HELL IF I CARE if they don't like him, as long as they vote for him! We're an inclusive people! And here's just the site for that grouchy, unhappy but Kerry-voting lot. As for me, sure, I'd love a straightforward charmer like Clinton who just seems to live and breathe the charm of a natural born pol. As we all learned, that charm had its downside. Personally, call me nuts, I like Kerry. Maybe it's personal, because he reminds me of an old very good friend from high school, in so many ways(actually, my old debate partner). But when Kerry hits it, I think he's extremely powerful. (Granted, as a supporter, one certainly wishes he could hit it on a more predictable basis...)

And please, anything, anything at all, to see an actual human with a real tangible soul dancing behind his eyes in the White House again, who - to put it in its most cynical terms - can at least convincingly ACT as though he actually gives a shit about anyone or anything beyond his personal power and his reputation. I'm willing to grant that my fear and loathing of nearly the entirety of Bush's whole being, essence, and manner comes from a blood level, something pre-verbal or pre-rational, but when the Pope worries that Bush is the anti-Christ, I honestly only scoff with HALF my brain...

What DO people see in Bush? I honestly wish I could comprehend it, to see him through eyes that honestly imagine him to be a man of steadfast integrity and boldness and blahdiblahdiblah... All I ever see is a massively underequipped used car salesman with some enormous pain in his soul willing to take it out on the world... and don't ever tell him that he's wrong OR ELSE. Four years along and my initial instincts about the man have gotten nothing but thorough confirmation again and again and again. To me he's little more than a bully and a thug, and the worst kind - the kind that always sends out others to do his dirty work and never ever takes responsibility for his acts. A man who has no problem allowing the worst smears and lies to cover all those who might stand in his way. A man who has no concerns about making sure that his own following is as misinformed as possible, as long as it helps him at the polls. How can you respect, much less like, a man like that? (And much, much less, allow him to govern this great country?)

Kerry Vindicated

Thank God this happened before the end of the week when news gets ignored. David Kay comes on CNN and completely annihilates the White House story on the missing explosives at Al Qaqaa, and then adds some enormously damning observations of his own. I can't wait to see the White House try to paint yet another of their own as partisan...

How the hell is this so close?

This editorial from Newsday captures my sentiments exactly: how the hell, with an incoherent bumbler like Bush in the White House, with a shambles of a war with endless and gorwing evidence of abysmally bad planning, the first record of job loss in seventy years, a massive and growing deficit, increasing poverty, decreasing wages, more people losing their health care, and on and on - why is there even a chance in HELL that he could get re-elected? And it really comes down to the fact that the Republicans have done a massively effective bit of voodoo on the middle American mind. I was listening to a woman explain why she was voting for Bush yesterday and she said it was because she didn't like the way Democrats spent her money. I had to explain to her that contrary to her ideas, government has grown under Bush more rapidly than under any president since Johnson, and that Bush had turned what had been a sizeable budget surplus into a series of deficits that keeps breaking its own record year after year. But would she believe me? Not when Fox had told her differently... It's like some weird brainwashing - no, not like, it IS some massively strange brainwashing. And standing on the outside of it, I'm sorry, but has sanity actually become a partisan issue?

Frankly Kerry should have seen this coming

My favorite new Republican hypocrisy is the combination of Bush accusing Kerry of the infamy of blaming the missing explosives from Al Qaqaa (say it with a straight face) on the troops -which Kerry didn't of course, he was accusing Bush of bad war-planning - combined with Giuliani - with the blessing of the Bush campaign team - BLAMING IT ON THE TROOPS! Ya gotta hand it to Republicans, they really truly are devoid of all shame. It's really kind of an inverse purity...

Which is yet another reason I wish Kerry would have hit far more, FAR FAR MORE, on the domestic situation this last two weeks. The whole reason that Republicans want focus on "national security" and the "war on terror" is because it's a huge ruse to obscure their absolute failures on the domestic scene. (This is why, in the Eminem video for Mosh, the shot of Osama bin Laden turning into a cardboard cutout hiding Rumsfeld and Cheney talking is so brilliant.) While no one in America really has a grasp of these realities in Iraq, and how the Bush team bungled the planning - everyone can understand LESS JOBS, ENORMOUS DEFICITS, INCREASED POVERTY, LESS PEOPLE WITH HEALTH COVERAGE. Etc. No one understands this more than the Bush-Cheney team. Why Kerry didn't force domestic issues to take a far more prominent place in the dialogue, why he let the Republicans dictate the direction of the dialogue, is something that frankly bothers the hell out of me. I'm not saying he'll lose necessarily as a result, but he sure as hell would have done himself a favor casting a more constant light on these obvious failures, as opposed to the murky, obscure ones overseas.

Pope fears Bush is Anti-Christ

As a lapsed Catholic whose very Catholic parents are adamant Bush-supporters, I have to say this article - as questionable as it might be - was an interesting little head-scratcher... I guess if I were going to accuse any Prez of being the anti-Christ, the apparently soulless W would be the one. But still...

Win or lose

we have to keep the game in play. Harold Meyerson, in the LA Weekly, talks about the tremendous ground swell amongst progressives that has occurred in 2004. We have to keep it going. In fact, if Bush wins (God forbid) it's likely that he will run ever further to the right and further toward the same disastrous policies that he's followed the last four years, which can only mean that eventually - when people wake up to the fact that the approach simply isn't working (to say the least) - the progressive movement will be ready and fully operational to move on in and start amassing an actual base of power.

In any case, this is a very encouraging article, and I think it's good to keep in mind that no matter how much it might FEEL that way, the world does not begin and end next Tuesday.

Now it begins

News item from a secret memo taken from Republican campaign headquarters in Florida. The voter intimidation begins.

Dishonest Dubya

And yet more dumb brilliant fun - The Dishonest Dubya Doll. Awesome.

Lie Girls

And here's some dumb, brilliant fun... You've found the Weapons of Mass.... Seduction...

Blindfolds for Bush

In honor of the PIPA findings, I think this This Modern World cartoon is dead on (do the Salon Day Pass, it's worth it).

Republicans Really DON'T Know What They're Talking About

Not that we really needed this confirmed, but it is now statistically proven that, yes indeed, Republicans (not all of them of course but way too damn many) don't know what the hell they're talking about. Not that Dems are completely on the ball either, but the differences in these statistics is striking.

Is there some reason a law can't be passed insisting that a certain level of public knowledge must be demonstrated before a person is granted the right to vote? I'm just sayin....

Wolf Packs for Truth

The wolves in the latest Bush-Cheney ad are a little pissed off at being used, so they've started their own website.

As anyone who's ever seen the great, beautiful movie Never Cry Wolf knows, the wolves's reputation for being mankillers is completely false and unjustified - which makes it kind of perfect that they're the primary image in a Bush-Cheney ad, doesn't it?

Making the calls

I'd love to be able to write more in here but lately there's just too much good stuff to read - among them plenty of pieces by conservative writers stating very succinctly why Bush is the wrong choice to make for principled conservatives. (You can read a couple here (Pat Buchanan's mag) and here (just do the Salon day pass, it's free, and this article is great) and here.)

Also, I spent yesterday making calls to swing states to get people out to canvass for Kerry. I'd rather be there doing it myself, but if this helps at all, it's worth it. I suspect a lot of people are making these calls, because it was almost impossible to get a list of people to call who weren't in Washington state, which is not really in play as far as I can tell from the polls. I wanted to be calling Wisconsin, Florida, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania. (I did pull callers from Florida a couple of times, and Wisconsin once, but that was it.) In any case, I hope it helps. What I really wish I could is personally hand out the massive amount of sane, rational information I've got at the ready to every independent or undecided voter in this country. If anyone knows anyone who can be swayed, I'm willing to send this stuff out to them. I've got the goods, and a lot of it is written by conservatives. So just let me know.

I'm just a little disturbed that Minnesota is in play at all - whatever happened to the state of Hubert H. Humphrey, Paul Wellstone, and Mondale? Hopefully, Jesse Ventura's surprise endorsement of Kerry might shake this up a little bit. Granted Jesse the Body didn't exactly leave the office on a high note, but I figure this veteran and ex-WWF wrestler still has pull among the independents, undecideds and even, as they've become affectionately known during this election cycle, "the NASCAR crowd".

SUVs

Tonight sitting at a neighbor's while they waited for the new season of West Wing to start (we're three seasons behind because we're restricted to whatever is on DVD or video...) we were talking about the fact that, likely as not, with the polls as deadly close as they are, we may be looking at (take a deep breath, calm, focus, breathe) four more years of George W. Bush - a four years that will likely be far uglier than the first given the fact that he will have been given a "mandate" and that he will have nothing to lose. So I thought - you know what - something is starting now - clearly this election is mobilizing liberals and it's about damn time, and we're not going to let a little thing like a lost presidential election get in the way of continuing to stir things up. And one thing that people forget is that politics begins at a local level. As misguided as I've always believed my parents might be, they've always understood this one thing.

So this got me thinking about something I had mentioned to another friend a few weeks ago, that I really, REALLY REALLY wanted to make a bumpersticker that said "I SUPPORT TERRORISM" that could be slapped on random SUV's parked on the street. Well, she thought that was a bad idea for a number of very good and wise reasons and I guess I was forced to agree. But she mentioned that in fact there is a great site called www.runningonempty.org that has tickets that you can order or just print out that can be placed like a real ticket under someone's windshield wiper - they're civil, informative, well-made, and pointed, and best of all if you start papering SUVs with them you can't get arrested for vandalism (or beat up by pissed-off SUV owners).

SUV's by the way are a perfect metaphor for people's belief in this current administration. People have a conception, because SUVs are BIG and threaten by the simple assertion of their mass to roll over everything in their path, that they are therefore safer on the road, but nothing could be further from the truth. They are in fact badly designed for the most part, are far more likely to rollover than smaller cars, and worst and most dangerous of all, because of their weight, are almost impossible to stop quickly when sudden unexpected obstacles place themselves in the drivers way. Accident statistics prove again and again that they are nothing but death traps let loose on the road compared to smaller vehicles. So people psychologically imagine that they are better off, when in reality - just like with the Bush administration - they are actually far more likely, driving an SUV, to end up in an accident, and far more likely, in case of an accident, to experience and/or induce worse injuries and/or fatalities. They just don't make sense, safety-wise, ecologically, economically, politically. It's time to stop supporting a bad habit... And in any case, whatever kind of vehicle we drive, we have to start remembering that oil is a gift, a gift with a time limit, it is not a birthright, and we have to start treating it as such. And we have to begin to remind others about this as well.

Oh yes, it's KERRY who's running a campaign of fear...

This is just a wonderful summary of everything you need to know about the Republican convention.

The question of Bush's faith

This is a very clear response by Ayelish McGarvey to the Ron Suskind article from this past Sunday's New York Times Sunday Magazine. It pretty much hits my attitude about Bush's faith on the head. In a way, it's odd how much in regards to this administration rests on the question of Bush's faith, since it's almost always what he relies on for policy decisions - either his "gut" or his "faith". (God knows he doesn't rely on the rational testimony of his military or science advisors, unless of course they already agree with his bowels or his interior monologue with God (if this is in fact what it is)...) Journalists in general take Bush's testimonies of faith verbatim and don't question him on it; perhaps because a person's true heart is actually unknowable, questioning a person's word is essentially worthless from a journalistic perspective. But pieces like the Suskind piece, while shocking in themselves, are slightly meaningless to me because I've never really believed that his "faith" was any more than a shill to the social conservative right. No politician on the right is dumb enough to think they're going to get anywhere without reeling in their Evangelical base, and Bush saw what happened to his father with a base that was insufficiently convinced of Bush Sr.'s Christian conviction. So what better than a rebirth of the pagan prodigal son into Christianity through no lesser vehicle than Billy Graham? Certainly on a personal basis, Bush post-rebirth has done some mightily unChristian acts, or at least supported them, and on a political basis of course the mind reels at the moral relativism implicit in just about every aspect of both his campaigning and his policy-making. If what he represents is indeed Christianity, then I have to kind of wonder, what isn't?

In any case, you either have:
a)a man who wraps himself in the cloak of Christianity in order to put a lock on the Christian base of his party, and allows him to do whatever he wants policy-wise, Christian or unChristian as it might be.

or

b)a man who in fact does operate "on faith" with little concern for rational, expert-based discourse. And still engages in policy-making that bares little or no resemblance to any kind of Christianity I can recognize.

Either way. It's frightening.

Not to be cynical but...

apparently babykissing is alive and well in the 21st Century. Not for those with weak stomachs. Once again, a Bush expression meant to be profound and sincere (or God knows what) just frankly disturbs me. (I can't help it. It's beyond politics with him - that mug of his quite honestly (and literally) gives me nightmares.)

I read yesterday that this was the biggest political ad buy in history, $14.2 million.

The real killer is that giving a contribution to "get Ashley's story around" or whatever the pap they say, is actually a contribution to the far-right wing Progess for America voter fund. Not that it's a mystery which direction the ad comes from or anything...

Jon Stewart on Crossfire

For those of you who haven't seen it yet.

Finally

This piece is excellent, extensive, and completely damning about the post-war planning done for the Iraq War. Send it to anyone you possibly can who thinks this administration actually knows what they are doing with this country's defense.

What particularly freaks me out is that somehow I, sitting in Los Angeles in late 2002, early 2003, knew from news sources that there was no post-war plan. It was getting to me all the way over here, through the news. And yet the people actually running the war - who HAD to have known this was the case, did nothing about it, and did their level best to silence voices that pointed this out. I was always arguing this with my conservative buddy that was all gung-ho to go in and take down Saddam, but he wouldn't listen, even though I was just reporting what I'd read in the news. To him, I was just against the war because I didn't like Bush. And the news, feh! "Liberal media," he said. "The New York Times is just a liberal shill."

Do you think anyone is going to learn anything from this?

Another great quote from this New Yorker article today is Mark Halperin's defeated sounding, "In American political life, what is always creams what ought to be."

Gillespie and Rock the Vote

You can start here to read all about this little Gillespie snafu (and yes I think it was very dumb on his part with no discernible positive outcome for the Bushies) - Gillespie's cease and desist letter to Rock the Vote.

Won't go into it much but I will say that the fact that he doesn't realize how laughable a sentence like this is: "no less than the President of the United States has thoroughly debunked" the idea that we will need a draft, and continues by using no less than Rumsfeld - that celebrated expert noted particularly for his ability to determine adequate troop levels - to further support his argument that *cough cough* a draft will not be necessary, makes me think that Bush is not the only one caught in the "Bush Bubble".

Also, just for stupid chuckles, is the fact that Gillespie brings up NASCAR and televised wrestling as examples of the Republican appeal to youth! (And then cc's NASCAR and the WWW with the letter).

Needless to say (because you can read it on their blog) Rock the Vote has not taken up Gillespie's offer, and in fact is hitting back twice as hard with evidence that is frankly a little frightening...

The battle of the misleading ads.

Another article at MSNBC was yet another detailing the misleading ads that both Kerry and Bush are throwing up now. While the article does concede that Bush has spent this entire campaign focusing on mendacious and negative ads while Kerry started nice, it points out that both of them are now completely tossing veracity out the window.

Strangely enough, I find myself so very happy and pleased that Kerry is doing this. As the article points out, the average American just doesn't have time to check and verify what they hear during these ads - which means that they just assume that the ads are true! Which means that the only people getting upset by the complete crap in these negative Bush ads was liberal lefty obsessives like myself. Which means that a lot of energy was being wasted worrying about an impossibility, i.e. getting the record straight, and getting flustered by the audacity of that crazy poisonous bastard Rove (& Co). So really, thank God the Kerry campaign has decided to fight fire with fire. Sad to say, but when you're dealing with a fucker who will stop at nothing, you've got no choice but to best them at their own sick game. In fact, I have a sick fantasy of my own - a world where liberals run everything and constantly are presenting fiction as truth and vice versa and conservatives run around gnashing their teeth at the insanity and idiocy of the average American citizen, while liberal pundits nod their heads in agreement like trained monkeys at the most ridiculous liberal pap (and there's plenty of that to be found, God knows...)

In any case, Tony, you're right - nothing is quite as amusing as hearing Bush accuse Kerry of using "scare tactics to win the election". I just wish Kerry would start saying that Bush "can't run and hide" from his record over the past four years.

Andrew Sullivan

I also want to mention that when I started this sporadic attempt at a blog, one of my fixations was Andrew Sullivan - namely because he is by far one of the sanest conservative voices I've ever read. And yet constantly I would read his blog and read him defending the worst outrages of this administration's handling of Iraq (among other things) He, like so many conservative pundits, was all too painfully willing to put on the rosy shades that the Administration wants everyone to wear, and to attack liberals not on substantive points but from a kind of self-righteous, smug, might-makes-right tone and perspective that represents the worst (and the overriding majority) of conservative punditry. And yet I kept reading him, and sending him "what are you talking about?" emails (that he never read), and kept reading him... maybe I was holding out hope for those glimmers of true lucidity, or maybe he just pissed me off in that particular way that people - who we mostly agree with except on matters most important to us - do. In any case, I did keep reading, and somewhere, and I think honestly the moment was Abu Ghraib, in fact yes Abu Ghraib was decidedly the pin in his triumphal balloon, when he suddenly couldn't drink the koolaid anymore. And then, as a gay man, the Federal Marriage Amendment threw him over the edge. Since then no one has been more vehemently and more eloquently on Bush's and the Bush Administration's case about the handling of the post-war and the hypocrisy and empty travesty of their domestic policies. He's still not entirely sold on Kerry. But it's safe to say this ex-Brit is not voting for Bush. For those two or three of you who actually read this, I strongly recommend checking him out if you don't already, among other reasons because he compiles a mean war chest of anti-Bushiania - and a lot of this is from his fellow conservatives. He also loves to slash away at the garbage flying on both sides - and man is it refreshing to read a bullshit free conservative pundit. Admittedly, he still gets emotional and self-righteous about things that I think are dumb, but, hey, an honest conservative pundit - I was being to think it wasn't possible.

Mary Cheney, a caveat

That said, Kerry's remark did feel... forced or unnatural or something. I definitely remember it was one of two moments in that last debate when I cringed... I had had no problem when Edwards brought it up - it felt right - but Kerry's use personally I have to say felt gratuitous. That said, the conservative response was as ridiculous as it was predictable - "quick, Bush sucked and said absolutely nothing to defend himself against the fact that he has nothing domestically to show for himself for the past four years... the Mary Cheney comment.... yeah! even if no one buys it, at least it will DISTRACT EVERYONE FOR AT LEAST FOUR OR FIVE DAYS UNTIL THEY'VE COMPLETELY FORGOTTEN THAT BUSH HAD NOTHING TO SAY!" So, it works, it doesn't work, it doesn't matter. People who would have normally been talking about how strong and presidential Kerry looked against Bush's failed attempt to paint an Alfred E. Neumann What Me Worry smile on his face the entire time, would suddenly be caught up in the flurry of whether Kerry technically was or was not a "bad man" (as Lynne Cheney described him).

Fortunately, the polls seem to indicate that this did not translate into votes for Bush.

Mary Cheney

The only thing I'm going to say about the whole ridiculous Mary Cheney issue is what I said last week - that it was a non-issue except among people who already knew where they stood anyway - and that it would disappear soon enough. I am so happy, so extremely pleased Kerry floated over it entirely and paid it little mind. Except for William Safire, who wrote a typically moronic editorial about five days after it mattered anymore, the issue is really essentially already swallowed up in the oceanic wave of sound bites flowing around the last two weeks in certainly the most heated Presidential election I've ever witnessed, and thank God for it. The only real tangible lasting effect is to cast conservative's hypocritical bullshit about homosexuality in stark, blindingly stark relief. They try to cast it as a respect issue for homosexuals, when in fact there isn't a homosexual I've spoken to or read who has had any problem with Kerry's remark AT ALL. The only problems gays have had with Kerry's comments was the fact that CONSERVATIVES had a problem with it. And the gay punditry has been having a field day tearing conservative rationales to shreds. Yes, kudos to Kerry - maybe he saw that exactly this would happen and that conservatives would get all flustered and get caught in the tortured labyrinth of their own hollow rhetoric (or maybe that's the tortured labyrinth of their own hollow minds). Whether he did or not, thank God for it.

Neck and neck

As if this hasn't been a maddening enough presidential campaign, with two weeks to go, a number of polls - among them this one from MSNBC - have the race completely tied. On the one hand, people's approval of Bush's performance, and their belief that the country is headed in the right direction, is dropping - bad for Bush. On the other, people now apparently believe that we will win in Iraq - Lord only knows what news source gave birth to that particular belief system - and also just don't trust Kerry all that much - bad for Kerry. So - 48 and 48.... Looking back at polls from 2000, it seems that this is actually a good thing for Kerry, because leading into the election Gore was down in 39 of 43 polls that were run the week before the election, and as we all know he won the popular election. If this same logic held - and of course there is no reason to imagine that it should, but IF it held - Kerry would have a clear margin of victory. Add to this the common wisdom that I've been reading on both conservative and liberal blogs, namely that in an election involving an incumbent whose popularity is below 50% (Bush is at 44% in the MSNBC poll) undecideds always break for the challenger at the last minute, and it could be a runaway Kerry victory.

All that said, I'm basically saving my sanity pre-election by assuming that Karl Rove is going to pull some piece of major nastiness out of his bag of dirty tricks at the last minute and smear Kerry with something with no time for Kerry to regain his balance. (I read a great quote in the New Yorker today, from an article about Mark Halperin who puts together The Note on www.abcnews.com. His father was majorly slimed by conservative Republicans during confirmation hearings when Clinton attempted to make him Assistant Secretary of Defense saying that the CIA had a "secret dossier" on him. Even though the CIA adamantly denied such a thing, the allegations stuck. He complained that "It's very hard for the truth to catch up with a lie." And slime throwers understand this inherently (and yes they exist on both sides though don't they seem to be - Hello Joe McCarthy - by and large Republican and conservative? and why is this? and why does it only seem to get worse?) .) At any rate, I'm just assuming Rove has this little pet viper or copperhead that he's keeping at the ready, ready to pull out at the last second that will kill Kerry's campaign dead, so that I don't go stark raving mad at the moment that it happens. Or, let's say nothing happens, and Bush just wins (after they've shredded off a good few thousand Democratic ballots in Florida and hacked away a few touchscreen Democratic votes in Ohio). In any case, preemptive sanity-preserving tactics - I'm just assuming Kerry is already toast.

Perhaps I'm sending bad vibes into the air. But I don't believe in that so I don't care...

The debate itself

I understood why Bush decided to put on the "What Me Worry" smile tonight - because apparently polls showed that he was scaring off women with that snipey attack dog mode from last time - but it still looked damn silly when he was grinning vapidly during extremely serious issues that were being discussed. I was more than happy to watch him grinning his credibility with undecideds out the window, but still, it got painful to watch after a while even for me. Kerry meanwhile was his cool, calm, absolutely collected self.

On health, Kerry nailed it. A number of things happened here. First, he nailed Bush again on a fact to which Bush simply doesn't have a response, the five million individuals losing coverage over the past four years. Second, he provided a plan. As questionably feasible as it might be in its entirety, its a deeply considered national health care plan, and it's certainly far more substantial than anything Bush offered on the issue. Again, Kerry drove home the point about the illegalization of drug purchases from outside the country and how the only people helped by this are drug companies, the Bush Administration's best friends. The one thing I wish he would bury into the ground is this non-issue about trial lawyers. Just point out that it's just another example of the Bush campaign engaging in meaningless fright tactics and move on.


On fiscal responsibility and the handling of the nation's finances, it all boiled down to the Tony Soprano line which was dead on. "Hearing President Bush chide me about fiscal responsibility is like having Tony Soprano lecture me about law and order." A real "hel-lo!" moment. And how can Bush possibly respond, with the deficit he's got going on? He simply can't.

Jobs, the same. Kerry buried Bush, not just on the lost jobs figure, which is enough in itself, but on the fact that new jobs make less than the jobs they are replacing. He finally brought up the fact that the the average middle class income is dropping, while that of the wealthiest is going up. Bush could respond to NONE of these facts, because they are, in fact, facts. And anyone listening should have been appalled. Instead, he moved the discussion - as he did all night long - to education. It was the mattress he hid under the whole night long.

Pundits afterwards kept talking about how strong Bush was on education. What they failed to point out was that IT WAS THE ONLY THING HE TALKED ABOUT THE ENTIRE NIGHT. Every time the discussion veered toward jobs, Bush would direct it to education. Every time the discussion veered toward the deficit, Bush would direct it to education. Why was there not one pundit who would point out that this was for the simple reason that BUSH HAD NOTHING ELSE TO TALK ABOUT. He's had absolutely no noticeable domestic successes beyond the No Child Left Behind act (which as we are reminded again and again that he "underfunded") - at least no successes that he would want to bring up during an election year, because they would all drive home Kerry's central point, which is that this administration has done nothing but feed the coffers of the wealthy at the taxpayer's expense.

And this was a point that Kerry drove home, again and again, and while it usually drives me nuts when a politician repeats himself over and over again (as Kerry was doing previously but not thankfully tonight with his military service), it was really well done and extremely effective. And no point needs to get made more strongly in relationship to this administration than this one - a point that Bush really doesn't have a response to, nor could he - and if it's a point that Kerry can drive home successfully with the "undecideds" then he walks away with this election. Probably Kerry's most memorable "zinger" was that he was sick of hearing politicians who talk about "family values" and then don't value families. Because of the force with which he hit on this, this is going to stick.

There were groaners of course - I wish Kerry and Edwards wouldn't bring up Mary Cheney - but then, as my brother explained, it does the right thing because it makes questions about homosexuality and this administration moot, because Dick Cheney loves his daughter and embraces her and has never said anything in the least offensive about her or her sexual preference - which is exactly as it should be, and it casts the social conservative's perception of this administration's stand on social issues and this administration's actual stand on social issues stand out in stark relief. Final point to Kerry - this is a non-issue, and Bush can't possibly say anything differently on the issue. But the other groaner - major major groaner - any chance he had of getting my parent's vote (okay there was none anyway) - evaporated when he brought up gay men and women who get married and then realize - or at least finally admit - that they're gay. Huh? And you're bringing this up, why? Fortunately, I think the main fall out was that everyone was just scratching their heads as to his intent...

Let me just say that I was very thankful Kerry didn't have to list the list of generals that think he should be commander-in-chief, as much as I might agree with them. He almost made up for this by pointing out how butch and manly he is with a gun and has been since he was 12 or 13 (14 maybe, somewhere back there), but I understand why he has to do this. And his point about the AK47s was another complete slamdunk, and once again, as he did throughout the debate - and this is phenomenal debating skill - made about four dead-on points all at the same time: 1)Bush is the flip-flopper who mouthed opposition to letting the assault weapons ban lapse, but never-the-less caved to the NRA and let it lapse, 2)Kerry is the strong one who will stand up to the gun lobby no matter what it takes, 3)security is actually worse under Bush because terrorists know that, once they make their way in through those unprotected borders, America's the easiest place on the planet for purchasing lethal firearms, 4)security in terms of everday crime goes through the floor - going right for the security mom. And Bush could answer none of this.

All in all, a great way to leave the debates. More later on the latest disheartening reports about early voter fraud...

And you know the conservatives are nervous

When the National Review online has their analysis entitled "Third Time's a Charm?". You can just see them standing with their fingers crossed behind their backs. Wishing... Hoping against hope...

A choice quote from the debate analysis I read in the NRO, by Greg Andres - while of course "pro-Bush" and yes I mean those quotes because you can tell they're lukewarm about this man really in their heart of hearts - is this: "President Bush clearly had enough facts down to sound substantively credible". I think there isn't an intelligent, honest conservative around whose entire belief in the actual abilities of their candidate doesn't come down to exactly this sentiment, or something like it. This is the best they hope for from him! Not that he actually BE substantively credible on policy issues, just that he can muster up enough attention to master the minimum to SOUND substantively credible. Even then, this statement is a reach, and clearly the poll respondents to the CNN poll disagree, but regardless - I think this statement says a whole hell of a lot about how even conservatives - in their heart of hearts - really feel about W.

On The Corner, the National Review chatroom, meanwhile, the best they could come up with was that "the media will of course "spin" this as a Kerry victory". Because God knows the American people can't see the obvious with their own two eyes and hear it with their own two ears...

Viva Kerry!

All I can say after watching these three debates is how terribly badly I want to see Kerry become our next president. Not, "well at least he ain't Bush", not, "well, I kinda like him I mean he'll do", as Christopher Hitchens recently characterized Democratic support of the new JFK. I really seriously want to see him, John Kerry, as our Prez in a way I never felt about Gore, and in fact have not felt in this way possibly ever in my adult voting life. Clinton was charming and wonky all together and it was a wonder to behold, but no one ever, on either side I think, really had any illusions about his personal character. Part of his charm was in fact that he was a rogue and able to charm his way through any tight squeeze. Kerry will never have that kind of appeal, and, right at this point in history, probably thank God for it (though of course as Kelley pointed out, imagine Clinton debating Bush - damn, the mess they'd have to mop up off the stage after those blowouts). Polls, even the current excetionally heartening CNN post-debate-poll that shows all numbers sliding into Kerry's lap, even the latest in which Kerry is finally (thank the good Lord of all that is sane and reasonable) seen as "more believable" - all of these polls consistently show Bush as more "likeable" (although that gap has closed considerably as well). With Bush, the only possible appeal I can imagine is that he appears to be "just a good ol' boy, never meanin' no harm" - beyond this, he strikes me as nothing much more than smarmy, stiff, garbled, occasionally just plain lost in space, and sometimes downright petulant and rude like someone that never learned their damn manners, Gufus to Kerry's Gallant. Unquestionably I myself am going to be more strongly pre-disposed to the cold, reserved, intellectual types. But the constant characterization of Kerry as this cold, fact-spouting "Boston Brahmin", after these debates I finally really don't get. There's something that I've really come to like about him, something very curious about the thoughtfulness and confidence of his approach, that I would love, love, love to see in action in the White House. Really and truly.

Kerry was almost preternaturally calm during these debates, and what I think will become more and more discussed is how self-confident he must be if he can take a good solid moment to compliment the President sincerely on his response to 9/11. I think any typical campaign advisor would think, my God man, are you suicidal, bringing up the opponent's shining moment and highlighting it? But no, watching the poise and grace with which he delivered these encomiums was wonderful. And I think - subliminally or no - that my response is not unlike the response a lot of people are going to have to him, and are having to him. That likeability gap is closing fast, and with good reason. I can't see how anyone, in their gut, couldn't be impressed as hell with him. When I watch Kerry, while there's the straightforward issue of "is he Presidential", which without a doubt anyone with clear eyes would be forced to admit he is in spades (as certainly as his opponent is not, conservative denial states be damned) - there is another issue, harder to define, and easier to get laughed at for trying to define, whether beyond the huggermugger politics which he like any politician is forced to mouth, there isn't someone with a very strong moral code who not only "seems Presidential" but in fact deeply deserves to lead this country. Maybe I've just been watching too much West Wing, maybe I just want to believe too strongly that there really is a Jed Bartlett out there waiting to stand as a moral beacon in the White House, guarding the interests of the common man. But I don't care. I've really loved watching him in these debates, watching the absolute glacial calm, with occasionally just the merest hint of an amused smile, while he waited his turn to speak, the measured pace he would take to drive a point home without having to raise his voice or lose his demeanor, the fact that he was always perfectly ready to jump in with an informed, articulate, smart, rational response (not like he didn't occasionally make us all cringe with certain of them), and how he never seemed fazed in the least by Bush's attacks. I want to see him take this election more than I ever imagined I would. Yes, admittedly for me Kerry used to be "anybody but Bush". Not anymore.

One last thing

This article by Jonah Goldberg, while I guarantee it'll make your liberal blood boil with indignation if not downright loathing, carries a deeper message for me. For the first time in my memory, I'm seeing conservatives react like, well, like pissed-off liberals! Not cocky and smug and full of their own disingenuous vitriol (yes okay there's still plenty of disingenuous vitriol in this article) but over-the-top angry and bellicose, as though their golden balloon might suddenly be getting in serious danger of going kaboom.. The thought that they might actually be this desperate, really actually worried, hot under the collar - and this essay is over-the-top - is actually heartening in its dismal, depressing way... Just like their president, when things go south with their own misbegotten plans, they always know where to point the finger - at someone else, a convenient scapegoat.

Still, you may do as I did as a conscientious objector to this war from long before it became a reality and fire off a righteous email telling him to look long and hard in a mirror and save his indignant shame for no one but himself and those like himself who wholeheartedly supported this president, banging their fists against their self-righteous chests, as he ran pell mell into a war for which he was not prepared... but don't bother - his email is completely full (probably with emails not unlike my own) and your message will just get bounced back...

Kerry won easily, but he could have buried Bush if only he would have said this

With one fell swoop Kerry could have carried tonight all the way to the White House. When Bush AGAIN surprise surprise refused to acknowledge any mistakes in his presidency - and made the question an Iraq issue which it was not, at least not specifically, and I believe not even subliminally - and ended by mentioning that he had made some cabinet appointments that he regretted though he didn't want to name names because he "didn't want to hurt their feelings" - this would have been an absolutely perfect moment for Kerry to quote President Truman and say, the President should always declare as Truman did that the BUCK STOPS HERE. Never, never, does President Bush take responsibility for the events under his watch, absolutely never. The buck always stops far,far away from the Oval Office. There is always someone to blame, and he will blame them. Whether it's previous administrations, terrorists, cabinet members, privates in the army, anyone, anyone else but him, President Bush will never take responsiblity himself. He wants to declare himself a strong leader but a strong leader takes responsiblity for not only his own actions but the actions that occur under his watch. And Bush, like a spoiled child (obviously Kerry wouldn't be able to go that far) will spend all of his days pointing his finger at someone else.

The other response that Kerry wouldn't be able to give to this response because it would be patently disrespectful is: "Yes, of course you won't attack them by name, Mr. President - you'll get someone else to do it for you like you always do."

The good news

is that there does seem to be some semblance of actual sanity growing in the conservative world. Andrew Sullivan esp. has been taking Bush strongly to task for a while and at the moment believes there is no possible outcome at this point except for a huge Kerry landslide. I wish I held his conviction. And he himself points to the current cover of the National Review as evidence that yes, even conservatives are becoming capable of admitting the truth about Iraq, amazingly right now in the hottest heat of this current campaign.

Post number 100, aka W the Wonder Boy in a Plastic Bubble

And I love the fact that it happens during these debates...

It amazes me - as much after this debate as after the first, though Bush did much better (God knows he couldn't have done worse) - that anyone can look at that man and think, "He's my idea of the United States President." Staggers me. The man is belligerent, poorly spoken, a hot head, he was at times just all-out rude, not just kind of rude but truly beyond the pale and for no reason, he's occasionally completely lost behind that pained expression when it looks as though a small gremlin is drilling a hot poker through his third eye, he enters vapor lock far far too often, he can't take responsibility for his actions to save his life, his only real position in this entire campaign is that Kerry is a flip-flopper, since he has nothing of a record to stand on, and yet a portion of this population - apparently a large enough portion to vote him once again into office - believes that he represents our brightest hope. To me, it is just abysmally depressing to imagine a populous that could watch that man shout and twitch and then, when he manages to actually respond halfway coherently with complete sentences, wink and grin like he'd just pulled off a real number on someone and isn't he the clever one. Historically, I have not a doubt in my mind we'll look back on this footage, and even the most stalwart Bush supporter will feel an empty sick twist in their gut at the idea that they could ever have taken this man seriously as President. As a friend just said tonight, I wouldn't buy a used car from someone like that - and it's completely true - it's just crystal clear that a person who speaks like that is lying through their teeth or at the very least has something major to hide. And yet an actual large portion of our populous will buy him as Commander in Chief. But we all know what P. T. Barnum said, and he wasn't kidding... and what a circus they make all of this.

It reminds me of a moment in Donnie Darko, which takes place during the 1988 Presidential campaign, when the father is watching one of the Dukakis-Bush debates and Bush Sr. mentions in warm, oh-so-sincere, yet somewhat pleading tones, what a good man General Noriega is. There's something about the whole thing - as brief as the snippet is, and it's seconds long - that communicates just comically pathological mistruth, and yet you know at the time that Republicans were 100% (or at least 90 or 85%) behind Bush Sr. at that moment. "Yes, that wonderful Noriega", I can see my mother and father thinking watching that debate from another time during another Republican sliming campaign, "so misunderstood." It's a brilliantly telling moment that five seconds or less long as it is has reverberated in my thinking about politics since. Reading Bob Woodward's Shadow, it became very clear to me that Bush Sr. had a bad problem with pointing the finger at others for his own problems. Every day it becomes more and more clear that this unfortunate trait is amplified a thousand fold in the son. And yet somehow 53% of our population - including my own parents - see this man, this rude belligerent truth-mangling so-called Christian who doesn't even attend church, as a true leader, a moral leader no less. It's no wonder I cling to gallows humor like the one true last outpost of sanity in the world...

More great news from the NYTimes

There's a lot to be encouraged by in this poll. The gap has vanished, Bush's approval ratings have dropped again, and Kerry is clearly back in the game. After that debate, how anyone could take Bush seriously is beyond me, but perception is apparently a strange and wondrous thing... I keep thinking about certain moments, for example the strange and bizarre moment when, with no one speaking to him and with plenty of time left on the clock, Bush suddenly blurted out, "Wait, let me finish!" Apparently revealing the invisible antagonist always whispering in his ear... "Mexed missages" was another particularly rich Bushism, considering he'd only repeated the phrase at least thirty times previously. But of course it was the pained, petulant expressions on his face that were truly priceless... and somewhat rattling actually. This is our PRESIDENT? Of course I've got no love for him or his policies or the people he chooses to surround himself with and do business with. But I at least try to reassure myself that he can keep it under control. I'm no longer reassured, not in the least...

Missing in Action

The Onion nails it. That absurd garbage about the CBS memo - what a bunch of besides-the-point nonsense. And come to think of it, thirty years is kind of besides the point as well. This is what it's all about.

Porter Goss on his qualifications for the CIA

From Michael Moore's website, this video of Bush's choice for head of the CIA, Porter Goss, is priceless...

I'm Back (Kinda)

Dropped out there for a while. Frankly it was getting too depressing, with all of the Swift Boat Vets garbage (and finding out my father buys it hook line and sinker, conveniently disregarding the much more solid evidence condemning the actions (or inactions) of his own man at the time), and even now with that whole memo forgery nonsense, covering up the fact that Ben Barnes was coming out loud and clear stating that he had fixed W up in the first place with his nice position in the National Guard. Almost makes me think the Bush team planted that damn memo as a ruse to distract the ever unwary. Don't imagine for a second they don't do such things... My brother, after his week protesting the RNC and engaging Republicans one on one to find out what they really do believe, is a little shaken by the delusions guiding a sizable portion of our population.

Also I was busy as hell finishing this, the website for Dig!, a documentary made by some friends that won Sundance last year. (I hope you like LOUD music...) But now, it's almost completely entirely done (minus those damn borders that i don't like at all, and I can say that cuz I made them...) Go to and (hopefully) enjoy!

So if anyone needs a web designer, look me up... I figure the only way to survive the next four years of a Bush administration (should it come to that, since Kerry seems to have dropped out of the race completely) will be to stay very very busy.... it really does help.

My Favorite Post from Big Brother: Some Bon Mots from Young Republicans

Big Brother:

These things I learned from the Young Republicans I spoke to outside their gig at Tuscan Restaurant in Rockefeller Center:

* Greedy conglomerates like those run by Warren Buffet buy up small businesses because these businesses can't afford the "death tax."

* Deficits are okay, because they can easily be paid off in a year or two.

* Corporations shouldn't have to pay taxes, because they aren't individuals.

* Clinton's economic policies did not lead to a strong economy.

* Bush had enough money to, and did fund, the No Child Left Behind Act.

Just in case you needed a brief course in economics as understood by the next generation Republicans.

The GOP and 9/11

Big Brother: (sorry for the weird A symbols - they appear when I blog from my mac...)

One of the emerging themes of the week has been the GOP fixation on 9/11.  There was a front-page article in the Times this morning profiling servers at restaurants in midtown where a lot of the delegate receptions are being held. Many of these employees had worked at Windows on the World and have to put up with listening to endless talk about 9/11, while at the same time having to keep their mouths shut about the friends and families they lost at the World Trade Center.

On the subway on the way into the city today I had a chat with a guy who works in the Garden.  He told us about how stifled any negative talk is and how they can tell their cell phone calls are all being monitored.  They, too, have to hear the delegates talk about almost nothing else but 9/11.

And it's true that in every brief encounter I've had with a delegate or other GOP supporter this week, they invariably bring up 9/11 and how could I be so ungrateful to the president who defended this country against the people who attacked us.  As if.

So, if you're wondering how it is that George Bush is commanding the support of so much of this country, just don't forget 9/11.  All the propaganda is working.  It doesn't matter that this administration has lied about education policy, Medicare "reform", who benefits from tax cuts, why we went into an unnecessary war in Iraq, that deficits are a good thing, and so on.  All these people see in their minds' eye is "9/11" and their hero, George W. Bush.

Things get nasty in NYC

After three days of relative calm and cooperation on the streets, things have started to get pretty nasty today. First I was cut off in a crosswalk by a guy who insisted he had the right-of-way because he had the green light. He seemed to be ignorant of the legal concept of pedestrian right-of-way. His true colors shone through when he yelled "Kerry's a pussy!" (I should start I guess by saying I go nowhere this week without my protest sign.)

Then I was walking east across 25th street from the labor union rally, which was large and rowdy, but pretty well organized. This guy slammed into me, I guess to make some brute point. 'Course, I didn't let him by with that and asked him if he had trouble seeing me with my huge sign. His response was to push me, grab my sign and then throw a lit cigarette at me. That was pretty bad except that I was kind of jonesing for a cigarette and the one he threw at me he had barely started to smoke. So I grabbed it and kept up with him demanding to know why he thought he had the right to assault me when all I was doing was walking down the street carrying a sign. He asked where I was from. I told him I lived in Brooklyn and had been living in New York for 20 years. Well, then, of course I wasn't born here, so apparently that means I have no right to be on the streets with a sign. By this time we were back on the avenue where the cops were all guarding the Garden. But they wouldn't lay a hand on the guy because they "hadn't seen him" attack me. It was all right, though, because I could tell the guy's asshole was tightening up at the thought of having to pay a price for his actions.

At Herald Square Matt, Hamilton and I were interviewed by a guy from Voice of America. The cops made us move. It seemed they were getting very antsy about anything happening around the Garden. I found out about an hour later from niece Jessica that some protestors had gotten into the Garden. That would explain why the cops back on 7th Ave had checked the cardboard tubes holding our signs.

At the NE corner of Macy's some guy challenged me to support something and not just be hateful and against something. I told him that I was supporting Kerry and the Democrats but at the moment my concern was protesting George Bush. He told me that he's my president and I should respect him. So naturally I went off on him about why should I respect a man who's lied for the last four years and run his administration in unprecedented secrecy, to which he responded "Oh go ahead! We'll get bombed again”. So I said, well as long as you mention being bombed Bush led us into a wrong war against the wrong enemy, at which point a cop came up and pulled me away because "One-on-one isn't protest, it's harassment." 'Course it doesn't matter that the other guy started it, or that the cops wouldn't do anything when I was physically attacked.

When we got back around to 8th Ave and nearer the Garden, some other protest folks were walking up the avenue and saying to proceed with caution because the cops were being pretty rough on demonstrators up a block ahead. Well, we're not interested in being arrested so we continued across 35th St to walk down 9th Ave. At this point Jessica called to say that what she was seeing on TV was concerning her and she thought it would be better if we took the evening off.

As it happens, our main plan for the evening was to drive around the Pants on Fire mobile (pantsonfire.com). But this morning the mobile was impounded by the NYPD with a host of tickets about wrong lighting, hidden back windows, a lot of trumped up stuff.

So we're back at Matt's catching up on the Newshour and basically licking our wounds. It's gotten nasty on the streets. We're going to save our energy for the protest at the Garden tomorrow night during Bush's acceptance speech.

That's the report for now.