Centerfield

The Liar Label

Tully referred in a comment to an op-ed from left-center dove Nicholas Kristof, but I wanted to mention it in a separate post.

A consensus is emerging on the left that Mr. Bush is fundamentally dishonest, perhaps even evil — a nut, yes, but mostly a liar and a schemer. . . .

I'm against the "liar" label for two reasons. First, it further polarizes the political cesspool, and this polarization is making America increasingly difficult to govern. Second, insults and rage impede understanding.

Not surprisingly, the king of "insults and rage" among the lefty blogs, Atrios, calls Kristof "human scum" for offering his reasonable views. To Atrios, Kristof--who fairly clearly will vote for Kerry--is not just wrong, he is evil. I'm pretty sure that, if he knew me, Atrios would think that I am even worse.

There are so many good blogs, and not enough time to read them all. I'm taking Atrios off my list.

McCain and GOP Moderates: It's the Deficit Stupid

Read full article.

Because Senators Collins, Snowe, Chafee, and McCain refuse to budge on a no tax cuts without spending cuts proposal, the Republican Congress more than likely will not be able to pass an election year budget.

My favorite is when senior Tom Delay lackey, Speaker of the House Denny Hastert, questions whether Senator McCain understands sacrifice. I wonder if he understood sacrifice when the Vietcong stabbed his arms with bayonets because he chose to protect your freedom rather than talk, you petulant, insignificant little twit.

So much for the moderate Republicans in Congress not having any power, eh?

Allawi: Saddam and Al Qaeda where sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G...

Read full article here:

Brokaw: As long as the United States military remains a conspicuous presence in your country working hand in glove with the new Iraqi government, won’t you always be seen really as an instrument of the U.S. military and therefore of America?

Allawi: No. I believe very strongly that Saddam had relations with al-Qaida. And these relations started in Sudan. We know Saddam had relationships with a lot of terrorists and international terrorism. Now, whether he is directly connected to the September — atrocities or not, I can’t — vouch for this. But definitely I know he has connections with extremism and terrorists.

I think Mr. Allawi is super!

Another Entry in the Veepstakes?

Drudge is reporting that Hillary Clinton may be the surprise Kerry pick, and reforming health care the top Democrat campaign issue.

But then again, it's Drudge. And quoting the usual anonymous "top Washington insider" sources to boot.

The insider continues: "The Democrats feel like health care is the domestic issue. But how to make it the dominant topic of conversation -- break through war and terrorism? Hillary Clinton. She catapults it out front with her commission. She tried to provide health care before and the Republicans in congress attacked her and her husband and used a bunch of scandals dirty tricks to stop it, we know they are scandals and dirty tricks because the former president book says so. So now you have the number two person on the ticket who is a 'health care expert' and what will Republicans do? Attack on health care pointing to her commission saying that it was government medicine. Her response -- it wasn't, and the Republicans are a bunch of dirty tricksters, "Liars and Crooks," as Kerry calls them, and its been too long and Democrats wont let the Republicans do it to them again. By the way, it puts prescription drugs on the back burner, the Republicans health care ace. You will have a fully engaged national debate on health care from now until the election."

With or without a Hillary VP pick, my prediction is that like the previous Hillarycare fiasco any such proposal would simply put the government in charge of assigning market shares and collecting and distributing the loot, rather than actually reforming the system. While I believe our current system is fatally flawed and thoroughly unworthy of our nation, I don't think letting government have control of the gravy train (and taxing us into submission for our mandatory tickets) without first reforming the major structural flaws is any kind of a real solution.

And I really doubt either party has the 'nads to stand up to the world's biggest and most powerful lobby and tell 'em that the free ride is over, which is what real reform would require.

(Insta-commentary From Kathryn J. Lopez at National Review Online--"People are bored again.")

Who Is Polarized?

In the Washington Post, Robert Samuelson argues that it is not the country that is polarized politically, just the political elites.

What's actually happened is that politics, and not the country, has become more polarized. By politics, I mean elected officials, party activists, advocates, highly engaged voters and commentators (TV talking heads, pundits). In his search for polarization, sociologist DiMaggio examined many subgroups by age, race, sex and education. None exhibited more polarization, with one exception: people who identified as "strong" Republicans or Democrats. That's about 30 percent of adults.

Similarly, members of Congress are more polarized: Democrats are more liberal, Republicans are more conservative and "moderates" are scarcer. Political scientist Gary Jacobson of the University of California at San Diego says that members of Congress have "moved further apart [ideologically] than . . . at any time since before World War I."

What Party is Closer to the Center?

Go here to read the full article:

"But last night the city's political heavyweights--well, the Democratic ones, at least--greeted Moore with open arms as they turned out en masse for the Washington premiere of his new film Fahrenheit 9/11. Packing the Uptown Theater to the rafters, about 800 people--including South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle, Florida Senator Bob Graham, and Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe, to name just a few of the prominent Democrats in attendance--took in Moore's two-plus hours of Bush-bashing, applauding throughout and giving Moore a standing ovation when it was over. Even Moore seemed a bit taken aback by the Democratic establishment's effusive embrace...

"I think anyone who sees this movie will come out en masse to make sure John Kerry is elected president this November," McAuliffe said after the premiere. "Credit to Michael Moore for taking the time to put this together." As one of Moore's associates explained, the filmmaker is "the point in the spear for the Democratic party. ... He's willing to be at the leading edge, pushing these thoughts and ideas that have an impact on Bush and relieving Kerry from having to deliver that hard negative that has repercussions."

There was a time when the GOP embraced the ideological mouthpieces in the conservative movement. In 1994, Rush Limbaugh was a headliner at several events, and what followed was six straight years of political setbacks. The GOP was a party filled with anger and seemed to be willing to do anything to rid America of Bill Clinton. That strategy failed, and in 2000 the best thing George W. Bush did was throw Gary Bauer out of the Repbulican National Convention, and rid the party platform of such draconian planks like the abolishment of the Department of Education. Rush was no longer a headliner and was left to his radio career, and now we have this (from MSNBC):

"Republicans made their convention lineup official on Monday. The GOP will gather in New York beginning Aug. 30.

On the final evening, New York Gov. George Pataki will introduce President Bush, who will close the convention with his acceptance speech."

Who is speaking in Boston? Kerry of course, and former President Clinton, but the real humdinger under the spotlights will be none other than Senator Edward Kennedy, and since they still hold delegates Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton, and Howard Dean will more than likely play a roll. Michael Moore, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, and Ted Kennedy? I'll let you decide which party is closer to the center.

Romney Leads, Kerry Stumbles

This is interesting.

Governor Mitt Romney replaced Senator Kerry as a speaker to the U.S. Conference for Mayors. Kerry refused to cross a picket line that included members of a police union who were protesting contract negotiations with Boston Mayor Tom Menino. Menino, coincidentally, has the power to make the Democratic National Convention "hell on earth." Kerry's reasoning was simply that he doesn't cross picket lines, never has, and never will.

This bothers me for a couple of reasons. Tom Menino represents the interests of an entire city, Romney an entire state, Kerry is running to represent the interests of an entire country, and the union represents the interest of... well... themselves.

I am not anti-labor, nor do I think that in negotiations the other side is always right, but when it comes right down to it this says a lot about who John Kerry is running for President to represent. Who is it going to be Senator, the 16% of the workforce that belongs to a union, or the 84% that that doesn't along with the interests of the American people?

There is a reason that union membership has rapidly declined for many decades. The labor movement is outdated in providing wages and benefits to their workers and public and/or private contractors are going where they can get the job done at a lower cost and higher quality.

Furthermore, if there is any group of people in our nation that deserves to hear from Presidential candidates it is America's Mayors. Our local governments are subject to federal unfunded mandates and other budget pressures that are drastically hurting their ability to provide the most basic of services. At this opportunity to speak to some of the most influential policy makers in the country a centrist Republican Governor was doing the talking, and not the Democratic nominee. I hope it was for more than he just wanted to stay in the good graces of another special interest.

In short, for Kerry, this move was simply un-Presidential.

Worth a Look!

Stumbled across a new "militant moderate" blog called Tutakai that's worth a look. This post in particular caught my eye.

The first thing to understand about being a moderate is that almost no one will ever believe that you actually are a moderate. Bizarre as it may sound, people will believe that their right to label you trumps any right of yours to describe your own beliefs. They may create "tests" that you have to meet before they will consent to consider you a moderate -- generally, these tests will involve you agreeing with them in both style and substance.

That leads to the second curious experience about being a moderate -- most political junkies will not only label you, but will almost automatically assume that the appropriate label is "enemy". As a moderate, you will be assumed to be on the other side. The offense of disagreeing with extremist partisans of either wing about anything is nearly always sufficient to render you a presumed member of the vast right- or left-wing conspiracy.

Ring any bells, folks?

When good is reported as bad

I think that it is undeniable that the bad news from Iraq gets much more attention than the progress that is being made, but I am resigned to the fact that is how the media is going to report any war regardless of whether the president is a Democrat or a Republican. But rarely have I found a traditional media source that flat out reports good facts as bad facts. Today is an exception.

In a front page article reporting on Paul Bremer’s departure, the Washington Post asserts without any backup that “he has left behind . . . a sputtering economy and an appointed government with little popular support." The truth is that Iraq may lead the world in economic growth this year, and a recent poll concluded that a large majority of Iraqis have confidence in the interim government. How does a newspaper like the Washington Post get something so basic so wrong?

Is Biden on the Short List?

Greg Wythe points to a surprising name that appears on a VP short list that made its way from The Note to Taegan Goddard's Political Wire. Kerry is probably playing the usual game of hanging a bunch of names out there to build support from all quarters.

If he's serious, though, he's on the right track. More extended thoughts on that in Greg's comments thread.

Supreme Court Rebuffs Bush

The Supreme Court, including the conservative justices aside from Thomas, ruled decisively against the Bush Administration policy of holding people indefinitely without due process. While I've rejected post-9/11 civil libertarian protests in other areas, the Administration's stance on holding people, especially American citizens, in a completely arbitrary manner has been way too aggressive.

Fahrenheit 9/11 and the Death of Civic Dialogue

I had a very interesting weekend; that is if you are a policy dork like me.

My wife and I celebrated our anniversary late by having dinner and staying Friday night at the Watergate Hotel, then on Saturday we got up and walked through Georgetown and caught a mid-day showing of Fahrenheit 9/11. I think we were the only two people in the theatre that had voted for Bush in 2000.

I find this set of events sort of ironic. We stayed in the hotel that was the scene of an event that created a culture where politicians no longer talked about their ideas, but rather engage in "the politics of personal destruction," and then saw a film that is playing a major roll in furthering that culture.

That is what this is about, right? Moore isn't attempting to present a policy argument. He is making a movie that furthers his point of view by playing on the emotions and fears of the American people. He has said so himself that Fahrenheit 9/11 was released at the present time to have an effect on the election, and what better way to do that than call people names, scare the hell out of the electorate with rhetorical statements, and frame the issue by presenting your political opponents as evil men... This is a common occurrence in the halls of Congress, on television, and in the newspapers.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is what anybody with a third grade reading level can guess; a collection of edited interviews, media clips, and documents pieced together in order to present the case that George W. Bush is an evil doer, if you will, who doesn't know what to do unless his aides, Dick Cheney, or his father, tell him. Moore makes the case, without providing hardly any evidence at all, that Bush and his family stole the Florida election and ignored warnings of 9/11 so the son of their close family friends, the Bin Ladens, could kill 3,000 people. And why would the Bush's be behind such an elaborate plot? Moore argues it is so they can justify an all out war on Iraq, a country that poses no threat to the United States, and is full of happy, peace loving, free citizens.

THE GOOD:

Although I hated most of this film, I would be lying if I said to you there is no value in Fahrenheit 9/11. Moore actually does a pretty good job of bringing light to military recruitment in poor communities, the war itself, prison abuse, and the effect the death of a soldier in Iraq had on his family, and more specifically his patriotic, pro-military mother. If there has been a mistake from day one in Iraq it is the illusion that has been presented that it was going to be easy.

I blame this on the administration, and if Moore wins voters over by showing them the realities of war, than George W. Bush has nobody to blame but himself. Like Senator McCain has said several times, this administration should have done a better job of preparing the American people for the consequences that we faced by invading Iraq, and after hearing the testimony of Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld, it is also clear that the administration could have done a better job preparing themselves for the reality of the situation.

War is ugly and violent, and I think too often we have this picture of the patriotic soldier, without really considering that these are kids whose lives are deeply affected by the decisions our political leaders make. Moore rightly points out that the case to go to war was flawed, and in some cases completely false, and I agree with him that men and women in uniform, and the American public deserve better than that. The President of the United States owes this country a candid discussion on what went wrong with the case to go to war, why we were not better prepared for the consequences, and why the prisoner abuse occurred and what really is being done to make sure it never happens again.

Moore also brings light to the fact that several parts of our effort in Iraq are under funded, such as health services and troop levels. I have always believed that this was the case and along with the prison abuse scandal I think this is a strong argument for new leadership within the Defense Department. When it comes right down to it there are consequences in Iraq that Donald Rumsfeld simply was not prepared for, and when we are talking about the lives of troops I think that this is unforgivable. It is for this very reason that to this day I believe the President ought to ask for the Secretary’s resignation.

THE BAD:

There are some claims in this movie that are just plain ridiculous:

(1) The reason Fox News was the first to report that Bush won Florida is because John Ellis (Cousin of Bush) new about the plot instigated by Governor Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris, the Supreme Court, Bush himself, and his father, to rig the state. Moore goes on to imply that it was planned before election night.

(2) The coalition of countries supporting the war were countries that did not even have weapons or armies. Moore does not mention the British, the Spanish, the Australians, the Japanese, or the South Koreans.

(3) All of the time Bush spent in Crawford, Texas was vacation, implying he did no work at all.

(4) The reason that Bush sat in a classroom full of kids for minutes on end after hearing of the first plane crashing into the Twin Towers was because he simply did not know what to do... because nobody told him.

(5) Bush deleted a name from his military records because it belonged to a friend of his who financed the Bin Laden family in Texas. Could the real reason have been that he was trying to protect the privacy of an individual who is not a public official and would not have his records investigated if they didn't include the President of the United States?

(6) The Bin Laden's were flown out of the United States on September 13th to protect the Bush family's business interests. Moore does not mention that it was Richard Clarke, who appears several times in the film, who in fact asked for the order, admitted to it in public testimony, and said he would do it again.

(7) No Members of Congress read the Patriot Act, which Moore justifies by preventing the testimony of members who are now critical of the act, but actually voted for it. As someone who has worked on Capitol Hill I think it is possible that there were people who never read the bill, I also am pretty certain that many did or paid high level staff to read it. I have actual evidence of this, but I could not present it to you without talking about people I know on Capitol Hill, which I am not willing to do.

(8) Moore, like the ACLU and most liberals, opposes the Patriot Act and says that it was passed by Congress under an umbrella of fear, but also like the ACLU and most liberals he has no evidence of abuses that have occurred since the Act has past or no direct reasoning why any specific section of the Act violates the civil rights of others. In his defense Moore does bring light to the fact that local law enforcement is very under funded, and it is not realistic for local officials to be expected to implement the Act unless this changes.

It goes on and on and on... but Moore makes many outlandish claims without providing any hard evidence and only relying on his own assumptions to convince the audience, which is a major weakness of the film. Michael Moore simply is not that knowledgeable about public policy, clearly he has little to no understanding of the process, and he simply is not that credible of a source. The fact that Moore himself is the center focus point of the film, diminishes the validity of his argument.

Another major weakness of this film is that it just isn't that shocking. Moore does nothing more than a half-assed job of presenting the same case on the Bush's that whacko leftists have been trying to present since the first Gulf War, but here is my question: If what Moore is saying is reality and the Bush's planned invading Iraq all along, why didn't they go after Saddam Hussein when they had the opportunity in the first Bush presidency? Why wait for over ten years to pull off this elaborate plot? With H.W. Bush's popularity and the success of Desert Storm, they surely could have gotten the political support after freeing Kuwait in the 90's without having to make the case about WMD's and immediate threat.

THE UGLY:

Moore takes many personality traits of the President and uses them against him to paint the picture that the man is simply a moron and well... evil. I think this is disgusting and says a whole lot about the character of Michael Moore and the movement he represents. This goes beyond policy... These people have a personal disdain for a man that they have never met... It is unexplainable and a little weird.

George W. Bush has said some things in humor... He did in fact tell a group of very wealthy people that they were his base, he did make light of the fact that he was doing more vacationing than work in Crawford, and he did discuss terrorism while on a golf course. Most of these instances were in humor from a man that admittedly is at times very awkward and quirky. I am sure if we took clips of the lives of any politician we could use them to portray an evil sinister individual that cares nothing for the average American, but if we listened to their entire statements as reasonable people we would see the true intent behind their words and actions.

George W. Bush among other things is a son, a husband, and a father and Moore seems to have no problem with attacking his character based on little evidence to support his outlandish claims. I don't like this type of politicking. I didn't like it when Bush did it to McCain. I didn't like it when the Republicans did it to Clinton. And I didn't like it when the Democrats did it to Newt Gingrich. If anything, Fahrenheit 9/11 is a commentary about the dire state of our political system. It appears we are in a time when people will resort to anything in order to further their cause or win an election. The direct result of this is the widespread apathy that voters have toward politics in general. We are simply killing each other and taking the political system down with us.

THE IMPLICATIONS:

I hate Michael Moore. Let's just get that out of the way. I put him right up there with Rush Limbaugh. I think it is saddening to see such intelligent and talented individuals resort to the politics of character assassination. They are each an embarrassment to their movement, and the American public would be better off if they simply would just go away.

I expected to be offended by Fahrenheit 9/11 and was shocked when I wasn't. The truth is, that although I find Moore repugnant, I know that for every time he represents half truths as fact in regards to President Bush, Rush Limbaugh will be there to challenge John Kerry's patriotism, the RNC will be calling him a rich elitist, and Michelle Malkin will refer to his independent and very intelligent wife as a bitch. Michael Moore is a representation of a political culture that knows no partisan lines, human decency, or the difference between right and wrong. He is simply another pawn in the game, no more and no less.

Imagine this:

Imagine you are a teenager whose father is President of the United States. Imagine that your family loses a close personal friend who commits suicide. Then imagine that you read in the paper that a radio talk-show host is accusing your mother of being involved in a plot to kill this individual and cover it up by making it look like he killed himself.

This is the equivalent to what Rush Limbaugh and people like him did to the Clinton's after the death of Vince Foster. This series of events is no better or worse than what Michael Moore is doing by implying that the Bush family was behind a plot that leads to the deaths of 3,000 Americans. It is sick and disgusting and way past time for someone to stand up against this type of character assassination that is corrupting our political system.

In part I blame Bill Clinton and George W. Bush who have subscribed to the theory that the American people should only know what politically benefits the President’s political career. Both these individuals would have been better off as President if they would have simply stated the cold, hard, truth at times instead of resorting to a PR team that employs a smoke and mirror strategy on the American people. In my opinion it is best to admit you are wrong when you are wrong, and you screwed up when you screw up. There is a strong case that if Richard Nixon from day one would have apologized for Watergate, instead of covering it up, and promised it would have never happened again, the American people would have forgave him and moved on. Our political leaders are not, and should not be above the rules we teach our children on how to treat others.

WHAT CAN BE DONE?

It is not too late. The world is not coming to an end. We can still have our country back.

I have no faith George W. Bush will denounce Rush Limbaugh or others who employ the same character assassination tactics. If I vote for Bush it will be because I simply disagree with him less than I do his opponent. I was heartened when then Governor Bush threw right wing whacko Gary Bauer out of the Republican National Convention, but it became clear to me a long time ago that this administration believes too much that it has to keep it's base happy, and rebuking Rush Limbaugh the way that say John McCain went after Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson in the 2000 primary is more than likely not in the cards.

However, there is hope for John Kerry, who is still relatively new to the national scene.

Yesterday, the Senator gave a speech at Southern University on the importance of public service. It was a good speech, but like most issues Kerry seemed to get close to greatness, but then when it was staring him in the face he backed down. Kerry could have pointed out that one of the major problems we face in society is that our public servants are often targets of negative attacks that have little to nothing to do with their job or public policy as a whole, and he can lead by denouncing Michael Moore and his movie and be an example by not resorting to the same divisive character assassination tactics that many in both parties have resorted to for years.

John Kerry can be the man he was in Iowa when everybody thought he was done. The kind of candidate that runs on his own merit and ideas and tells us why he should be President, not why his opponent shouldn't. He has it in him, I have seen it. In one election the Senator cannot only be voted into the highest office in the land, but if he is willing to risk that very accomplishment he can truly start a discussion on how we treat one another and change the tone of a civic dialogue that is leaving the American people out of their own political process; a civic dialogue that men like Rush Limbaugh and Micheal Moore obviously care nothing about.

GOP convention - speakers

The moderate Republican dream team will be front and center at the GOP convention.

Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, Calif. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Arizona Sen. John McCain are among those who will speak at the Republican National Convention, President Bush’s re-election campaign says.

The politics of this are obvious, but it doesn't mean much to me. Now, I'd really be impressed if Cheney withdrew for health reasons, and Giuliani or McCain was giving a speech as the VP nominee.

Health Care Policy

I confess to being chronically confused regarding health care policy. I'm skeptical of single-payer plans or any broad effort to put government in charge of the health care sector. But I don't sense the market works all that well either at present.

Greg Wythe of Greg's Opinion discusses a market-friendly reform plan developed by Michael Porter. And we also have a number of analyses and proposals from Jeff Lemieux at Centrists.org.

If anyone wants to read this stuff and let me know what makes sense, I'd be most grateful.

Faster Than You Think!

Early Iraq Handover Surprises Rebels and Reporters

U.S. media officials had dropped some obscurely worded hints that the transfer of power might take place before June 30 -- "Game day will be in the next few," said one email Sunday.

But the timing was known only to half a dozen senior coalition officials the night before, a senior official said.

Bremer said Allawi had asked for the transfer of power to be brought forward because Iraqis were ready to take control. But surprising anti-U.S. insurgents who have staged a bloody campaign of bombings, assassinations and other attacks before the handover was also a motive in the change of plan.

Something The Matter With Kansas?

Salon has an interview with Thomas Frank, the author of What's the Matter with Kansas? : How Conservatives Won the Heart of America. He discusses who farmers and working class people who supported left-wing populists a century ago now support right-wing populism.

If the Democrats have lost the heartland, they've won the coasts, so from a political calculation the loss is not fatal. But it's an interesting tale.

Moore Hit

Michael Moore's new film is a box office hit

Michael Moore's anti-Bush "Fahrenheit 9/11" became the highest-grossing documentary of all time on its first weekend in release, taking in $21.8 million as it packed theaters across the country this weekend.

The movie, mocking President Bush and criticizing his decision to go to war in Iraq, was No. 1 at the box office, beating out the popular comedies "White Chicks" and "DodgeBall," which were playing on almost triple the number of screens.

Owning Up to Your Policy

A week ago, the president addressed the torture issue directly, and with fairly sweeping statements. A few days prior, he had couched his language in legalisms -- stating that we're "following the law" in the way we deal with prisoners. That didn't answer too many questions in too many people's minds, so he finally took on the issue directly. Torture is wrong. We don't practice torture. And we are treating prisoners "humanely".

Ok, that pretty much covers it. The administration could offer a more nuanced argument. You could claim that a certain segment of high ranking al Qaida operatives need to be treated differently -- that we need to be tougher. They could make a similar argument to the one they make regarding the Patriot Act -- namely, that some rules need to change in an era of terrorism.

That argument is being made by a fair number of conservatives, who project a gritty, realist view that we need to get tough with these guys if we want to beat them.

The president effectively abandoned that argument. We're treating them all "humanely". We don't practice torture.

When he made that statement, I sensed the president was entering dangerous territory. Because it's increasingly likely, based on what's trickling out from various sources, that his statement is false.

Of course, we have all the information from Abu Ghraib, where military intelligence officers had permission from the highest ranking officer at the prison to use unmuzzled dogs in interrogations. That doesn't necessarily mean it was approved by the civilian side of the administration, but it is kind of startling.

Then we have the documents released by the administration on the very day Bush made his "humane treatment" statement. One of them shows that for a short period of time back in 2002, Donald Rumsfeld specifically approved techniques involving interrogating prisoners in the nude, sleep deprivation, and use of dogs for intimidation.

Then we have the Washington Post story picked up this morning by my local paper. The CIA is suspending -- just now suspending, apparently -- techniques used in secret CIA detention centers where suspected al Qaida leaders are being interrogated. Those techniques include simulated drowning, stress positions, and sleep deprivation.

Is pretending to drown someone "humane"? Or the use of barking dogs against nude prisoners?

No.

There's a possibility, I suppose, that the president's subordinates are ordering these things without his authority. But if Donald Rumsfeld violated the president's policy of humane treatment, what consequences has he faced? Was the CIA similarly violating the president's policy on their own initiative?

This is dangerous territory. It's one thing to argue for a different policy, another to present your policy one way to the American people while following a different one in secret.

Update:

The New York Times reports today that the widely-discussed Justice Department torture memo of August 2002 was prepared as an after-the-fact justification of coercive interrogation techniques used by the CIA on top al Qaida operatives.

What is the worst major newspaper?

My nominee is the StarTribune. I now buy it only for the sports section and to read Dilbert. The national and international news reporting is pathetic, but it is the editorial page that is the worst. It is not that it is liberal (which it is, and which I don't mind). It is that it publishes stupid pieces. As an example, here is a guest editorial authored by a university professor from Saturday's edition.

It's Cuba that could teach the U.S. about democracy

Do you like your local paper?

Green Party Snubs Nader

This week, Ralph Nader selected Green Party activist Peter Camejo as his running mate in a transparent attempt to get the Green Party nomination, and the ballot access that would go with that nomination. Today, the Green Party rejected Nader. Good for them. Anyway, I might still vote for Bush, but I wouldn't want him to eke out a victory because of Nader. The country needs either Kerry or Bush to have some semblance of a mandate.

Making Someone Unacceptable

For several decades now, a prominent strategy in the presidential race has been to make your opponent fundamentally unacceptable. That strategy has always struck me as odd -- a symptom of something being wrong somewhere in our system. You would thing both parties, at a minimum, would offer a candidate who met the minimum qualifications for the job. Someone acceptable, whether they're good or not.

So the debate would focus more naturally on who's good and who's not -- not whether someone is totally beyond the pale.

Somehow, the acceptability quotient becomes a major theme. By the end of the 2000 election, Bush was stupid and Gore a liar. The things said about John McCain in the 2000 primary were remarkably ugly, with no discernable connection to reality. Clinton was accused of corruption, treason, and murder -- even, at times, on the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal.

I bring this up because I wonder if something similar is underway right now with regards to our current president. It's harder to do with a sitting president, but maybe not impossible.

I'm thinking about the ads being run for Michael Moore's new movie. Far more people will see the ads than the actual movie -- so they represent a problem for the president moreso than the substance of the film.

They keep playing that one snippet of footage with Bush on the golf course. It got a little play a while back, when it happened. But now it's all over the TV.

I see an odd kind of parallel, perhaps, with the footage of Michael Dukakis riding around in the tank that got such heavy play in the 1988 campaign.

Neither snippet has any content. Looking awkward in a tank doesn't say much about how Dukakis would perform as commander-in-chief. In the Bush snippet, he doesn't say anything substantive that either side would object to.

Yet both pieces are humiliating. Dukakis just seems wrong riding around in that tank -- he must be some kind of military-loathing liberal. The golf course piece says Bush is callous and arrogant.

Michael Moore understands this game pretty well, it seems. He realizes that odd little golf-course snippet will speak to people on a gut level, and mean more, ultimately, than any facts or arguments he might offer.

The Difference a Month Makes

A month ago, I was saying that the short-term possibility of either NATO or UN assistance in Iraq was a pipe dream. I gotta get me a new pipe--it's happening.

U.S., EU Offer Strong NATO Aid for Iraq

Cheney F'd Up

The Moderate Voice has an evaluation of Dick Cheney's use of the F-word as compared to John Kerry.

In my view, one difference is that Kerry used it with regard to a policy, whereas Cheney used it with regard to a person--and to his face. The latter is much more mean spirited.

On the Lighter Side (Vol. 6)

- "Officials caught off-guard by irreverent 'Daily Show'" (here)
- "Free beer if you register to vote" (here)
- "Taxpayers Fund Felon's Breast Reduction" (here)
- County commissioner candidate opts for mooning Paris Hilton strategy (here)

Iraqi confidence

Good news - a large majority of Iraqis say they support the interim government.

A large majority of Iraqis say they have confidence in the new interim government of Prime Minister Ayad Allawi that is set to assume political power on Wednesday, according to a poll commissioned by U.S. officials in Iraq.

The results are a significant victory for the United States and the United Nations. Together they negotiated with squabbling Iraqi factions in an attempt to cobble together a viable government that balanced disparate ethnic and religious groups.

The first survey since the new government was announced by U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi about three weeks ago showed that 68 percent of Iraqis have confidence in their new leaders. The numbers are in stark contrast to widespread disillusionment with the previous Iraqi Governing Council, which was made up of 25 members picked by the United States and which served as the Iraqi partner to the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority. Only 28 percent of Iraqis backed the council when it was dissolved last month, according to a similar poll in May.

With the tough days ahead, this popular support for the interim government will be critical. Let's hope it holds.

Open Thread

What's on your mind? Nothing is off-topic

Kerry And Religion

Liberal religion reporter Amy Sullivan's access to the Kerry campaign was shut down after she gave a quote to the Washington Times. With the whole communion issue swirling about, Kerry is trying to avoid talking about religion. There is some sense in that, but I think he (or his Veep) needs to be able to talk about ethics and public morality more effectively.

Centrism--An Effective Strategy?

The parties don't change at the national level unless forced to do so by the party at the state and county level. And you change them at the county and state level by being active in them, bringing sense and moderation into them by simply outnumbering the wing nuts and/or being noisy and reasonable to such an extent that the wing nuts can't control events. Ya gotta drag 'em to the middle, kicking and screaming. That's the way it works. A century ago political involvement at the local level was much more nearly universal, and this had a natural long-term moderating effect. Nowadays the wing nuts control the parties to a large extent because moderates and centrists are, by nature, not nearly as motivated as the wing nuts. Local political participation is at an all-time low--so the wing nuts rule.
.

This isn't an entirely academic subject to me. In my county, we fought for years to get control of the county GOP back in the hands of Main-Streeters and moderates after it was wrestled away by the fundamentalist Right. We finally managed it two years ago, and we'll be fighting them off on a perpetual basis for quite a while yet, maybe forever. Maybe they'll get it together and rally and we'll lose control this election cycle, and decide it's time to bring the local Dems back towards the middle for a while. Who knows? But it required moderates and centrists formerly associated with both parties making the common decision that reforming the local GOP was more practical and attainable than reforming the local Dems, and coordinating our efforts to actually do so.

As centrist Democrats or Republicans or Independents, we're always outnumbered on either side because our forces are split, even though we're as numerous or more so than either party's core. But attempts at centrist parties perpetually fail, even though third-party candidates often decide elections by siphoning off voters from one side or the other--just ask Bush 41 or Al Gore. Third-party candidates therefore usually just hurt those they represent by drawing power away from the side they're closest to.

This seems so contradictory, but it seems to be true. The effective way (in our experience here) for centrists and moderates to drag the parties back towards some common sense and away from the wing nuts is for those in the middle to give up on partisanship to unite as subversive partisans....

A coordinated centrist movement seemingly can't create a party and win elections. But a coordinated centrist movement could form an effective voting block that could greatly influence the Big Two and decide elections. Isn't it time we started working on what works?

Kerry Message Begins Leaning Toward Center

Kerry is running as a centrist.

Mr. Kerry's Democratic message for the general election campaign is emerging, many Democrats say — on the campaign trail, in the party platform now being written and in the major speeches he has delivered in recent weeks.

His message, in part, is a return to the promise of Clintonian centrism: reducing the deficit, spurring economic growth, trying to ease "the squeeze on middle-class America," as Mr. Kerry puts it, from things like the cost of health insurance and college tuition.

Bruce Reed, president of the Democratic Leadership Council and a longtime Clinton aide, fretted openly during the heyday of Howard Dean last year that the party was moving to the left. Today, Mr. Reed describes Mr. Kerry approvingly as "a pragmatic centrist in the Clinton mode."

I do. If Kerry is elected, but at least one house of Congress remains Republican, which seems likely, I think he would be forced to govern as a centrist.

Fahrenheit 9/11

I won't pay to see this movie, but I have read some reviews with interest. If you haven't seen them yet, you should read the reviews of Rex Reed and Christopher Hitchens, which differ slightly.

- Reed: "There are multitudes of shattering, seminal moments in his brilliant Bush-whacking documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11, that reveal more about the cynicism, greed and ineptitude in the U.S. government than you will ever learn from any sound bite on the right-wing late-night cable-channel blabfests . . . Mr. Moore, who has tackled corporate greed (Roger & Me) and gun control (Bowling for Columbine), now feels driven and obligated to strip the façade from a swaggering, bow-legged, grammatically challenged bully and a cabinet that is beginning to look more like the Third Reich every day."

- Hitchens: "To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. . . I think we can agree that the film is so flat-out phony that "fact-checking" is beside the point. "

Kerry's Mild Criticism Of Reagan

John Kerry spoke yesterday about Ronald Reagan

Promising to ''restore fiscal sanity" to the federal government, Kerry recalled his support for the Clinton administration's efforts to reduce the deficit, saying, ''I was part of that effort in the 1990s that had the courage to do what Ronald Reagan, for all his rhetoric -- and God rest his soul, we loved him for his strength in many things -- but I don't recall vetoes of major appropriations bills. I recall a lot of talk about deficits; I don't recall balancing the budget. I recall deficits getting larger."

blasted Kerry for criticizing Reagan's fiscal record. ''Kerry's attack on President Reagan is beyond the pale, and will be very troubling to most Americans," he said.

In the aftermath of his death, I've defended Reagan against criticism by liberals who see nothing good coming out of his presidency, and deny his role in winning the Cold War. Schmidt represents the opposite tendency which seeks apotheosis for Reagan--ascendency to divine status in the manner of Julius Caesar and Augustus after their deaths.

I consider Reagan to be a fine president, and I'd like to see him on a $1 coin, with the dollar bill dropped from circulation. But it is Mr. Schmidt's attempt to supress common-sensical criticism that is beyond the pale.

A Centrist Republican's Wet Dream

From Boi From Troy:

The lead article in today's New York Times took me by surprise... it was a rather lengthy piece praising the successful 7-month governorship of Arnold Schwarzenegger. In it, the Governor promotes his vision for participating in the Republican National Convention later this summer in New York...

Now, since The VP nominee (Cheney? McCain?) will speak on Wednesday and President Bush on Thursday will accept his nomination, we just have to figure out what to do on Tuesday.

I have long held out hope that in his second term, without political pressure from the hardliners in his party, the President would govern as the centrist to conservative leader he was as the Governor of Texas.... Pro-education, bi-partisan, fiscally conservative, socially moderate... As time has gone on I have wondered about the wisdom or realistic possiblity of this hope. The Republican Convention in NYC has the potential to restore my faith or crush it altogether.

I nominate General Colin Powell or Christie Todd Whitman to speak on Tuesday night, or how about *gasp*, former Mass. Governor William Weld. Any feisty New England moderate would do...

Profile in Courage: Governor Bill Weld

When is Bill Weld going to run for President? I'd be on that ban wagon in a heartbeat.

This from Politics 1:

While current Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R) was testifying this week in DC before the Senate Judiciary Committee, two former GOP Massachusetts Governors were spending the day attending a same-sex wedding ceremony in Boston. Romney testified "that the Constitution must be changed or else same-sex marriage would spread [to other states] ... [and] may affect the development of children." Former Governor Bill Weld (R), however, actually was called upon to deliver formal remarks during the wedding of his friends Kevin Smith and Mitchell Adams. Smith had been Weld's Chief of Staff and Adams is the former State Revenue Commissioner. "If I had been down [in DC], I think I would have been testifying on the opposite side [from Romney]," Weld later told the Boston Herald.

This is the same former Republican Governor whose nomination as Ambassador to Mexico was derailed by Jesse Helms because he supported the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Throughout his entire career Bill Weld has been sticking it to the political establishment, ignoring the hard line fanatics in his own party, and fighting on the right side of many civil right issues... I hope he has one more go at it in the near future.

If anything, Weld would rally the old centrist Eisenhower Republicans who have been without a national leader in the Republican Party since John Anderson left to run for President as an Independent. There are still many of us whose "checkbook is on the right, and our heart on the left."

Immigrant Values

The New York Times has an article on how, at Harvard, African-Americans who are descended from immigrants outnumber African-Americans descended from American slaves. This is evidence that it is not race but values that make the difference in achievement. Immigrants come to this country with positive expectations, which they instill in their children. Too many of those born into families which have been poor for generations believe there is no opportunity for them in the United States, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Very, very strange

Item:

More than a dozen lawmakers attended a congressional reception this year honoring the Rev. Sun Myung Moon in which Moon declared himself the Messiah and said his teachings have helped Hitler and Stalin be "reborn as new persons."

At the March 23 ceremony in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-Ill.) wore white gloves and carried a pillow holding an ornate crown that was placed on Moon's head. The Korean-born businessman and religious leader then delivered a long speech saying he was "sent to Earth . . . to save the world's six billion people. . . . Emperors, kings and presidents . . . have declared to all Heaven and Earth that Reverend Sun Myung Moon is none other than humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent."

Kerry's Senate Absence: Another non-Issue

It is apparent after reading this, that the GOP strategy is going to be to beat down John Kerry with meaningless crap, rather than talk about issues that actually matter to the American people.

If you haven't heard, the Senator has missed 89% of his votes in the Senate this year. Most recently he came into town to vote on a veteran's health issue only to have the vote not take place after Senate Majority Leader Frist re-arranged the schedule. Some, including Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and his Lieutenant Kerry Healy, have called on Kerry to follow in Bob Dole's footsteps and step down in order to run for President.

Ideally, I agree. When considering this issue simply on its merit I would argue that the right thing for Kerry to do is to give up his seat, but it is clear that because of the current makeup of the Senate it is politically impossible for him to do so. Furthermore, I think Kerry has got a strong case that he is better serving the American public by being a candidate for President than he is voting on an outcome that would not change with or without his presence. Mostly, however, I think this is a lot of talk about a whole lot of nothing, and in the end I don't think most American's give a rat's ass about how many votes Kerry has missed.

If Romney really was worried about the lack of representation his state is getting in the United States Senate, he would make it politically possible for Kerry to resign and promise to place a Democrat in his place. After all, Mass. is the biggest blue state of them all, and the voters did pick a Democrat to represent them in the U.S. Senate in the first place. But like Kerry resigning and giving the seat to the Republicans, Romney cannot promise to give the seat to the Democrats, which is further evidence that what we are talking about here is partisan politics and not anything that truly matters.

Never Fly Delta!

We spent last weekend in Atlanta, visiting relatives. Delta delayed us a total of seven hours on the round trip: four there (engine trouble) and three returning (thunderstorms). You know, I've been through Chicago, on American, in thunderstorms, and they didn't have these kinds of delays. I think Delta must have less margin for errors and worse maintenance.

Don't fly Delta! You've been warned! :-)

Yes, Kerry is rich, we get it already...

I just don't get where the RNC is going with this.

Kerry has money. He was born into money. He married money. He has expensive clothes, big homes and high priced possessions. So what!

This isn't the first time someone has tried to make a big deal about Kerry's wealth. The Club for Growth also ran the MasterCard parity intending to mock the Senator's upper class status. I just don't get why this is part of the strategy.

Furthermore, I can't remember when Kerry has tried to pass himself off as a "common man", or when he has attempted to portray that he is anything other than a highly educated, wealthy, white male of stature. Bush, on the other hand, has on several occasions put on a cowboy hat and a pair of blue jeans in an obvious ploy to make him look like an average Joe, but that doesn't bother me either. Maybe Bush likes blue jeans and cowboy hats; maybe Kerry likes short weekends in one of his many summer homes... What does this have to do with their qualifications to be the leader of the free world? Why is one of the two biggest political organizations in the country trying to make an issue out of John Kerry's personal life?

Could it be that they fear a campaign on real issues? Is this an attempt to blur Kerry's image as a war hero? Or is this a legitimate issue that the RNC is raising? Can someone provide me with any common sense on this one?

Clinton and Kerry

For several weeks I have been contemplating a post regarding the appropriate level of involvement for Bill Clinton in the Kerry campaign. I have hesitated because I go back and forth on that question. From a policy perspective, I think Clinton was a decent president, but he is undeniably a radioactive figure for many. Is that radioactivity limited to the right, or does it extend to a statistically significant portion of swing voters? Does it reallly matter whether Kerry embraces or runs from Clinton?

dKos today approvingly reports that Kerry intends to embrace Clinton. Good idea or bad idea?

More Bush-McCain Buzz

Some ideas just won't let go of the public psyche. Or is that the public-policy psyche?

Cheney needs to step aside for good of Bush, party

James Gannon argues in USA Today that Cheney needs to step aside for the good of the party, and goes on to praise McCain as a perfect replacement. Or Guiliani or John Danforth, if McCain isn't given the nod.

But everyone seems to love the idea of McCain as VP, no matter whose ticket he gets there on.

Media biases -- but not the ones you think

One weblog that I read on a regular basis is Andrew Cline's Rhetorica.net. In his words:

I am, as I indicated above, a former journalist. I am an assistant professor of journalism at Southwest Missouri State University (starting fall 2004). I earned my Ph.D. in the Interdisciplinary Ph.D. program at the University of Missouri-Kansas City; my fields are rhetoric and political science.

There is no such thing as an objective point of view.

No matter how much we may try to ignore it, human communication always takes place in a context, through a medium, and among individuals and groups who are situated historically, politically, economically, and socially. This state of affairs is neither bad nor good. It simply is. Bias is a small word that identifies the collective influences of the entire context of a message.
...
Journalists, too, speak from political positions but usually not overtly so. The journalistic ethics of objectivity and fairness are a strong influence on the profession. But journalistic objectivity is not the pristine objectivity of philosophy. Instead, a journalist attempts to be objective by two methods: 1) fairness to those concerned with the news and 2) a professional process of information gathering that seeks fairness, completeness, and accuracy. As we all know, the ethical heights journalists set for themselves are not always reached. But, all in all, like politics, it is an honorable profession practiced, for the most part, by people trying to do the right thing.

The press is often thought of as a unified voice with a distinct bias (right or left depending on the critic). This simplistic thinking fits the needs of ideological struggle, but is hardly useful in coming to a better understanding of what is happening in the world.

Note that he is speaking about journalism as a profession, which has the goal of keeping the citizenry informed. What the journalist does not do is attempt to persuade. Those who do that are columnists, editorial board members and pundits such as Bill O'Reilly on FOX or Al Franken on Air America.

Journalism by it's very nature has built-in biases -- what Cline terms structural biases:

I use the word "bias" here to challenge its current use by partisan critics. A more accepted, and perhaps more accurate, term would be "frame." These are some of the professional frames that structure what journalists can see and how they can present what they see.

• Commercial bias.
• Temporal bias.
• Visual bias.
• Bad News bias.
• Narrative bias.
• Status quo bias.
• Fairness bias.
• Expediency bias.
• Glory bias.

You can view an explanation of each at the above link, however I think the following are interesting in view of the frequent comments about the public not being informed about all the good things that have happened in Iraq:

Commercial bias: The news media are money-making businesses. As such, they must deliver a good product to their customers to make a profit. The customers of the news media are advertisers. The most important product the news media delivers to its customers are readers or viewers. Good is defined in numbers and quality of readers or viewers. The news media are biased toward conflict (re: bad news and narrative biases below) because conflict draws readers and viewers. Harmony is boring.

Bad news bias: Good news is boring (and probably does not photograph well, either). This bias makes the world look like a more dangerous place than it really is. Plus, this bias makes politicians look far more crooked than they really are.

Narrative bias: The news media cover the news in terms of "stories" that must have a beginning, middle, and end--in other words, a plot with antagonists and protagonists...Good storytelling requires drama, and so this bias often leads journalists to add, or seek out, drama for the sake of drama. Controversy creates drama. Journalists often seek out the opinions of competing experts or officials in order to present conflict between two sides of an issue (sometimes referred to as the authority-disorder bias). Lastly, narrative bias leads many journalists to create, and then hang on to, master narratives--set story lines with set characters who act in set ways. Once a master narrative has been set, it is very difficult to get journalists to see that their narrative is simply one way, and not necessarily the correct or best way, of viewing people and events.

I hope that one of the points taken here is that a perceived 'under-reporting' of good events (Iraqi girls attending newly opened schools) and 'over-reporting' of disturbing events (I'm sure I need not provide an example!) is more a result of the media's structural biases and less an effort to discredit the administration's efforts.

The reason for making this point is that I believe it's important for citizens to realize that many (not all!) accusations of media bias are themselves political rhetoric meant to cast doubt on the motives of journalists and news organizations.

Liberal Morality

In an interview about his new book, Robert Reich focuses on morality for liberals

Q: You write about taking back morality. How do liberals do that?

A: We focus on the central moral failures of our era, which are in boardrooms rather than bedrooms. The scandals on Wall Street and in large companies continue. There has been no real reform. Executive compensation is out of control, now 500 times the average worker’s compensation, whereas it was a small multiple 10 or 15 years ago. Money from the rich and from corporations is flooding politics. These are moral issues, and should be discussed as such. We need to regard them as shameful.

Q: Why don’t we, or why haven’t we?

A: I think that liberals and progressives have been a little bit afraid of morality, perhaps because the moral club has been wielded so effectively by the right against individuals engaging in their personal, sexual lives. But we’ve got to separate private morality from public morality. What happens between two people, two consenting adults, is not the public’s business. But when the captains of industry defraud investors, fire thousands of employees, pollute politics with campaign contributions, and loot their companies, that undermines our entire system. That’s publicly immoral.

While I agree that voters do not want government in the bedroom, there is a private morality that they are concerned about -- How to raise children to grow up to be responsible adults. These are the chords that Joe Lieberman struck successfully in the 2000 race. Even if Lieberman is now unpopular in liberal circles, the Democrats need someone who can make that appeal. Edwards might be the best in this regard.

The Other Veepstakes

I don't consider this highly likely, but it's a lot more likely than Kerry's Dream of a Kerry/McCain ticket. Call this one the Kerry Nightmare.

McCain for VP - on Bush's ticket

Barring a major catastrophe for Bush, Dick Cheney will never be President. Even if he had the charisma and the public support, five heart attacks is not a major selling point with voters craving security and constancy, and as VP he's been a major target in a way Al Gore never was. The usefullness he had in 2000 has vanished with events. So why not dump Cheney for McCain?

There's a lot of valid objections to Sidney Zion's scenario, some of which he brings up, but it's still a lot more likely than Kerry/McCain. (To keep things in perspective, so is the instantaneous glaciation of the North American continent.)

But if the Bush team is even capable of considering the good of the party and the nation as more important than the good of keeping the cronies and insiders properly fed and watered, a Bush/McCain ticket would be a heckuva start, and adding McCain to the ticket would go a long ways towards repairing the tarnished images of both the Bush White House and the GOP, and healing some of the major rifts in the GOP.

Would McCain take the job of second banana if it meant he could run for top banana in 2008? Would even being offered the job require that he agree to take Jeb into the fold as VP for future grooming? Can the Bush administration think farther ahead than November, or about anything but itself? Stay tuned, for next week's episode of Washington Soap....

Open Thread

What's on your mind? Nothing is off-topic.

Ray Charles Tribute

Our local public radio station is doing a tribute to Ray Charles from 1:00-3:00 this afternoon (Eastern time), which you can listen to in streaming audio here.

I did some peeking around the main NPR site, on the theory that maybe this was a national program, but couldn't find anything about it. So maybe it's just our station.

Centrist Email

Not to us. Andrew Sullivan posts an email from a centrist. Excerpt:

You would, I think, be amazed at how many people in Middle America (if the Middle Tennessee area counts as that--I think it does) are politically frustrated in much the same way you are. It's not the ideologues--they've picked their sides--people who are both social and fiscal righties are for Bush; people who are both social and fiscal lefties are for Kerry. It's the ones in the middle, people who might describe themselves as center-left or center-right, maybe they are fiscal conservatives but social moderates, for instance, who are as sorely frustrated as you seem to be.

D-Day Lecture

The Teaching Company, which hawks educational tapes, has a lecture on D-Day by a professor at Penn that can be listened to free over the internet until July 3. I'm listening to it now. It's pretty good.

Media Wimpy When Iraqis are at Stake

This is Part II of my Iraq media grumbles. It's a followon to my earlier article expressing disappointment for the media for being unwilling to support Iraqis at the cost of having to imply good things about Bush.

As I said then:

I think that many NPR commentators feel at some level that we're basically doing the right thing in Iraq, but would rather go with the flow and ding Bush than take the effort to be honest with themselves and do what's right for the Iraqi people even if it's uncomfortable for them.

It's not just NPR, it's many other outlets, too, enough that you almost have to be following media that's at least slightly rightish to see the good things that happen.

Hitchens has an intriguing article on the subject. As he does on so many subjects, IMHO - you might find the Christopher Hitchens Web of interest. He says:

It's now fairly obvious that those who cover Iraq have placed their bets on a fiasco or "quagmire" and that this conclusion shows in the fiber and detail of their writing.

At least some of the press has moved beyond the denial that characterized their responses to people pointing out that their coverage missed something. The new line for some is that life is hard there.

They're right, of course. Life IS hard there, and they're often risking their lives there. But I'm not buying that as an excuse, especially since much of the missing stuff is matters of historical context, like, how is the current occupation doing vs. Germany in the same period, or in the NPR thing I grumbled about, it didn't explain that NPR chose quotes from a time when Iraqis thought they would be just another British colony, with no self-determination atall. It isn't confined to a disinterest in cracking the history books; when the rebellion was big news, there was amazingly little interest in quantifying the threat, even though data on rebel popularity was available, and they could've counted heads when talking with the rebels (John Wood actually did, but nobody else). Instead, they practically acted as the rebels' media agents.

I'm glad those giving these excuses feel guilty. They should. But this is bullshit, plain and simple. Not just the American people, but also the Iraqi people, whom we've temporarily assumed responsibility for by occupying them, deserve to have both sides of the story heard.

(updated for clarity)

California Open Primaries

California is a considering switching to nonpartisan primaries. Among the supporters of the proposal is Richard Riordan, the moderate Republican former mayor of Los Angeles. John Fund doesn't like it. He compares it to the system in Louisiana, which often produces weird results.

This might be the best system for centrists, as it would allow moderates who would not be popular with the activists in their own party, but might have appeal to the public at large, to get before the voters in the general election.

The argument that Fund makes is that a system with a runoff lets people vote for kooks, at least in the first round, thinking they can correct their vote in the runoff. There may be some truth in that, but the kooks don't usually get through the runoff. I'm not aware of any examples of actual harm done.

I'd like to see this experiment go forward. What you you think?

The LA Times Poll

ROLL CALL magazine is reporting that the LA Times poll that raised so much buzz last week with its somewhat unbelievably high numbers for Kerry was badly flawed.

"Not counting independents, the Times' results were calculated on a sample made up of 38 percent Democrats and 25 percent Republicans -- a huge and unheard-of margin," ROLL CALL claims.

Since I don't have a subscription to ROLL CALL, I have to take Drudge's word about this for the moment. But I can hardly wait to see the source documentation on this "poll." It always strikes me as suspicious when a poll like this comes out, and the pollsters don't make the source data available, and the LA Times did NOT release their source data for this one.

Kerry/Edwards on Debt

Some of you may notice that the Bush supporter on this site has been tooting John Kerry's horn a little bit lately. Well... I like to think that I call them as I see them, and truthfully, the Senator has impressed me lately with some of his proposals.

A huge test in my book will be the inevitable debate on Social Security. Rumor has it within the beltway that W is going to pull a Reagan on Social Security and talk candidly about reform. Whether or not this happens or not remains to be seen, but I would love to see this debate and Kerry's response to any privatization (personal savings accounts) proposals. Will he be the liberal shill I earlier figured him for and resort to the same failed argument that the Democratic Party has been using since the 50's? Or will he come back with a sensible, centrist approach of his own?

Back to singing the Senator's praises: I think his focus today on American debt is dead on. In the 50's American's saved 5% of their income on the average and today we save -1%. The danger in this, in my opinion, is that we will no longer be able to use monetary or fiscal economic stimulation policies (tax and interest rate cuts) effectively. American's will be forced to pay down their personal debt rather than putting money back into the economy. Furthermore, I think what we have seen with Bush's tax cuts is a temporary economic spur, but because of the individual debt of American families, I am not confident it will stick around for the long term.

It is noteworthy that Kerry spoke about debt today while his former opponent, Senator John Edwards, spoke about it last night. I disagree with the Senator from North Carolina on a whole lot, but admittedly he is becoming one of my most favorite people to listen to in politics... He is very Kennedyesque.

Is it a sign that these two are now speaking about the same issue almost on the same day? Is this a test balloon? If anything Kerry can disprove the critics that say he is too arrogant to pick someone that may outshine him on the stump.

Military Leaders Oppose Bush

This is huge (from Politics1)... I am dying to hear their reasoning.

A bipartisan group of 20 retired US diplomats and six retired military commanders will hold a press conference in DC on Wednesday to announce their opposition to President Bush's re-election. Calling themselves "Diplomats and Commanders for Change," they will stop short of endorsing Senator Kerry. However, the group's press announcement said they are "deeply concerned by the damage the Bush Administration has caused to our national and international interests." Members of the group include retired Admiral William Crowe (Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman under President Reagan), retired USMC General Joseph Hoar (US Middle East Commander under President GHW Bush), retired Ambassador Jack Matlock (US Ambassador to the Soviet Union under President Reagan), retired Ambassador William Harrop (US Ambassador to the Israel under President GHW Bush), and retired Ambassador Phyllis Oakley (Asst. Secretary of State for Intelligence under President Reagan, and State Department spokesman for Secretary George Schultz). "We're all career [public] servants who have never taken a political stand. What we want to get on record is our profound concern about the future security of the US," explained Oakley. "We agreed that we had just lost confidence in the ability of the Bush administration to advocate for American interests or to provide the kind of leadership that we think is essential," said Harrop, who identifies himself as an Independent who usually votes Republican. The Bush campaign said they would withhold making any formal response until the group releases the full statement and identifies all the signers on Wednesday.

Kerry on Stem Cell Research

I have struggled with the moral question that is stem cell research, and I still do not know fully what I think, but the Senator really played on my sympathies with this speech.

I like the way Kerry has handled this issue just after Reagan's funeral, the boldness of his proposal is almost inspiring. His dynamist way of looking toward the future regarding medical research is very promising. I give it way more props than the current administration's "avoid the question at all cost" approach.

Here is more on Nancy Reagan's story and her recent crusade for stem cell research.

Your thoughts?

Kerry/McCain Ticket: RIP

We all knew this, but John McCain is not going to be Vice President.

This article in the Seattle Times reports that as early as a week ago the two Senators have discussed this issue and McCain's position has not wavered. He has serious disagreements with Kerry on the war in Iraq, he supports Bush, and he believes that his presence on the ticket could eventually weaken the Presidency.

The article also reports that Kerry is considering Robert Rubin. I have pushed this idea before and think Rubin is an excellent choice if Kerry is going to prove he is committed to the centrist economic principles of the DLC. I have a strong feeling though that the Senator's campaign has peaked and its success relies solely on the situation in Iraq-he simply has no other issues to run on. If things continue to improve then Bush wins, if they don't, than Kerry may have a chance.

Open Thread

What's on your mind? Nothing is off-topic.

Actions of a Few?

The Washington Post put together quite a few sources documenting the use of unmuzzled dogs to threaten Iraqi prisoners during interrogation by military intelligence officers.

It was done at the direction of military intelligence, according to the story, and approved by Col. Thomas Pappas, the intelligence officer in charge of Abu Ghraib prison. He, in turn, says it was suggested to him by a two-star general (unnamed in the story).

Meanwhile, the president is sounding awfully legalistic in his response to questions about the torture memos and the administration's interrogation policies.

More News From Iraq

From the Washington Times....

Al-Yawer promises autonomy for Kurds

Iraq's new president, seeking to calm tensions between his nation's Shi'ites and Kurds, pledged yesterday that promises of Kurdish autonomy in the country's interim constitution will be honored.

"Iraq will be a free and democratic federal country. Federalism has been accepted by all Iraqis," Ghazi Mashal Ajil al-Yawer said during his first visit to Washington since being named to the largely ceremonial post last week.

Mr. al-Yawer added that he wanted NATO forces in Iraq.
"Definitely we want multinational forces from countries which are effective. We do not want to have a variety of small number of forces which will look like a carnival," he said.

"We want effective forces to be there. We want these forces to come from law-abiding societies where human rights are very valuable to the people."

But according to the New York Times, NATO troops would likely be limited to training functions. I get the feeling that some of our NATO partners (France and Germany) are still pushing for U.N. troops--and are being told to think again.

McCarthyism + 50

Carla at Preemptive Karma reminds us that this is the 50th anniversary of the Army-McCarthy hearings, which led to Joe McCarthy's downfall.

Ann Coulter is the modern incarnation of McCarthy, throwing around the treason label quite loosely. Not surprisingly, she seeks to resurrect McCarthy's reputation.

I hope she fails, because more responsible conservatives realize that McCarthy did great damage to the anti-Communist cause. He was a grandstander, and made unsupported charges, which eventually tainted the credibility of all who pointed to espionage operations by Communists in the United States.

From the declassified Venona documents, we now know that there was Communist espionage. Julius Rosenberg was a spy. Richard Nixon was guilty of many things, but he's been vindicated with regard to his pursuit of Alger Hiss. IN the 1940's, Ronald Reagan provided information to the FBI about Communist infiltration in the entertainment industry. But as a union leader in an industry where Communists were very influential in unions, particularly the craft unions, his actions were defensible.

The relevance of this to today is that once again, some people within the United States wish ill of this country, with more lethal intentions than American Communists ever possessed. We need to investigate potential terrorists thoroughly but carefully, being aware of the harm and damage to reputation that can occur to innocent people in the process. It is to this latter value that McCarthy and Coulter have shown insufficient concern.

Ray Charles RIP

Ray Charles has died.

I will miss him. I loved his performances. With all the proper fuss over the Reagan funeral, Charles death may not get the proper attention. He was not political, as far as I'm aware, but often played at national events, and is someone whose life all Americans can celebrate.

Who to Vote AGAINST?

Good laugh from the Onion:

"The two major parties face a tough struggle," Harmon said. "As the election approaches, both must convince undecided voters that the opposing party's candidate is worse than their own. As both parties take more moderate positions in an election year, it's getting harder to convince citizens that there's a reason to get out there and vote against anyone."

The Onion is always an antidote.

Reading Tea Leaves

Look if you want, not bothering with the guarded links. It's being reported all over that the newest LA Times poll shows Kerry with a 7% (+/- 3) lead over Bush, and that Bush is not getting credit for a rebounding economy if a new Washington Post poll is to be believed.

What's it all mean? I think it means at least in part that it takes the public longer to clue in than the wonks. I expected Bush to downtick in the wake of semi-recent bad news in Iraq, but it didn't hapen overnight, people digested it first.

You could guess it's the same thing with the economy. Public sentiment usually comes around last, even after people start spending more freely. So if what looks like an economic rebound is sustained, THEN people will be more sanguine about Bush's captaincy.

Most interesting will be whether Kerry's uptick is sustained or transitory. It may be the case that the tick represents people making up their minds, getting off the fence. Or maybe not. If it shows up as a trend across a series of polls over the next few weeks, it will mean Bush is really in trouble. It's very promising for Kerry, but it's too soon to say whether it's a shift.

Ronald Reagan: A Centrist?

Read this article from the New Republic that argues that Ronald Reagan's ideological heir is not in Washington D.C., but in Sacramento. The article discusses how Reagan did not turn to the "New Radical Right" until his years in the White House, and that throughout his career as Governor he relied on a close inner circle of advisers who cared more about economic growth than the social issues of the time.

Also, here is a lengthy article from the New York Times. Most interesting is the chart on the sidebar that assesses Reaganomics. Notice that after 8 years of Reagan, inflation had dramatically dropped, unemployment had gone way down, the average household income increased, the top marginal tax rate also dropped dramatically, and although defense spending had sky rocketed the deficit at the end of the President's second term was being reduced.

Boi from Troy (centrist Republican) argues that this chart in fact shows that Reaganomics worked... I am inclined to agree strongly. I think this also shows that economic stimulation along with controlled spending can eliminate the deficits that we are currently burdened with. Your thoughts?

Kerry's Voting Record on Defense

Bird Dog at the Tacitus blog has gone through Kerry's voting record on defense-related matters and reaches this conclusion:

Over the last thirty years, Kerry has consistently taken the position of weakening our military, with a few notable exceptions. He has voted against practically every defense system that has come down the pike except the Seawolf submarine, which happens to be built in Connecticut. His few pro-defense votes are usually in the no-brainer category, where he tags along with the super majority, or the ultra super majority. Is that a harsh assessment? Yes. Is it wrong? Well, you be the judge.

Bird Dog provides detailed and compelling evidence that makes clear that hawks who vote for Kerry based on his recent statements will be taking a tremendous leap of faith.

More Good, More Bad

The threat from the Kurds yesterday to leave the new government is obviously bad news, and just the kind of sticky issue we can expect when taking on a nation building exercise. The Shi'ites weren't willing to allow a reference to the interim constitution to be put in the U.N. resolution, but without it the Kurds feel insufficiently protected, to put it mildly.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration is wisely working to build on their current momentum by trying to bring NATO into the force structure. It's unlikely they will succeed, but it's worth the effort. As pointed out previously, this might be just the sort of thing that determines whether it is even possible to "stay the course" in Iraq.

Everyone who believes in staying and succeeding should have been a determined internationalist all along. It's always been possible the Iraqis would, at some point, reject an occupation with a U.S. face on it.

Update:
Another key question that's been hanging out there is whether Muqtada al-Sadr was retaining the public support he apparently had as of a couple months ago when a widely-reported national survey was taken. We hoped the steps taken to isolate him in the south, along with the actions of his own thugs, might turn the tide against him in terms of popular support. This new story from Night Ridder suggests otherwise.

Turn for the Better in Iraq

For a couple weeks now, we've been experiencing some significant turns for the better in Iraq. We seem, in fact, to be carefully untangling some of the snarlier issues that seemed intractible a few short weeks ago.

Steps forward include the following:

• Selection of an interim Prime Minister with expertise in Iraq's number one problem area -- security.

• Renewed focus on rebuilding the Iraqi army.

• An emerging agreement, announced yesterday, to decomission most of the private militias.

• A new U.N. resolution, now on the verge of unanimous passage.

• A renewed effort by the administration to involve NATO.

We've also seen renewed determination on the part of the interim government to make their own choices, independent of the U.S. This may give them a bit broader credibility.

The top three items on this list are probably the most critical. Security, a new army, and decomissioning the militias would all represent big steps forward for a fledgling independent nation.

Kerry: Avoid Liberal Denial

As centrists, we can be critical of the Reagan legacy with regard to deficits, the environment, and the role of the religious right in politics. But we can also recognize the great good he did in bringing an end to the Cold War on terms favorable to America.

In the last few days, I've felt myself pulled to the right, not because of nostalgia, but because of the exposure of liberal blindness and denial in something so settled as the Cold War. President Clinton graciously credited President Reagan for his role, so I had assumed that most liberals had "gotten it." But in sources of established liberal opinion, like the New York Times, as Powerline points out, and in Salon and Slate, which I often enjoy reading, the overwhelming consensus is that the fall of the Soviet Union was inevitable, and Reagan happened to be at the right place at the right time.

This is absurd. If the fall of the Soviet Union was inevitable, due to economic distress, why haven't North Korea and Cuba fallen yet? Have liberals forgetten the 1991 coup in the Soviet Union, which overthrew Gorbachev, only to fail when Yeltsin rallied democratic forces? It was a near thing, and if the coup plotters had succeeded, can anyone really be sure they wouldn't still be in power 13 years later. In China, a bloody massacre in 1989 was enough to stem the march of democracy.

The inability of many liberals to say anything good about Reagan's accomplishments (as opposed to his personality, which everyone admires) reminds me of nothing less than George W. Bush's unwillingness to admit mistakes. Idealogues find it very difficult to admit error, because it threatens to undermine their entire intellectual framework.

Though John Kerry is a liberal, so far he has steered clear of this willful denial of history. Frankly, if Kerry were to endorse a notion of "inevitable" history that did not require presi