« A Self Defeating Paradigm - And Why It Must Shift | Main | Fighting a Very Expensive House of Cards »
When Poll Conclusions Are Nonsense
I had a few more thoughts on a recent Washington Post poll. I was listening to Richard Morin, the co-author of the article on what the poll data means, and I was struck by his spirited and lively conclusion on one matter in particular--how the American people think the Democrats in Congress ought to behave. I went back to the original article and here's the passage that caught my attention:
The pollsters asked--
Which of the following comes closer to your views: Because the election was close, Democrats in Congress should not compromise with Bush on major issues, even if the result is nothing gets done on some of these issues OR because Bush won the election, Democrats in Congress should find ways to compromise with him on major issues, even if the Democrats have to agree to things they find objectionable.
The answers--
Democrats SHOULD NOT compromise 28%Democrats SHOULD find ways to compromise 69%
DK/No opinion 2%
The conclusion by the authors:
But the public also wants cooperation from the Democrats. At a time when Democratic leaders are preparing to challenge many of Bush's major initiatives, nearly seven in 10 Americans agree that Bush's victory means that congressional Democrats should compromise with him -- even if it means compromising on their party's principles. Only one in four said Democrats must not compromise on things they find objectionable, even if it means less gets accomplished.
Huh? Not only is the question garbage, the conclusion is absurdly predictable.
To begin, asking that question is roughly akin to asking me if I would like the kids to fight less even if it means that things aren't settled fairly all of the time. Gee, how would I answer that? How would any parent that has ever driven with more than one child in the car answer that question? "Yes!" Maybe even, "Hell, Yes!" So when the Washington Post asked folk if they would like Congress to get along better, even if things come out a tad unfair, the majority of people said, "Hell, yes!"
In addition, the authors phrased the question in such a way as to discount the fact that our system of lawmaking, like our system of justice, is an adversarial process. If you don't represent your constituents with passion and zeal, you don't belong in Congress.
And this question also obscures the potential virtue of obstructionism. If legislators think they are barring a slide toward tyranny, obstructionism can be a very good thing indeed.
Has anybody noticed that the Republican majority is NOT being commanded to "play nice."
Let's call them Republicans to play nice or get out of the sandbox!
I'm thinking back to the time when Clinton was president, especially the early years, and how much cooperation Clinton got from the Republicans. In fact, far from cooperating, throughout Clinton's whole 8 years, the Republicans used every vile, immoral, despicable tactic to bring him down.
Bull feathers. We need dissent, especially now, to inform the American public. In fact, lots of loud dissent is what we need, so the media at least makes mention of an issue.
Has Dennis Hastert asked Tom DeLay to compromise the Republican majorities' principles(as though they had any) with Dems.
Let's see Ted Kennedy went along with Bush on No Child Left Behind, Senate Dems went along with Bush's lies about Iraq. And what did that get this country and the Democratic Party? A quagmire in Iraq, 100s of billions trashed in Iraq, a failed education policy and yes a $432 billion deficit, oh and Republicans in charge of the Whitehouse, House, Senate, and Supreme Court.
I'd say this is a no brainer and I really hate that overused phrase. Compromise. No. Hell No.
Regarding the Lakoff quoted in the head post on the last thread, my feeling is this: we have to start thinking about taking power as the best way to help people. Instead of focusing on one or two or three causes, Democrats have to view their gaining power in Congress as the way to help the most people. That is the paradigm shift that needs to take place.
My daughter is a bleeding heart - she used to bring home animals, kids, even grown neighbors to get them some lovin' at our house. As she grew into high school, she focused on helping the learning disabled kids in her classes (she's a wiz) and every year won the award for good citizenship in her class. One day she came home and told me that she wanted to be a teacher's assistant, go to a local community college and get a diploma and help in classrooms.
That's when I sat down with my daughter and explained to her that someone with her brains, talent and influence over people could help a lot more people by getting herself into a position where she has the power to make decisions that effect the lives of those people. She eventually went along, but while she was studying business, she still spent time helping fellow students study for exams, etc.
Well, recently she sent me an email - I won't quote the whole thing, but the message was this - thank goodness you helped me to see that important difference. Now I have some of the tools I need to really make a difference. I can't wait to get started on changing the world!
That's the paradigm shift we need. Gaining power is the best way to help the most people.
Love for Sale
By MAUREEN DOWD
I'm herewith resigning as a member of the liberal media elite.
I'm joining up with the conservative media elite. They get paid better.
First comes news that Armstrong Williams got $240,000 from the Education Department to plug the No Child Left Behind Act.
The families of soldiers killed in Iraq get a paltry $12,000. But good publicity? Priceless.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/27/opinion/27dowd.html?oref=login&hp
Maureen Dowd is great.
Interesting that the question frames the issue in such a way that it suggests that obstructionist Democrats are unwilling to compromise. What about the unwillingness of Republicans to compromise? With majorities in Congress, they don't have to, in most cases. They can "steamroll" the dems, as one GOP strategist put it, and ram through most of their legislative initiatives. Republican refusal to compromise means dem bills have little chance of getting hearings and getting out of committee, much less being brought to a vote.
The premise that it is the Democrats who are unwilling to compromise is fatally flawed. Compromise is a two-way street.
FRANK RICH
Forget Armor. All You Need Is Love
Published: January 30, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/30/arts/30rich.html?8hpib
I think this is an excellent piece!
Bob:
I distinctly remember when Clinton was in office how the media made such a big deal in saying how good divided govt. and even stalemated govt. was best. Interesting when we are in charge stalemate is best. When Repubs. have control over all branches of govt suddenly we should compromise and move towards their positions just to get something done; like destroying social security just for the hell of it. We should go back and find those quotes from George Will.
the question was garbage and the answere are predictable which ofr repubs means it is a valid poll.
But in the interest of finding common ground, I am hard pressed to come up with any issue we can compromise with the Repubs.
List any issue- environment, jobs, healthcare, deficit, Iraq war, right to privacy, civil rights, guns - and our position meets any test of moral values.
We should compare the positions and actions of the two parties, not just the rhetoric. The Repubs are the flip-flop party. The constantly say one thing and do another. We are the party of hope, they are the party of fear. We are the part of the future, they are the party of the past. We want prosperity for all, they want prosperity for a few. We want a healthy environment for all, they want to trash the environment for a few.
compromise my ass.. we should bury them in their own platform.
An interesting article from Common Dreams that gives many reasons why we cannot compromise, but instead be loud and clear about what this administration is doing:
The Imminent Demise of the Republican Party
by David W. Orr
Following the election of 2004, much has been made of the weaknesses of the Democratic Party, even its possible end. But it has escaped the notice of our blow-dry television pundits and political observers alike that the Republican Party, in the full blush of triumph in control of all the branches of government and large sections of the media, stands on the edge of certain extinction. The reasons grow daily more evident. Over the past three decades, the moderate, business-oriented party of Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Dwight Eisenhower was captured by its extreme right-wing thereby becoming a party dominated by ideologues, increasingly divorced from unmovable facts. But no organization, political party, or nation can long survive by ignoring realities of ecology, social justice, law, economics, and true security. Sooner or later, it will step off the proverbial curb into onrushing traffic of events, forces, and trends that it refused to see.
The Republican Party has already stepped into the road. The question is not whether it will survive as presently constituted, but what else will be destroyed as it collapses in ruin and ignominy, sooner than later. Beneath the noisy spin of its media echo chamber, the true platform of the Republican Party, its future epitaph, is founded on denial. The rules of the Republican Party of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Tom Delay, and their brethren are these:
Read more... http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0112-36.htm
Can anyone here tell us of one Republican Senator willing to compromise on Clinton's healthcare plan. As I recall our renown Sen. Phil Graham said healthcare will pas over his cold dead body. How many Republican votes were their for Clinton's economic stimulus package that according to Graham in 1993 would push the US economy into the ditch.We would lose millions of jobs and bankrupt the country.
That is why we need to have a new DNC Chair to start reminding folks of these statements. I am getting older and more forgetful but somehow those quotes have stuck in my brain.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/30/arts/30rich.html?8hpib
"I think this is an excellent piece!"
Posted by: NativeTexan4Kerry at January 27, 2005 06:44 PM
Native,
"You are correct, sir!" Thanks for the link -- I'm passing it on to others.
"The Imminent Demise of the Republican Party"
Posted by: madame defarge at January 27, 2005 06:57 PM
...those are the best words ive heard all day. lol
I read a story this a.m. in USA Today that stated in 2004 the WH spent an uprecedented amount of money on PR, far more than any other president. All of this has of course come to light due to the Armstrong Williams payola scandal being exposed.
The one good thing I can say about ShrubCo is that they have a very strong communications plan, illegal, but strong. And all of us have been screaming forever for the dems to do the same. So I am glad to read that the Dems are now stepping up their own communications efforts. Especially since I saw the Daily Show the other night with the conservative guy on as a guest. Apparently he wrote a book about the Repubs' succesful communications strategy for the last three decades which oddly enough has centered around direct mail. This guy, can't remember his name, also seemed to draw a big distinction between Repubs and conservatives such a himself. He obviously voted for Shrub but did nit seem a tremendous fan.
Native Texan,
That Frank Rich piece should be printed out as a leave behind - it is unbelievable. Thanks much for sharing it.
Rich's description of Bush's "tribute" to the military is the most stunning thing I've read about the Bush Administration - which is saying something. I pulled this quote about the "Heroes Red, White and Blue Inaugural Ball" - (attended by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz (can you believe the nerve of those two showing up?))
"The attendees from Walter Reed and Bethesda Naval Hospital, some of whose long-term care must be picked up by private foundations because of government stinginess, responded with "deafening silence," [to Geraldo Rivera cracking jokes about his heroism] reported Roxanne Roberts of The Washington Post. Ms. Roberts understandably left the party after the night's big act: Nile Rodgers and Chic sang the lyrics "Clap your hands, hoo!" and "Dance to the beat" to "a group of soldiers missing hands and legs."
Oh My God. Just when you thought the Bush Admin couldn't get any more out of touch or callous - something just pops up and hits you in the face.
I can't think of any kind of punishment bad enough for these war criminals.
Talk about theater of the absurd - did anyone hear the report on NPR about the pollsters in Iraq trying to do their own Gallup poll. (I heard Al Franken do some shtick on his show this afternoon about this - and I thought he was kidding it was so ridiculous.)
Anyway, the Iraqi pollster interviewed on NPR was talking about how if you asked a question a certain way - you'd get beaten up, or kidnapped, or held at gun point - so the pollsters had to be very careful how they phrased their questions...
"Yet as the elections draw near, Dulame and his team at the Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies are making it their professional duty to call the results as accurately as possible.
Conducting Iraq’s equivalent of the Gallup or ICM polls is not easy: in insurgent-prone Sunni areas, would-be focus groups responded to the centre’s researchers with threats of violence.
But after roping in tribal sheikhs to vouch for his staff, Dulame, who has a PhD in social psychology and political behaviour at Manchester University, eventually managed a poll of 3,000 people in Baghdad and southern Iraq.
With the dire security situation preventing any polls by international organisations, it is the closest indicator of how the new government might look."
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=85642005
************
This is an extreme example, but clearly how the question is worded and how it is asked can skew the response, considerably.
TruthOut Revving Up!!
White House Backs Off Media Takeover Rules
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012805A.shtml
Iraqi Polling Place Blown Up, Violence Intensifies
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012805B.shtml
Kennedy Calls for Troop Withdrawal in Iraq
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012805C.shtml
World Leaders Mark Auschwitz Liberation
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012805D.shtml
Dahr Jamail | Here Comes "The Freedom"
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012805E.shtml
RNC Seeks Donations to Push Bush Agenda
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012805F.shtml
Norman Solomon | Of Death Be Not Proud
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012805G.shtml
Bill McKibben | Bad Boys, Bad Boys, Whatcha Gonna Do?
http://www.truthout.org/environment.shtml
Jacques Amalric | George W. Bush and the Obscuring of the Iraq Quagmire
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012805I.shtml
Sidney Blumenthal | "A Military in Extremis"
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012805J.shtml
Some See Risks As Republicans Revel in Power
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012805K.shtml
British Ministers Plan "Control Orders" to Bypass Court of Law
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012805L.shtml
NOW | America's Immigration Explosion
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012805M.shtml
William Rivers Pitt | Interview with an Ordinary Hero
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012805U.shtml
Global Warming Is 'Twice As Bad As Previously Thought'
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012805V.shtml
Alberto Gonzales' Unanswered Questions
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012805W.shtml
Kennedy Lays Out Plan for Withdrawal from Iraq
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012805X.shtml
Neo-Con Douglas Feith to Leave Pentagon
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012805Y.shtml
Top U.S. Commander: Iraq Forces Not Ready
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012805Z.shtml
Sen John Kerry currently speaking on CSPAN.
I always feel safer somehow when he steps up to a microphone and speaks for us.
On the way to work, I listened to the CBC.
They didn't even mention Cheney or US with respect to commemoration of Auschwitz.
Then I read the Guardian/UK stories & both Cheney & Putin used it as a political platform for their own agendas, ie. a propaganda tool, rather than truly commemorating it.
Then I saw the phony-looking picture of a "morose" Bush when 31 (or more?) US soldiers were killed & in another picture (different topic) Condi was smiling. I saw Bush smiling recently and almost didn't recognize him. I'd never seen Condi smile - not a wide grin like that.
I think they've been coached. It's ghoulish.
Also they'll be travelling together in Europe.
How bizarre.
This article popped up blatantly on Comcast today - I was unable to eat my lunch after reading it & it made me doubly ashamed to be an American. I sent it to a friend in MN & he was so outraged he spent much of the day trying to disseminate it to the media, including a letter to Maureen Dowd.
"AP: Gitmo soldier details sexual tactics"
http://www.comcast.net/News/INTERNATIONAL//XML/1102_AP_Online_Regional___Latin_America_and_Caribbean/b936e62e-074e-461c-844c-9d276fd13448.html
Dear Maureen Dowd,
Someone sent me the article below. At first I thought it was from the Onion. After all, who could imagine that a cadre of women interrogators existed for administering sexual torture ("fake"
menstrual blood placed on prisoner's faces) while they are clothed in mini-skirts and thong underwear. Sounds like a bad "B" movie.
I checked it out though and several reputable papers have published it. What it does show is that a handful of rogue junior persons were
not responsible for this torture. The women as a group had to be assigned to this post, and that proves that it represents policy. I wish this story would receive the outrage it deserves.
I am totally disgusted by this (as if I needed something else to drive me over the top). I am contacting you because I get form letters from my elected officials when I mention these kinds of things. The last vestige of America thatI grew up in the tumultuous 60s when society drove policy. The last vestige of the America
that I learned to love and respect lives only on the editorial pages of a few "out-of-the-mainstream" media and in the emails of millions of Americans who are appalled by the government's actions on many fronts. Thus, the letter to you.
Don't give up. Continue to use your platform to disseminate the truth.
Sincerely, Robert
He also found out that wounded soldiers in Walter Reed Army Hospital have to pay for their own food: (from today's Salon.com)
Some wounded soldiers back from Iraq are having to pay for meals at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Veterans' groups say it's another
symptom of fighting a costly war on the cheap.
Jan. 27, 2005 | WASHINGTON -- Most patients at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington have a lot on their minds: the war they just fought, the injuries they came home with, the future that lies ahead. The last thing a wounded soldier needs to worry about is where the next meal is coming from. But for hundreds of Walter Reed patients, that's a real concern. Starting this month, the Army has started making some wounded soldiers pay for the food they eat at the
hospital.
more Seattle news:
Dennis Kucinich will be in Tacoma on Sat.
Howard Dean will be at the Paramount in March.
Anti-choice protesters are hitting the main downtown Westlake Mall Sat. & Seattle is a pro-choice zone.
Senator McDermott is holding a public meeting on Sunday to talk about Social Security, Iraq & other topics.
Anyone needing more info, I can find out.
Need a way to post more under "Calendar" - I'm sure in the future we will - like by city, state or zip code.
What is creepy Doug Feith going to do now?
Where is Richard Perle?
The idea of neocons without defined roles is kind of scary, after Cheney & Halliburton, the Bush dynasty & Carlyle etc..
Third columnist caught with hand in the Bush till
Michael McManus, conservative author of the syndicated column "Ethics & Religion," received $10,000 to promote a marriage initiative.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Eric Boehlert
Jan. 27, 2005 | And three makes a trend.
One day after President Bush ordered his Cabinet secretaries to stop hiring commentators to help promote administration initiatives, and one day after the second high-profile conservative pundit was found to be on the federal payroll, a third embarrassing hire has emerged. Salon has confirmed that Michael McManus, a marriage advocate whose syndicated column, "Ethics & Religion," appears in 50 newspapers, was hired as a subcontractor by the Department of Health and Human Services to foster a Bush-approved marriage initiative. McManus championed the plan in his columns without disclosing to readers he was being paid to help it succeed.
(snip)
To date, the Bush administration has paid public relation firms $250 million to help push proposals, according to a report Thursday in USA Today. That's double what the Clinton administration spent on P.R. from 1997 to 2000. Shortly after Williams' contract came to light, the Democrats on the Committee on Government Reform wrote a letter to President Bush demanding that he "immediately provide to us all past and ongoing efforts to engage in covert propaganda, whether through contracts with commentators, the distribution of video news releases, or other means." As of Thursday, a staffer on the committee told Salon, there had been no response.
(continued)
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/01/27/mcmanus/index.html
Posted by: resolute at January 27, 2005 11:37 PM
Where there's smoke there's fire. Wonderful "news".
I hope more and more will be exposed. A few
big name televangelists would be good.
I wish the evangelists would all get caught with boys.
Naw, I think getting caught with their hand in the Repellican Bushco money drawer is the best.
The boy thing is so old hat. But, Bribery? Pushing a Christian "value" for a payoff? That's way good. That is something I could really write letters about. And, the "press" might even let it hit the media.
Then, we Dems with true values could exacerbate the repercussions by doing our own grassroots mailings.
Could bring down the House of Rove with the Evangelicals. Keep the names coming, boys!
Richard Perle is on Nightline saying we should have turned over everything to Chalabi after Shock 'n Awe. That got a knowing chuckle. Really good Nightline. Really good questions about why staying the course and Joe Wilson saying this conversation should have been made three years ago.
Fight Fox - Watching Fox So You Don't Have To
http://www.alternet.org/fightfox/
And Nightline is PBS?
Wow - now I'm happy - I have people who send me Mp3s of Jon Stewart, C-span heads ups, etc. but only Marjorie can do Richard Perle watch!!
I'm covered!!!
My specialty has been Canadian Radio. Today I heard 4 people interviewed by phone who have to do with the Iraqi elections - getting expats to vote, etc. Then I heard a guy interviewed by phone who was talking about high tech ways that cost hundreds of millions of dollars - to fight low tech homemade bombs (& they don't work too well).
Also, as I mentioned, Canadian radio didn't mention Cheney or US one bit when talking about dignitaries & their speeches at Auschwitz.
Marjorie
I actually heard Richard Perle on NPR right after the elections in Spain - he was about to have a stroke or something he was so upset. All his maneuverings with European royalty at the Bildenberg conventions just didn't do the trick!
Vets for Peace sent me an article about how soldiers at Walter Reed Army Hospital have to pay for their own food.
I sent it to a guy who worked for years at the VA & with homeless vets. He sent it to some tv guy. I then let the original guy from Vets for Peace know.
HAHAHA!!! MAYBE BRIAN WILLIAMS might be interested in what you sent to me and I sent it to him!! HAHA!! AC
From: +NBC News Nightly Viewer Mail To: A C
Subject: RE: [Vetsforpeace] Walter Reed: "You know, they treat us like shit here" Soldier from PA.
Thank you for contacting NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams on the Internet. Your feedback is critically important to Nightly News.
We began using our e-mail address in December of 1993. Since then, we have been pleased to receive valuable feedback from our viewers . We are especially encouraged that many of you are suggesting stories you would like us to report or investigate.
Many of our important stories come directly from your letters and we
look forward to any ideas and comments you have in the future.
We will try to answer as many of your inquiries as possible, but we have created this automated response to address a few of your frequently asked questions.
Di-I'm off TV, you can thank Rosalie.
He writes my thought down well, Sorry a little long but yo have to register, by a Journalist from the Sydney Morning Herald
The emperor of vulgarity
By Mike Carlton
January 22, 2005
Page Tools
Email to a friend Printer format
George Bush's second inaugural extravaganza was every bit as repugnant as I had expected, a vulgar orgy of triumphalism probably unmatched since Napoleon crowned himself emperor of the French in Notre Dame in 1804.
The little Corsican corporal had a few decent victories to his escutcheon. Lodi, Marengo, that sort of thing. Not so this strutting Texan mountebank, with his chimpanzee smirk and his born-again banalities delivered in that constipated syntax that sounds the way cold cheeseburgers look, and his grinning plastic wife, and his scheming junta of neo-con spivs, shamans, flatterers and armchair warmongers, and his sinuous evasions and his brazen lies, and his sleight of hand theft from the American poor, and his rape of the environment, and his lethal conviction that the world must submit to his Pax Americana or be bombed into charcoal.
Difficult to know what was more repellent: the estimated $US40 million cost of this jamboree (most of it stumped up by Republican fat-cats buying future presidential favours), or the sheer crassness of its excess when American boys are dying in the quagmire of Bush's very own Iraq war.
Advertisement
AdvertisementOther wartime presidents sought restraint. Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address in 1865 - "with malice toward none, with charity for all" - is the shortest ever. And he had pretty much won the Civil War by that time.
In 1944, Franklin Delano Roosevelt opened his fourth-term speech with the "wish that the form of this inauguration be simple and its words brief". He spoke for a couple of eloquent minutes, then went off to a light lunch, his wartime victory almost complete as well.
But restraint is not a Dubya word. Learning nothing, the dumbest and nastiest president since the scandalous Warren Harding died in 1923, Bush is now intent on expanding the Iraq war to neighbouring Iran.
Condoleezza Rice did admit to the US Senate this week that there had been some "not so good" decisions. But the more I see of her gleaming teeth and her fibreglass helmet of hair and her perky confidence, the more I am convinced that back in the '60s she used to be Cindy Birdsong, up there beside Diana Ross as one of the Supremes of Motown fame. I don't think it's a good idea to let her make a comeback as Secretary of State.
THE war in Iran is under way already, if we believe Seymour Hersh, the distinguished investigative writer for The New Yorker magazine.
Hersh reported this week that clandestine US special forces have been on the ground there, targeting nuclear facilities to be bombed whenever Bush feels the time is ripe.
"The immediate goals of the attacks would be to destroy, or at least temporarily derail, Iran's ability to go nuclear," he wrote, quoting reliable intelligence sources.
"But there are other, equally purposeful, motives at work. The government consultant told me that the hawks in the Pentagon, in private discussions, have been urging a limited attack on Iran because they believe it could lead to a toppling of the religious leadership."
Naturally, Pentagon flacks rushed out to deny all. But then they did that when Hersh broke the story of the My Lai massacre in Vietnam in 1968, and again when he revealed the torture of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib. A tussle for the truth between Hersh and the Pentagon is no contest.
What terrifies me most is the people planning this new war. The CIA professionals have been frozen out: too weak and wimpy for the Bushies.
The Defence Secretary, the incompetent Donald Rumsfeld, has seized control, aided by two Pentagon under-secretaries. One is Douglas Feith, a mad-eyed Zionist largely responsible for the post-invasion collapse of order in Iraq, a civilian bureaucrat memorably described by the former Centcom commander, General Tommy Franks, as "the f---ing stupidest guy on the face of the Earth".
The other is army Lieutenant General William G. (Jerry) Boykin, whose name also rings a bell. Jerry is a born-again Christian evangelical, a three-star bigot who, in his spare time, stumps the country in full uniform, preaching that America's enemy is Satan, Allah is a false idol, and that George Bush has been ordained by the Lord to rout evil.
"He's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this," Jerry told a prayer meetin' in Oregon just a while back.
Be very afraid.
Kangaroo
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chait28jan28,0,1262772.column
JONATHAN CHAIT
A Deficit You Can't Refuse
Fuggetaboutit: The White House isn't planning to get the budget in order.
JONATHAN CHAIT
January 28, 2005
Kay: It made me think of what you once told me — "In five years, the Corleone family will be completely legitimate." That was seven years ago.
Michael: I know — I'm trying, darling.
— The Godfather, Part II
I don't mean to sound cynical, but it's starting to look as though the Bush administration does not seriously intend to get the federal budget in order. At least that's the impression I got from White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan's attempt this week to explain the unfortunate fact that the administration projects that the deficit will climb this year.
To grasp the full vacuity of the administration's rationalization, you need to consider it piece by piece. Here's how McClellan began his response to a reporter's question about the growing deficit: "And in terms of the deficit, the president has a deficit reduction plan. It's based on strong economic growth and spending restraint."
So the two elements of this plan are strong economic growth and spending restraint. Let's begin with the growth.
"Strong economic growth" means an expanding economy that produces large gains in tax revenues. The trouble is that the economy, as the administration has been reminding us for a long time, is already growing, yet tax revenues are not rising anywhere fast enough to meet the level of spending. Tax revenue accounted for 20.9% of the economy in 2000 and is projected to account for just 16.8% this year. A really hot business cycle can usually push tax revenues up a couple percentage points in a great year. Even if that were to happen in 2005, calling this a deficit reduction plan is like assuring your teenager that you have a plan to pay for her education, and it involves her growing 10 inches and winning a basketball scholarship. And no, dear, this growth plan has nothing to do with that new luxury yacht I just bought myself.
Phase 2 of the "plan" is spending restraint. President Bush is confining his spending restraint to domestic discretionary spending, which accounts for about $500 billion, less than a quarter of the budget. So, as I noted on this page a few weeks ago, programs like the National Science Foundation will suffer a budget freeze.
If he can get Congress to accept his spending limits — something he's tried and failed to do in every year of his presidency — we would chop a whopping $9 billion from the deficit. The deficit, let me remind you, will exceed $400 billion.
McClellan, perhaps trying to make the plan sound more extensive than it is, proceeded to repeat points one and two before concluding: "We've got a plan to cut the deficit in half over the next five years. And we are on track to meet that goal." On track, huh? Last year, the deficit was $412 billion. This year, it's expected to hit $427 billion. At this pace, we'll cut it in half by — hmm, let me pull out my calculator here — approximately never.
Nor is this the first of the broken promises. Bush first said he would cut the deficit by half in five years in July of 2003. Now, 18 months later, his press secretary is still promising to cut the deficit by half "over the next five years." It seems that at any given point in time, the date of this promised halving is always five years away.
What the Bush administration's position on deficits most resembles — aside from Michael Corleone's insincere desire to legitimize his crime family — is the Bush administration's position on tyranny. Rhetorically, Bush stands foursquare against tyranny, has pledged to make democracy the central feature of his relations with every leader in the world and insists that this principle has always guided his presidency. In practice, though, he believes in democratization only when it does not conflict with some other strategic objective, hence his close relations with Pakistan, Egypt, Uzbekistan, Russia, China and the Persian Gulf states.
Lately, his spokesmen have taken to insisting that Bush's inaugural promise to sweep away global tyranny was actually a suggestion for what future administrations might tackle.
Likewise, Bush believes strongly in fiscal responsibility. Unless it conflicts with his desire to cut taxes while fighting a major war. But rest assured that one day, the deficit will disappear, long after he's left office. He's trying, darling.
Up and coming wars Seymour Hersh, Definite worth reading
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact
Kangaroo
More on our future attorney general's ethics -- or lack thereof...
As Texas judge, Gonzales heard donors' cases
WASHINGTON -- When White House counsel Alberto Gonzales was a Texas Supreme Court justice running to stay in office in 2000, he took thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from companies that had business before him and he did not recuse himself from voting on their cases.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/01/27/as_texas_judge_gonzales_heard_donors_cases?mode=PF
And from the Center for American Progress, you'll find a whole slew of interesting "ethical" decisions...
Alberto Gonzales: A Record of Injustice
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=246536
...including this one that has recently been reported on NPR and now in the latest Newsweek:
GONZALES GETS BUSH OUT OF JURY DUTY TO KEEP DUI SECRET: In 1996, as counsel to Gov. Bush, Gonzales helped to get him excused from jury duty, "a situation that could have required the governor to disclose his then-secret 1976 conviction for drunken driving in Maine." Gonzales argued "that if Bush served, he would not, as governor, be able to pardon the defendant in the future." [USA Today, 3/18/02]
Gonzales: Did He Help Bush Keep His DUI Quiet?
By Michael Isikoff
Newsweek
Jan. 31 issue - Senate Democrats put off a vote on White House counsel Alberto Gonzales's nomination to be attorney general, complaining he had provided evasive answers to questions about torture and the mistreatment of prisoners. But Gonzales's most surprising answer may have come on a different subject: his role in helping President Bush escape jury duty in a drunken-driving case involving a dancer at an Austin strip club in 1996. The judge and other lawyers in the case last week disputed a written account of the matter provided by Gonzales to the Senate Judiciary Committee. "It's a complete misrepresentation," said David Wahlberg, lawyer for the dancer, about Gonzales's account.
Bush's summons to serve as a juror in the drunken-driving case was, in retrospect, a fateful moment in his political career: by getting excused from jury duty he was able to avoid questions that would have required him to disclose his own 1976 arrest and conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) in Kennebunkport, Maine—an incident that didn't become public until the closing days of the 2000 campaign.(Bush, who had publicly declared his willingness to serve, had left blank on his jury questionnaire whether he had ever been "accused" in a criminal case.) Asked by Sen. Patrick Leahy to describe "in detail" the only court appearance he ever made on behalf of Bush, Gonzales—who was then chief counsel to the Texas governor—wrote that he had accompanied Bush the day he went to court "prepared to serve on a jury." While there, Gonzales wrote, he "observed" the defense lawyer make a motion to strike Bush from the jury panel "to which the prosecutor did not object." Asked by the judge whether he had "any views on this," Gonzales recalled, he said he did not.
While Gonzales's account tracks with the official court transcript, it leaves out a key part of what happened that day, according to Travis County Judge David Crain. In separate interviews, Crain—along with Wahlberg and prosecutor John Lastovica—told NEWSWEEK that, before the case began, Gonzales asked to have an off-the-record conference in the judge's chambers. Gonzales then asked Crain to "consider" striking Bush from the jury, making the novel "conflict of interest" argument that the Texas governor might one day be asked to pardon the defendant (who worked at an Austin nightclub called Sugar's), the judge said. "He [Gonzales] raised the issue," Crain said. Crain said he found Gonzales's argument surprising, since it was "extremely unlikely" that a drunken-driving conviction would ever lead to a pardon petition to Bush. But "out of deference" to the governor, Crain said, the other lawyers went along. Wahlberg said he agreed to make the motion striking Bush because he didn't want the hard-line governor on his jury anyway. But there was little doubt among the participants as to what was going on. "In public, they were making a big show of how he was prepared to serve," said Crain. "In the back room, they were trying to get him off."
Gonzales last week refused to waver. "Judge Gonzales has no recollection of requesting a meeting in chambers," a senior White House official said, adding that while Gonzales did recall that Bush's potential conflict was "discussed," he never "requested" that Bush be excused. "His answer to the Senate's question is accurate," the official said.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6857224/site/newsweek/
Rossian
Re. your report - Doug Feith just stepped down.
Doesn't mean he'll not be behind the scenes causing neocon style trouble, like Perle, who "quit"
& Boykin - makes my skin crawl
By the way, the State Department has already pissed off Mexico on Condi's lst day. Americans were advised to avoid the border areas or they might be kidnapped & Mexico claims the story was overblown & will hurt their tourism & economy.
Nice going Condi. Now let's try Canada some more.
in·com·pe·tent
Pronunciation: in-'käm-p&-t&nt
adjective
Devoid of those qualities requisite for effective conduct or action.
1 : not legally qualified: lacking legal capacity (as because of age or mental deficiency) b : incapable due to mental or physical condition; lacking authority, power, or qualifications required by law
2 : unable or failing to perform adequately
Morning chuckle...
From Saturday Night Live, Tina Fey and Jimmy Fallon...
Tina: In protest to France's opposition to a U.S. war in Iraq, the U.S. Congress' cafeteria has changed French fries and French toast to freedom fries and freedom toast. Afterwards, the congressmen were so pleased with themselves, they all started Freedom kissing each other.
In a related story, in France, American cheese is now referred to as Idiot cheese.
Jimmy: Trust me, they're laughing at us, okay? French fries aren't even French, they're Belgian. Some American guy named them wrong to begin with. Also, American's pouring bottles of French wine down the toilet? Stop it! You already paid for the wine, you dopes!
Tina: And don't think that by eating Freedom fries that you're being patriotic and helping the war effort. Use less gasoline! Read a newspaper! You know what? How about we cool it with the Freedom fries anyway, you fat asses! We are the fattest country in the world. Have you ever walked around an American mall? It's nothing but Chick-filets and Lane Bryant track suits busting at the seams!
I'm SHOCKED I tell you, just SHOCKED!!!
Diebold Announces Paper Trail for Voters
Diebold Election Systems, a target of many electronic-voting critics during the 2004 US election, announced today that it has completed the design for a printer that would give its e-voting machines a paper trail.
http://www.sapinfo.net/index.php4?ACTION=noframe&url=http://www.sapinfo.net/public/en/news.php4/Category-28813c6138d029be8/page/0/article/Article-1174841fa24af7bc11/en/articleStatistic
Massive cow manure mound burns for third month
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/28/cow.fire.ap/index.html
The election was...how long ago?
How our "esteemed" vice president represents us at solemn events, like the 60th anniversary at Auschwitz... You'd think he'd have the decency to show some modicum of respect.
Dick Cheney, Dressing Down
Parka, Ski Cap at Odds With Solemnity of Auschwitz Ceremony
At yesterday's gathering of world leaders in southern Poland to mark the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, the United States was represented by Vice President Cheney. The ceremony at the Nazi death camp was outdoors, so those in attendance, such as French President Jacques Chirac and Russian President Vladimir Putin, were wearing dark, formal overcoats and dress shoes or boots. Because it was cold and snowing, they were also wearing gentlemen's hats. In short, they were dressed for the inclement weather as well as the sobriety and dignity of the event.
The vice president, however, was dressed in the kind of attire one typically wears to operate a snow blower.
(Make sure you check out the photo.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43247-2005Jan27.html?referrer=email
For anyone else here that's an Olbermann fan, looks like he took his laptop on vacation. Updated his blog twice this week about all the spam he's getting for his coverage of spongebob's gayness. Good for a Friday morning chuckle........
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6844293/#050127a
Thanks Marc; I needed the chuckles. On the way to work this morning, I heard 1/2 hour of "Democracy Now"--more on Gonzalez than I want to know.
Can we all just call our Senators this week and say, "I strongly object to your vote in support of Alberto Gonzalez, the author of the torture memo. His appointment would be an insult to the principles of justice."?
Go to senate.gov and look em up--dial away.
Rosiann,
I particularly liked this phrase for the article you posted:
strutting Texan mountebank
Doesn't that say it all?
defarge: No Cheney has no shame. What a desecration to the memories of the lost souls of the hollocost. And somehow he thinks that justifies his policies in Iraq.
"You'd think he'd have the decency to show some modicum of respect."
I have visited Auschwitz and it is one of life's most moving expieriances. I am sure that Cheney saw it as an excuse for a quick photo op.
Posted by: nancyjane at January 28, 2005 10:38 AM
I know this is OT, but I noticed an important issue in this hilarious post by Keith O. cited by nancyjane: he distinguishes between mass e-mailings to personal e-mail addresses and those e-mail addys set up for business/mass correspondence. I think it's important we all note the difference, and when we want to make a point, not shoot ourselves in the foot by spamming journalists' personal e-mail accounts.
Here's Keith's description of how these are received:
"The real problem with Dobson’s campaign, which produced an e-mail volume far less than the average post-election blog, was that he publicly posted my internal e-mail address (the one used for interaction with my office co-workers), not the high-volume ones we established for viewer and reader reaction. This served merely to wear out a bunch of IT folks (and me) and had the cumulative effect of a group of clowns toilet-papering my office and then saying “You agree with us now, don’t you, that you are a heathen?” The volume served only to overshadow any validity that might have been included in their complaints."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6844293/#050127a
Beth-he also made a post on Tues. regarding the spamming & it was about the use of a form letter on Dobson's site. Seems that people were sending the form letter without editing out the "your name here" stuff. He makes the point that these emails are not taken seriously.
Read more... http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0112-36.htm
Posted by: madame defarge at January 27, 2005 06:57 PM
Bumper sticker:
Republicans deny the truth
http://www.zonaeuropa.com/01467.htm
Posted by: rossiann at January 28, 2005 02:42 PM
My God what have we done??!! You know those photo's will never appear on the newscast's here-have to keep the war distant & impersonal.
Looks like we've created a whole new generation of Iraqi's who "hate our freedoms".
thinking back to a few weeks ago, wasn't it frist that was looking for destruction in the background of his tsunami photos? maybe cheney would have liked them to fire up an oven to keep him warm......
Barbara Boxer started a diary on Kos.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/27/124226/410