And the Survey Says....

I heard an excerpt of that press conference, and remember Myers saying that in some of these attacks nothing much happens - i.e., a building is not destroyed, no one is injured. But that sure is a lot of attacks per day. And there are sure too many American soldiers and Iraqi police, guardsmen and civilians dying every month.

People talked about Reagan having teflon. This is the most incompetent Administration in modern American history, and still the media and American people refuse to hold them accountable.

I mean, the talking points re: Bolton are that the UN needs to be reformed.

Who's going to reform the Bush Administration?

Who will hold Donald Rumsfeld accountable for his various errors of judgment?

How does wrong-way Wolfowitz get a promotion?

How did Condi rate a promotion?

How did Tenet rate the Medal of Freedom?

I mean, as bad as the UN might be, the Bush Administration is right there with them, equals in incompetence.

I had no clue.
Even if they are 99% unsuccessful that says something about the state od affairs......

I say everyone write a letter to editor pointing this number out....

OK, I know USAToday can be lame, but it does reach the masses...and they might be doing us favors, either consciously or unconsciously... Get this... (Links provided only for completeness; but you might want to read the editorial.)

Page 1 story today: Donations link DeLay, ethics panel
All GOP members either gave or received money
By Jim Drinkard, page 1A
WASHINGTON - All five Republicans on the House ethics committee have financial links to Tom DeLay that could raise conflict-of-interest issues should the panel investigate the GOP majority leader. http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20050427/1a_offlede27.art.htm

Page 5 story with Photo of Bush & DeLay:
Bush salutes majority leader for work
By Richard Benedetto, page 5A
GALVESTON, Texas - President Bush praised Rep. Tom DeLay on Tuesday during a visit to the University of Texas Medical Branch, just outside DeLay's district. http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20050427/a_bushbox27.art.htm

******************
OK, now imagine you're reading the printed version. You've just read on page 1 about DeLay and his ethics scandal. Now, you open to page 5 (right facing page) and you see a photo of the president with DeLay... Hmmm. Could make people wonder why the president supports him?

And then there's this editorial: Founders' intentions may be casualty in fight over judges
GOP threat to overturn filibuster rule defies key checks on power.

When the Founding Fathers were establishing the political ground rules for a new nation more than 215 years ago, they were determined not to give anyone, or any group, too much power. That sound principle is under attack in Washington in the fight over filling federal judgeships.
--snip--
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., under pressure from the religious right, is considering a backdoor scheme to circumvent the rules of the Senate and allow the most controversial choices for federal judgeships to be pushed onto the bench by a bare majority. Ten of President Bush's judicial nominees were filibustered in the last Congress; seven have been renominated and could come up for a vote soon. This battle is considered a dress rehearsal for the fight over the next Supreme Court nominee.
--snip--
That's a heavy fallout for a handful of appointments that have become more important as political symbols than for the impact any one might have on the bench. If it happens, partisan excess will have won, and responsible government will be the loser.
--snip--
Those pushing the change promise they'll continue to respect the 60-vote rule on legislation and for confirmation of cabinet nominees. But those priorities are backward. Bills can be amended, and presidents deserve wide discretion in choosing their subordinates, but judges are appointed for life to be independent of political influence.

If a potential judge can't get the support of three-fifths of the Senate, the answer is not to trash rules designed in the spirit of the Founders. It is to send up another nominee.
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20050427/edit27.art.htm

Casey, thanks for pointing this out.

I don't know how the official definition is determined, but my personal qualifyer for an "attack" is a bomb exploding or a large-scale attack. The rest is everyday war activity.*

How the war is sold is misleading as well. I read an article (posted by DiAnne, I believe) that asked questions about how the war is sold to us. The author was concerned that the mainstream media reports war from a tactical point of view, like John Madden drawing out football plays on his telestrator, rather than from a ground-zero POV. Why? It sells. It's clean. It lets us hide in our fantasy worlds.

To answer the questions...

How many attacks would I guess? 2, 3 tops.

How many attacks would others guess? 2, 3 tops

This is rhetorical, but there's only one possible reason for this level of ignorance--the media. That's not only sad, that's serious. I agree.

*My God I didn't realize how much of a media tool I've become. Seriously. That's what's wrong with broadcast -- one-way communication isn't communication.

Can somebody explain to me why the neoCON's would be pushing a "global economy" while saying how selfish the American "liberal" protectionists are against helping other third world countries work too?

While people in this country are working at poverty level, two jobs, without healthcare.

Posted by Casey Morris at April 27, 2005 08:45 PM

I heard about this on NPR this morning. It was in the beginning of a story about how Zarqawi eluded capture. Myers conceded that insurgent attacks in Iraq are at about the same level as they were a year ago, but Rumsfeld made his usual nonsensical statements. Unfortunately, NPR didn't jump on the importance of just how many attacks there are and how things really are not improving. Even if they're the same as last year, that's not an improvement.

The more I listen to satellite radio shows (like Al and Ed), the more I realize how much NPR is not telling us. Very disappointing...

...or how the definition of compassion was changed to exclude most people in the "helping" professions?

No Mark--everyday war is not what they are talking about. They are talking about preplanned staged attacks, as opposed to, here comes an American, let's start shooting. It's a different category. The second kind, they call engagements with the enemy, as opposed to the first kind, which is enemy attacks.

Funny, that was my very first question as well, define attack. And there are any number of ied's that you don't hear about because there are injuries, no deaths. Or they are smaller. OR theyre are minor injuries.

But what astonished me was that, despite the number killed, over which they crow, the insurgency has clearly had no recruitment problems, as opposed to our recruitment numbers as of the first quarter 2005, we are 27% behind in recruitment.

But I am still getting over the tremendous depth of media ignorance and cooperation in order to sustain a YEAR LONG campaign of information quietening and coverup in order for NONE of US to even GUESS that that figure would be that high.

I thought I had reached my level of shock fatigue, but this was truly shocking.

Casey, thanks again for the info. I cannot believe that we're in this war.

Math problem here: if a car in Baghdad is travelling west at 0 MPH, how long will it take to reach Cleveland?

Bush to hold News Conference Thursday:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush will hold a prime time press conference on Thursday night, his first in over a year, to offer more details about his plans to overhaul Social Security, the White House announced.
The 8:30 p.m. EDT East Room press conference comes at a time when Bush is facing some of the lowest job approval ratings of his presidency.

Recent polls show he has been losing support for adding private retirement accounts to the Social Security system -- his top domestic priority -- and that the public is increasingly concerned about the direction of the economy and soaring gas prices.

Bush could also face tough questions on Iraq after the top American general acknowledged this week that the insurgency remains undiminished in its capabilities in the past year despite landmark elections and U.S.-led efforts to crush the rebels.

http://oldamericancentury.org/downloads.htm

This is for Free Spirit. Welcome to the Democracy Cell Project where truth is the currency for discussion and honesty is the tone of encouters.

Indy: how great to see your train is back on the tracks again.

Posted by: Indy at April 27, 2005 08:56 PM

Indy! The train! That brings back great memories...

Posted by: Casey Morris at April 27, 2005 10:34 PM

Get ready for "this is hard work".

http://www.simsadler.com/

Civil War’ Is No Longer a Taboo Phrase in Iraq
Luke Baker, Reuters
 
BAGHDAD, 27 April 2005 — Civil war. It’s a phrase everyone in Iraq has strenuously avoided for the past two years.

Yet now, with no government formed three months after elections, and tensions deepening between Iraq’s Muslim sects and other groups, it’s on many people’s minds. Several clashes between Sunni and Shiite Muslims in events apparently unrelated to the two-year-old anti-US insurgency have highlighted the danger in recent months.

Whereas once politicians were not willing to utter the term for fear of dignifying it, it is no longer taboo. “I do not want to say civil war, but we are going the Lebanese route, and we know where that led,” says Sabah Kadhim, an adviser to the Interior Ministry who spent years in exile before returning to Iraq after Saddam Hussein’s overthrow. “We are going to end up with certain areas that are controlled by certain warlords ... It’s Sunni versus Shiite, that is the issue that is really in the ascendancy right now, and that wasn’t the case right after the elections.”

In Madaen and other mixed Sunni-Shiite towns on the rivers south of Baghdad, rival groups have been carrying out revenge attacks since before the January polls, police said. This month more than 50 bodies have been pulled from the Tigris River. In the poor Shiite district of Shuala in western Baghdad, there has been a series of car bombings and killings, apparently related to tensions with Sunni militants in the neighboring district of Abu Ghraib, one of Iraq’s most violent. Similar violence has hit towns north of Baghdad, such as Baquba, where Sunni and Shiite mosques have been bombed.

In part the tensions are the result of the long-declared intention by Sunni militants such as Jordanian Abu Mussab Al-Zarqawi to sow sectarian discord and provoke civil war. But they also reflect a natural increase in animosity between the two sects since the Jan.30 poll, which handed power to the Shiite majority after decades of Sunni-led rule.

The failure to form a government in the immediate aftermath of the ballot, when the nation was buoyed by the fact more than 8 million people defied threats and voted, has allowed distrust to grow as all sides scramble to secure a share of power.

“The huge window of opportunity created by the success of the elections has been frittered away in the politics of personal gain and internecine squabbling,” said Toby Dodge, an Iraq expert at Queen Mary University of London. He now sees politicians using the sectarian issue to leverage more power, a move that could backfire. “Using sectarianism as a bargaining chip and for political advantage is rankly irresponsible ... it’s the sort of thing that can start a slide into civil war,” he said.

At the same time, he said conditions in Iraq did not yet resemble the conventional scenario of civil war in which various communities with militias face off against one another — as they did in Lebanon in the1970 s and80 s. “Iraq is more fractured and atomized than that,” he said.

Still, there are worrying signs. Several Sunni-led military units operating under the Interior Ministry’s banner and created with the support of US forces, are leading the battle against the insurgency. But if, as widely expected, a Shiite takes over the Interior Ministry when a new government is named, those units could be purged — a course that US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld warned against during a visit to Iraq this month.

The Sunni-led units could be replaced by soldiers from the Badr Organization, a militia loyal to the main Shiite party. Interior Ministry officials fear the Sunni commanders, with their well-armed and trained men, could then break away to set up rival militias. “Both sides are sharpening their knives. They are saying, ‘we’ve got to protect our own people’. It is not a good situation,” said Kadhim at the Interior Ministry.

Tensions are not limited to Sunnis and Shiites. Non-Arab Kurds, who came second to a Shiite alliance in the election, are also determined to consolidate their power. President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, wants a security role for the peshmerga, or Kurdish militia, to safeguard the Kurdish heartlands in the north. Yet he rules out civil war.

“The wisdom of the Sunni and Shiite leadership,” he told Al-Hayat newspaper yesterday, “prevents ... the possibility of the outbreak of civil war, and this is unlikely

I Love this!!!! (Josh is my pal & we organized the gay community all last year & worked for the progressive vote at "alternative" events. Alan is his dad & he helped us too! It was a "family affair")

From: ALAN
To: JOSH
Subject: RE: This Sunday - John Kerry Reception in Seattle

HULA BULA ON MY MIND................and frankly I'm not excited about Kerry.
If it was Spitzer or Obama that would be different!! DAD

Dad,

I think Kerry would have worked a lot better back in the day when "personality" and whether you could have a beer with the guy had less meaning than whether he would make an excellent president. I think you might be letting the media influence your thoughts here. Did you see how well he kicked Bush's a*s in the debates? Kerry was totally eloquent and knew exactly what he was talking about. I love the guy myself but would have loved seeing him as president even more!

Spitzer is looking pretty good for being the next governor of New York. Have you followed the polls if he were to go up against Pataki - he would squash the guy by double digits if the race happened today. Even the Republican polls are showing this!

I agree, I love Spitzer and Obama myself and I think they're the new blood in the Democratic Party that the Democrats need more than anything!

Josh

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/04/27/fla_agency_gets_teens_abortion_blocked/

Fla. agency gets teen's abortion blocked

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. -- The state's social services agency was granted a court order to block an abortion for a pregnant 13-year-old girl living in a state shelter, prompting an emergency appeal Wednesday by the American Civil Liberties Union........

Hey, everyone is invited on the blog and to the IRC tomorrow night for the Bush Press conference.

Should be a fun and interesting time!

We will be playing "Find the Hidden Frame" and "Spot the Lies" and the ever fun, "Which member of the media ISNT dead?".

Karen is in charge of the prizes, so I'm thinking hummus for all, hummus for all!!

Casey,

Can't we have Madame in charge of the prizes. She has great Belgium chocolate!

McClellan said the White House has asked U.S. television networks for time to broadcast the news conference. His last prime time news conference was last April. He has held 17 solo White House news conferences.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=8321491

That can't be right. NO WAY he has had 17 solo news conferences.

Feel free to run that to ground. That cannot be right. If someone runs it to ground, I will get it corrected and we can write about it on the blog.

ANNOUNCEMENT: There has been a change in staffing for tomorrow night's blog IRC chat and democracy quiz fun and games. Madame will now be in charge of all prizes, especially the chocolate ones from Belgium.

We now return to your regularly scheduled blogging. That is all.

Casey,

They're counting the times he holds hands with Saudi's or talks to his hand picked crowds. And gee...here in America if you're stupid enough to wear a pin or t'shirt that shows you actually support any other candidate then WHY should he let you into his little propaganda social security bamboozala tour.

This isn't AMERICA you know....land of the free...

Can somebody explain to me why the neoCON's would be pushing a "global economy" while saying how selfish the American "liberal" protectionists are against helping other third world countries work too?

While people in this country are working at poverty level, two jobs, without healthcare.

Posted by: Sparrow at April 27, 2005 10:01 PM

Sparrow,
To me the answer is one word: greed. Transinternational global corportations are driven by profits. So the best way for them to raise profits is to pay the least possible to their workers while charging as much as they possibly can for their products. As long as company can get a third world worker to work at nearly slave wages with absolutely no benefits, they will characterize people who expect humans to make a fair living as "protectionist liberals". My guess is that when these corporations have sucked dry the workers of these other countries, and our country's economy continues to further decline, they will look to desperate Americans who have been forced to abandon the Unions as "patriots" to save "our" country and their companies.

CHOCOLATE!!!!!!!!

Oncall,
So this is their way of union busting--even though most Americans are not part of a union and can barely make it?

Also, this person told me that the U.S. might not be economically well for 10 or more years but to help "the world" and improve the working environment for EVERYONE the globalization of the workforce is needed.

To me, it sounds like a "smear" to call us 'protectionists' (a frame) when instead, do we not vote for people to support THE CITIZENS of the U.S. and not vote to bring DOWN the citizens of the U.S. while exporting the jobs to India, China (etc) at less than minimum wage. Tell me, how does this help equalize the sweatshop workers in India and China?

Ethics Rule is Changed, Republicans expected to target Dems now

Ethic rule is changed. Expect Republicans to attack Democrats. (rawstory)
http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Fron...

By having a "gloabalization of the workforce" the multinationals are trying to further lower the standard of living and benefits for workers of the world, including Americans. Multinationals would love nothing more that to equalize ALL WORKERS at a sub standard level. I would ask the person you have been talking to, "Does this improvement also include fair wages, and a safe workplace?" I would assume (a very dangerous thing to do) that your friend is not speaking in those terms, but rather in terms of what is best for the multi-national ("the business of America is business").

When we vote for a better wage, benefits and a safe workplace for Americans, we are voting for global improvement for all working people. Of course, the multinationals claim they can't sustain their business by providing a living wage and benefits. It is important to note that it is not the Americans who are moving jobs overseas, it is the Governing Board of these companies. When one looks at this issue in terms of profits, there can be no doubt that it would be "better" for the multinationals to move jobs out of this country, but when one looks at it in terms of fairness to all involved, it can't be denied that our government has done little to help its own citizens.

As to the Union question, I would like to know how many non-unionized workers really don't want to be part of a union, but feel that they otherwise would not have a job if there were a union at their workplace? Many new jobs in this country were created by companies that refused to allow unions in the workplace. Yet, still many of those jobs have been exported. Most of those communites that wanted to have jobs at the new factories were forced to make the choice of jobs vs. union. I firmly believe that if we had a stronger union presence during our current economic situation, there would be less jobs moving out of this country. I know that seems illogical, but unionized workers could have "negotiated" a way to prevent jobs from leaving this country. Quite clearly the issues are ones of pure economics. When multinationals see an opportunity to make more from less they will exploit it.

Oncall,

As Randi Rhodes points out so accurately, "Labor unions are the PEOPLES' LOBBY"

And so they don't want the people to have a lobby in Washington, only the rich, corrupt corporations.

Posted by: Sparrow at April 27, 2005 11:45 PM

Of course they are going to smear the Democrats on this. They have the WaPo article to back them on lobbyists paying for travel for some Dems as well. To me I think the "ethics scandal" is just a handy excuse to avoid discussing issues that really matter to most Americans: the hidden tax with gasoline prices, the lack of affordable health care, the give away to the banks and credit card companies with the change in bankruptcy laws, our failure in Iraq (I haven't heard much about that lately), the raping of our enviroment, the "Fristiananization" of our government, and last but not least our completely invalid election system (now there's is a scandal).

Re was I surprised (about number of attacks)?
Not really. Reasons: embedded reporters, lack of coverage after height of air campaign, biased media, media blackout at home, political agenda, better coverage by foreign press (if you can find it) and most of all, thanks to Vets for Peace Yahoo group. My friend & colleague of 25 years (& Vietnam Vet) runs it & searches everywhere for the real facts. We have been antiwar & antinuclear activists since we can remember. Nothing surprises us.

The truth is still not told about Vietnam. I did hear some of it this morning on NPR, from a report by a guy who escaped by boat in 1980. After the Americans left (2 million dead, it's said) there was famine and ultimately 2 simultaneous wars - against the Chinese in the North and the Khmer Rouge in the south. By then, Americans didn't want to hear about Vietnam. I think it's already that way with Iraq.

He just sent this:

Anti War Activist Crucifies Self in NYC. No kidding. His crown is made of dollars.

http://www.nyc.indymedia.org/feature/display/149038

Did anyone make it to the federal building and court house protests (against the filibuster) today? I was unable because I had to be a "guide" for a tour of something at work so just curious. Also, Jane Fonda had a book signing here today. In the south she was spit on but here it just said "Fonda's book quickly rises to top of bestsellers." I also missed Camille Paglia & Noam Chomsky - sold out right away.
But this weekend Patti F is ferrying over for both the John Kerry events & will stay with us in the John Kerry room.

Another fun fact:

Global terror attacks triple in 2004

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1114568598413

"Are We Safer Yet?" (written on a shop window in duct tape)

Wow - catching up on my work-imposed media blackout:

Salazar calls Focus on the Family the AntiChrist!
Wow - is Colorado polarized?!!

Gallup: 50% of Americans Now Say Bush Deliberately Misled Them on WMD

NEW YORK Half of all Americans, exactly 50%, now say the Bush administration deliberately misled Americans about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the Gallup Organization reported this morning.

"This is the highest percentage that Gallup has found on this measure since the question was first asked in late May 2003," the pollsters observed. "At that time, 31% said the administration deliberately misled Americans. This sentiment has gradually increased over time, to 39% in July 2003, 43% in January/February 2004, and 47% in October 2004."

Also, according to the latest poll, more than half of Americans, 54%, disapprove of the way President Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, while 43% approve. In early February, Americans were more evenly divided on the way Bush was handling the situation in Iraq, with 50% approving and 48% disapproving.

Last week Gallup reported that 53% now believe that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was "not worth it." But Frank Newport, editor in chief at Gallup, recalled today that although a majority of the public began to think the Vietnam war was a mistake in the summer of 1968, the United States did not pull out of Vietnam for more than five years, after thousands of more American lives were lost.

E&P Staff (letters@editorandpublisher.com)

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000894970

This is the link to the post above.

I haven't read the rest of the comments yet...but, based on my reading of the NYTimes every day I would put the daily attacks at around one. And when that one attack happened it was totally unusual and unexpected. That the attacks are over 20 a day is totally unbelievable, let alone 60.

DiAnne, that NPR program this am was a real eye opener for me; I missed the Vietnam era, or rather, I watched it from across the border.

Saw a great bumper sticker in Canada last weekend: "Unions protect us from what Corporate Greed can do to us." Something like that. It went from one end of the bumper to the other.

Lou Dobbs explains in his book "Outsourcing America" what the corporations are doing and why. It's a must read. Of course they want lower labor and overhead expenses - ie, no environmental/safety/employement standards. They also want new markets, and the markets aren't here, they're in SE Asia. The market can't consume without money. Why do they want new markets? Cause shareholders expect their stock to go up forever, and there's only one way to do that. Either prices go up, or new markets are added. Something like that. I read it a while ago.

Other than the most recent admission of up to 60 attacks per day, the largest number I heard was ten per day. I wonder what the gallup poll results (posted above) would be if most of those polled knew the reality of the situation?

Bush Calls for More Nuclear Plants… Kerry says Cut the Pork and Go Back to the Drawing Board
27 April 2005

As President Bush called for the construction of more nuclear plants today and touted the use of technology to ease America’s energy woes, John Kerry issued the a statement telling Bush to cut the pork-ladden energy bill and go back to the drawing board.

Senator John Kerry made the following statement today on gas prices and the president's energy plan:

"If President Bush were serious about our energy crisis, he would tell the Republican Congress to scrap his pork-laden energy plan, go back to the drawing board, and finally reduce America's dependence on foreign oil and get our energy prices under control once and for all. It's clear we need to diversify our energy sources so we don't have to go hat-in-hand to the Saudis again and again, but the Republican plan won't help the families, truckers, farmers and small businesses suffering from skyrocketing gas prices today."

The best Bush could offer today in the way of an answer for rising gas prices was a song and dance lament that he could not fix it (reminding us all of his “its hard work” lament)… “I wish I could,” he said, “If I could, I would.”

MORE - http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=792

J Brady, good to see you here.

It is hard to believe that not only are our soldiers fighting 50-60 planned attacks every day, but they are doing it while being severely understaffed.

Bush is the Boy that Cried Wolf and we're paying for it.

[**alert**
bu$h approval ratings sinking....]

Scare Sends Bush Underground

WASHINGTON, April 27, 2005

(AP) President Bush was rushed from the Oval Office to an underground shelter and Vice President Dick Cheney was taken to a secure location Wednesday on fears that an unidentified aircraft had entered restricted space near the White House. Officials said it was a false alarm.

The brief scare lasted only a few minutes before officials determined there was no threat, White House counselor Dan Bartlett said.

Some White House staff members were moved out of the West Wing and tourists were rushed from the East Wing and sent to the far side of a park across the street from the compound. Gun-toting Secret Service uniformed officers took up positions around the White House compound.

"There was an indication that an aircraft has entered the no-fly zone," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. "There's an investigation to determine what it really was."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/27/national/main691298.shtml

Posted by: Casey Morris at April 27, 2005 11:00 PM

OK then...stocking up on Belgian chocolate and other prizes....

I think I'm going to like this game; for every correct answer, I get to "virtually" pass out chocolate on the IRC and then I might have to eat a piece or two... So study up, kids!

from David Corn:

A Mess in Iraq....
snip~
Today on NPR's Diane Rehm Show, Colonel Thomas Hammes, who is retiring from the USMC and the author of The Sling and the Stone: On War in the 21st Century, noted that the average modern-day insurgency lasts 10 to 15 years and that the longer insurgencies exist for about three decades. Now, when did anyone in the Bush administration mention that fact to the American public or note what that means for the United States in terms of the lives and money that are to be expended in Iraq? Answer: never. And it's not that the current predicament was unpredicted. Before the war, I asked a Navy admiral how long US troops would have to remain in Iraq. He said, "Two words: South Korea."

So what's the 10- 15- or 30-year plan that Bush has for the United States in Iraq? I don't know what's worse: whether he has one or whether he does not.

http://tinyurl.com/88a7f

Today's Five Minutes A Day is on voting reform, but let's not turn our backs on the other assaults: John Bolton continues to rear his ugly head, Tom DeLay marches on, and Margaret Spellings, the "Soccer Mom" Education Secretary calls Connecticut educators who want to reform NCLB, "Un-American".

Let's get going, peeps. Meet ya back here at 8 pm tonight for Madame's chocolate...

Good morning DCPers---

It's going to be a busy day. Democracy never rests! I was so happy to see Indy's choo choo. Brings back that feeling of being on the move.

Getting moving today, five minutes for democracy, and the choices on how to spend that five minutes are myriad.

Call your senators about the filibister.
Call them about abusive Bolton.
Pass the word on insurgent attacks.
Write an LTE about the energy policy and high gas prices.
Call congress about DeLay. (and his buddy Big Jack)

Then come back and tell everyone what you did today.

I'm calling Arlen Specter's office again today.

Also--we are having a meet the candidates evening here this evening, so I will be late to the IRC, but save me some chocolate. I really do know some of the right answers, and even if I'm not here with my finger on the buzzer, don't I deserve my goodies anyhow??

Here's some very good info about social security and how to talk to conservatives about it. You can print this document out and take it with you everywhere you go...quite handy to pass out to people! It's full of good links to facts and actual statements by this regime.

And it will help you for tonight's press conference...

http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=206

How to Talk to a Conservative About Social Security (If You Must)

The White House and their deep-pocketed allies have launched a $35 million public relations effort to spread misinformation about President Bush’s Social Security Privatization scheme. This fact sheet will arm you with all the facts you’ll need to take them on.

FISCAL OUTLOOK

CLAIM: “By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt.” [President Bush, 2/2/05]

FACT: In 2042, enough new money will be coming in to pay between 73-80 percent of promised benefits. Even with this reduction, new retirees will still receive more money, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than today’s beneficiaries. [WP, 2/5/05]

CLAIM: “In the year 2018, for the first time ever, Social Security will pay out more in benefits than the government collects in payroll taxes.” [President Bush, 12/11/04]

FACT: “In 14 of the past 47 years, including 1975 to 1983, Social Security paid out more in benefits than the government collected in payroll.” [MSNBC, 1/14/05]

FACT: Under Bush’s plan, expenditures will begin to exceed revenues even earlier, in 2012. [New York Times, 2/4/05]

CLAIM: “Under the current system, today’s 30-year old worker will face a 27% benefit cut when he or she reaches normal retirement age.” [GOP Guide to Social Security Reform, 1/27/05]

FACT: According to the Congressional Budget Office, younger workers would receive better benefits from Social Security as it exists now, even if nothing changes, than from President Bush’s private accounts plan. [EPI, 2/05]

THE PRESIDENT’S PLAN / PRIVATE ACCOUNTS

CLAIM: “As we fix Social Security, we also have the responsibility to make the system a better deal for younger workers. And the best way to reach that goal is through voluntary personal retirement accounts.” [President Bush, 2/2/05]

FACT: Analysis of the plan so far does not prove the accounts would be a better deal for anyone not working on Wall Street. Workers who opt for the private accounts would recover forfeited benefits through their accounts only “if their investments realized a return equal to or greater than the 3 percent earned by Treasury bonds currently held by the Social Security system.” But CBO factors out stock market risks to assume a 3.3 percent rate of return. With 0.3 percent subtracted for expected administrative costs on the account, “the full amount in a worker’s account would be reduced dollar for dollar from his Social Security checks, for a net gain of zero.” [WP, 2/4/05]

CLAIM: “You’ll be able to pass along the money that accumulates in your personal account, if you wish, to your children or grandchildren.” [President Bush, 2/2/05]

FACT: Most lower-income workers will be required to purchase government lifetime annuities, financial instruments that provide a guaranteed monthly payment for life but that expire at death. Money in these annuities cannot be passed on to heirs. [NYT, 2/3/05]

CLAIM: “We must pass reforms that solve the financial problems of Social Security once and for all.” [President Bush, 2/2/05]

FACT: “A Bush aide, briefing reporters on the condition of anonymity [said] that the individual accounts would do nothing to solve the system’s long-term financial problems.” The long-term gap in revenue would “have to be closed through benefit cuts that have yet to be detailed.” [LAT, 2/3/05; WP, 2/5/05]

CLAIM: “A personal account would be your account, you would own it, and the government could never take it away.” [President Bush, 2/8/05]

FACT: Bush’s Social Security plan is a far cry from the private ownership he’s touting, however. For example, instead of private plans that let Americans control their own investments, there are tight restrictions on which conservative stocks and bonds the public will be allowed to buy. And, as the New York Times reports, “the more restrictions there are, the harder it would be for people to achieve the outsized returns the administration has generally promoted to sell the public on private accounts.” [NYT, 2/6/05]

CLAIM: “Best of all, the [private] accounts would be replacing the empty promises of government with the real assets of ownership.” [President Bush, 2/8/05]

FACT: Social Security trust funds “hold nothing but U.S. Treasury securities,” recognized as “the safest, most reliable investment worldwide.” [Century Foundation, 1/26/05]

CLAIM: “The problem that we now face is not one that we can tax our way out of, for a very simple reason: The costs and the current program are growing faster than the underlying tax base. So if we were to raise taxes today to deal with it, and the costs of the program continued to grow faster than the tax base, then in the future, future generations would simply have to come back and raise taxes again.” [Senior White House Official, Press Conference, 2/3/05]

FACT: An alternative proposal by Peter Diamond and Peter Orszag would resolve Social Security’s funding problems directly and permanently through modest tax increases. The Congressional Budget Office states that, “under Diamond-Orszag, the trust fund balance would always be positive and scheduled benefits would be fully financed.” [CBO, 12/22/04]

HISTORY

CLAIM: “Social Security was a great moral success of the 20th century, and we must honor its great purposes in this new century.” [President Bush, 2/2/05]

FACT: Conservatives have been trying to gut Social Security since its inception. Both Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan endorsed privatization in 1964. In 1983, the Cato Institute laid out a privatization plan similar to President Bush’s, stating, “We will meet the next financial crisis in Social Security with a private alternative ready in the wings.” [Miami Herald, 2/7/05]

RHETORIC

CLAIM: “I think it’s important for people to be open about the truth when it comes to Social Security.” [President Bush, 2/4/05]

FACT: The Bush administration has lobbied hard for privatization while being notably closemouthed about the details. [WP, 2/6/05]

FACT: The Wall Street Journal reports the White House is quietly assembling a coalition of deep-pocketed allies “that will privately raise $35 million for an advertising and lobbying effort to push the politically risky measure through Congress.” [WSJ, 2/4/05]

CLAIM: “The role of a President is to confront problems – not to pass them on to a future President, future Congress, or a future generation.” [President Bush, 2/4/05]

FACT: Dick Cheney admits trillions of dollars in future borrowing will be necessary to cover the cost of establishing private accounts. This deficit would have to be repaid by today’s younger workers. [NYT, 2/6/05]

Business Week (Online) has a really good commentary on some of the things to be discussed at tonight's press conference about our current energy crisis, how Kerry was right to make this an issue during the debates, and how this administration is once again "all hat, no cattle"... This is really a must-read article!

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/apr2005/nf20050428_9012_db045.htm

Bush Is Blowing Smoke on Energy
Hitting all the points in a noted GOP pollster's playbook, the President's plan is driven by politics not policy. Worse, it won't cut oil dependency

On Apr. 27, President Bush made an impassioned plea for an energy plan that would wean the U.S. from imported fuels. "Our dependence on foreign energy is like a foreign tax on the American people," he declared in a speech to a gathering of small-business owners and entrepreneurs in Washington.

--snip--
Powerful sentiments, indeed. But the words are largely hollow. Sadly, the plan Bush proposed would do little to increase existing supplies of oil, gas, or electricity, or decrease domestic demand for energy -- the two steps that would really make a difference. Charges Frank O'Donnell, head of Clean Air Watch, a Washington-based environmental group: "The new Presidential energy plan seems mainly to be a public-relations stunt aimed at trying to reverse some of the latest polls, which show a growing public discontent with high gas prices -- and the President."

--snip--
FOLLOWING A SCRIPT? Want to take a real step to prevent gasoline shortages and keep a lid on energy prices? Easing regulations on refineries may sound good. But the Administration could make things truly easier for refineries by requiring that the nation use just one blend of fuel, instead of the current dozens that various states require. Of course, that wouldn't be a hit in many of the red states, which currently don't use the cleanest-burning fuels. It would be a bold step that would make a real difference, however.

Want to increase supplies of oil and gas? Instead of drilling in the ANWR or adding a few LNG ports, Bush could open up areas like the Gulf coast of Florida or the Rocky Mountains, which has a 60-year supply of natural gas, to exploration and drilling. But that wouldn't be popular in Florida, where his brother Jeb is governor, or in some of the Western states that are strong Bush country.

The President's failure to propose any meaningful solutions, while claiming to "do the right thing for America" makes it hard not to conclude that the Administration's main goal is not energy independence, but rather improving its standing the polls. Indeed, what's most striking about Bush's Apr. 27 speech is how closely it follows the script written by Luntz earlier this year. A few examples:

- The pollster recommended emphasizing that the nation's energy problem "has been years in the making, and it will take years to solve." On Apr. 27, Bush said: "This problem did not develop overnight, and it's not going to be fixed overnight."

- Luntz wrote that in advocating drilling in the ANWR, the Administration should say that "using modern techniques, only a very small area will actually be impacted by the development." In his speech, Bush echoed that, saying: "Because of the advances in technology, we can reach the oil deposits with almost no impact on land or local wildlife."

- The pollster stressed that Republicans should have a positive message, appealing "to American ideals of invention and innovation" and tapping "into feelings of American exceptionalism and ingenuity to seal the deal with the swing voters." Any surprise, then, that Bush emphasized in his address that "technology has radically changed the way we live and work"? He added: "Our country is on the doorstep of incredible technological advances that will make energy more abundant and more affordable for our citizens."

Stirring words. Americans can only hope the President is right. But the goals of energy efficiency and independence won't be spurred by anything this Administration is currently proposing.

Well, there goes his base:

Rich folks feel less secure

Survey: Most affluent believe there's a real estate bubble; sharp drop in those seeing stock gains.

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - A survey finds affluent Americans growing more concerned about the state of the economy.

There has been a sharp drop among those surveyed who expect further gains for the S&P 500, and a majority now believe there is a bubble in housing prices. A growing concern about the federal budget deficit now has a strong majority preferring deficit reduction to further tax cuts.

The quarterly survey also found the economy was cited as being on par with terrorism as a national concern for the first time in six quarters.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/04/25/news/economy/affluent_views/index.htm