Week of: |
4:24 PM
Daschle up against it
Senate minority leader Tom Daschle and challenger John Thune have already completed three debates and have another three scheduled, in a close race that's drawn nationwide attention.
Republicans have specifically targeted Daschle all campaign season, with Bill Frist taking the unusual step of campaigning against his Democratic counterpart, and GOP efforts to use Daschle's vote against the Federal Marriage Amendment as a weapon against him.
The Daschle/Thune contest has been so closely watched, as UPI reports, that little of the money raised by the candidates has come from their own constituents:
"An analysis of Federal Election Commission data by the Sioux Falls Argus Leader and Gannett News Service shows that only 13 percent of the large individual contributions received by Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who is seeking his fourth term, and GOP challenger John Thune have come from their own constituents. Daschle has raised $7 million in large contributions, and Thune has collected $3.7 million. Overall, Daschle has raised nearly twice as much money to support his re-election bid, at $11.7 million, compared to Thune's $6.1 million."
The race between the prominent Democrat and former Rep. Thune (who lost a Senate race in 2002) is so close that according to Native Times, Daschle has worked hard to appeal to American Indian voters. While that voting block overwhelmingly backed him in the past, some are rightfully angry at Daschle for authoring the Mitigation Act, which transferred Sioux land to the federal government. As a result, the senator has spent more time reaching out to one of his overlooked constituencies:
"This election will have a tremendous impact on everyone in Indian Country," Daschle said. "As a leader in the Senate, I've worked to ensure issues important to Native Americans are on the national agenda, and in the next six years, I'll continue to do everything I can to improve the quality of life for all Native people."
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
4:10 PM
Terror financing runs wild
There must be some reason why the U.S. is only now moving to freeze assets of the militant group led by Abu Musab Zarqawi, isn't there? Isn't this something that should have been done a long time back?
In other news, Douglas Farah reports that Treasury Secretary John Snow has refused $25 million that Congress had appropriated for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), which tracks down terrorist financing. Again, there must be some great excuse for all this, right? The Bush campaign has taken to mocking John Kerry's recent interview with the New York Times Magazine, in which Kerry noted that we should be spending more time on traditional law-enforcement techniques to combat terrorist groups. How laughable is that now?
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
2:04 PM
The budget v. reality
Anyone who listened to Treasury Secretary John W. Snow yesterday would probably think that America's deficit problems are starting to get better:
With the economy performing better, the deficit is lower than originally forecast in the Mid-Session review and the President's FY 2005 Budget. The combination of a growing economy bringing in increased revenues, along with tight controls on spending, will enable us to reach the President's goal of cutting the budget deficit in half in five years, bringing it to a level that will be low by historical standards at less than 2 percent of GDP.
The only problem is that no one cares if the deficit is lower than the administration forecasted. They care if the deficit is actually decreasing! But it's not: at $413 billion, the deficit is getting larger and larger. It's the first time since World War II that the deficit has grown four years in a row. It's the first time since the Great Depression that the deficit has continued to pile up this far into an economic recovery. So frankly, the fact that Treasury had earlier thought the deficit would be much, much worse isn't all that reassuring.
Meanwhile, Snow claims that the president is putting "tight controls on spending." In the last few debates, Bush repeated something similar, that he had ratcheted the rate of non-defense spending increases down to about 1 percent. Kash at the Angry Bear site puts this into perspective. It's true that under Bush, budgetary authority for spending will only increase about 1 percent between 2004 and 2005. But actual budget outlays, which is, um, the only type of spending that really matters, has continued to increase at a far more rapid rate. Where is all this money going, you ask? Good question.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
12:41 PM
Ready for election day? The Justice Department isn't.
As previously noted on this site, a number of states aren't ready for Election Day. And according to the nonpartisan GAO, neither is the Justice Department.
According to the Washington Post, experts predict a close presidential race will lead to many complaints filed with the DOJ's voting-rights department. And the GAO doesn't feel the department has a plan to document and track allegations in order to prevent disfranchisement:
"'The reason it's so important to collect this information is to look for patterns in a particular county or in a particular polling place,' said William O. Jenkins Jr., who prepared the report at the request of three Democratic lawmakers. 'For instance, is it only Democrats or Republicans that seem to be having this problem? Were different voters told different things?'"
The report also found flaws with DOJ procedures in the 2000 election, where contractors were used to handle call-in complaints, and complaints in four states were never logged.
In response, a DOJ spokesperson said the department has taken some steps to fix the problem since the GAO completed its research. It plans to deploy about 1,700 civil rights monitors, but that number seems hardly sufficient considering the number of polling places nationwide will likely top 200,000.
So this is just another sign that if the election is as close as the last one, there's no assurance the outcome will be determined by fair voting systems.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
11:26 AM
Seventeen U.S. soldiers arrested by Army
A seventeen-member Army reserve platoon deployed in Iraq is under arrest for refusing what some are calling a "suicide mission" to deliver fuel to Taji, Iraq -- north of Baghdad -- because they deemed their vehicles "deadlined" or perilously unprotected. The platoon is normally escorted by armed Humvees and helicopters, but did not have that protection for the mission to take place on Wednesday. Lt. Col Steven A. Boylan, a spokesman for U.S. Army and multinational forces in Iraq, reluctantly confirmed that the incident is under investigation but failed to elaborate on any details:
"The commanding general of the 13th Corps Support Command has appointed the Deputy Commander to lead an investigation into allegations that members of the 343rd Quartermaster Company refused to participate in their assigned convoy mission October 13. The investigating team is currently in Tallil taking statements and interviewing those involved. This is an isolated incident and it is far too early in the investigation to speculate as to what happened, why it happened or any action that might be taken."
But the families of the soldiers in the platoon -- a unit with rankings up to sergeant first class -- are telling a different story from phone calls received in the past twenty-four hours. Jackie Bulter of Jackson, Mississippi told the local Clarion-Ledger that her husband, Sgt. Michael Bulter, a twenty-four year reservist, is not one to defy orders:
"I got a call from an officer in another unit early (Thursday) morning who told me that my husband and his platoon had been arrested on a bogus charge because they refused to go on a suicide mission. When my husband refuses to follow an order, it has to be something major."
Amber McClenny, among those detained, pleaded for help in a message left on her mother's answering machine early Thursday morning:
"They are holding us against our will. We are now prisoners."
This story has so far received scant attention from the mainstream press and its unfolding will serve as a test of how forthright the Bush administration will be with the nation as the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate. Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat from Mississippi, said he plans to submit a congressional inquiry today on behalf of the Mississippi soldiers:
"I would not want any member of the military to be put in a dangerous situation ill-equipped. I have had similar complaints from military families about vehicles that weren't armor-plated, or bullet-proof vests that are outdated. It concerns me because we made over $150 billion in funds available to equip our forces in Iraq. President Bush takes the position that the troops are well-armed, but if this situation is true, it calls into question how honest he has been with the country."
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
11:08 AM
Why are we running air strikes over Falluja?
Over at the New Republic, Spencer Ackerman notes that the recent air strikes on Fallujah, aimed at killing Abu Musab Zarqawi and other foreign fighters, are almost certain to cause civilian casualties.
That's no doubt true, though I should add that a few paragraphs buried at the end of this old New York Times story might add a bit of crucial context:
Senior administration, Pentagon and military officials said the air campaign was in part intended to present a stark choice to the people of Falluja, especially those who may be supporting Iraqi insurgents or the foreign fighters' network.
"If there are civilians dying in connection with these attacks, and with the destruction, the locals at some point have to make a decision," one Pentagon official said. "Do they want to harbor the insurgents and suffer the consequences that come with that, or do they want to get rid of the insurgents and have the benefits of not having them there?"
Destroying the village to save it, etc. Note that there are two possibilities here. One is that the air campaign "works", that nationalist Fallujan insurgents get tired of all the civilian casualties and decide to expel Zarqawi. That would be a huge PR coup for the U.S. military (and, let's face it, the Bush campaign), but it probably wouldn't do much to quell the insurgency in Iraq. The other possibility, of course, is that the Pentagon plan fails, and that all those dead civilians end up further enraging a large number of Iraqis. Take your pick.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
10:46 AM
Disrespected in the world
A new poll released Friday shows what John Kerry has been saying all along -- he's the preferred candidate for a number of U.S. allies.
Eleven newspapers in 10 nations -- Canada, France, Britain, Spain, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Mexico, Israel and Russia -- conducted coordinated polls and the results show citizens not terribly pleased with George Bush.
Respondents in nine countries (excluding Russia) were asked whether their opinion of the U.S. has improved or worsened since Sept. 11, with 57 percent taking the latter view. Only 20 percent say their view has improved. And of those nine countries, only in Israel did respondents overall have a better view of the U.S.
Most disturbingly, 42 percent of respondents in these ten generally pro-U.S. nations responded no when asked if American democracy remains a model for other nations.
On the choice of Bush versus Kerry, the Democrat is more popular in France (72 percent to 16), South Korea (68-18), Canada (60-20), Spain (58-13), Australia (54-28) and Britain (50-22). Only in Israel and Russia did respondents choose Bush, and in Russia it was only a four-point difference.
Kerry drew some criticism for saying unnamed foreign leaders want him to win, but this poll reinforces the sense that overseas allies prefer him in the White House. By overwhelming majorities, he seems more likely than Bush to, as he says, make the U.S. "respected again in the world."
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
5:38 PM
No dice for Nader
Ralph Nader's campaign took a serious blow Wednesday, when a Pennsylvania judge removed him from that state's ballot. While the campaign submitted about 51,000 signatures -- twice the number required -- less than 19,000 were ruled legitimate, according to Judge James Gardner Colin. Some signers reportedly listed themselves as fictional characters like Mickey Mouse and Fred Flintstone.
After the Pennsylvania decision, Nader is on the ballot in 12 of the 16 states considered battlegrounds by the Wall Street Journal and the Zogby poll. He will not be listed in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri or Oregon (where he drew 5 percent in 2000). As of now, he's on the ballot in Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin -- plus potential battlegrounds New Jersey and Colorado.
The third-party candidate with the most ballot access, however, remains Libertarian Michael Badnarik, with his name on 48 states' ballots. Polls show him drawing his largest support in Nevada and New Mexico, two swing states where he presumably appeals to small-government voters wary of Bush.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
4:42 PM
Making the most of Mary Cheney-gate
John Kerry's debate mention of Mary Cheney has created a heated quarrel, and the rhetoric is quickly spinning toward absurdity. A sensitive and important discussion of sexuality is being used by Republicans to paint Kerry as insensitive and inappropriate.
First, Lynne Cheney overreacted to the comment in last night's debate and morally condemned Kerry for not being "good":
"The only thing I could conclude is that this is not a good man. This is not a good man. And, of course, I'm speaking as a mom. And a pretty indignant one. This is not a good man. What a cheap and tawdry political trick."
Yet this had nothing to do with political trickery. As Human Rights Campaign President Cheryl Jacques noted earlier today in an official rebuke of Vice President and Lynne Cheney for their reaction to Kerry:
"President Bush missed one more chance to denounce discrimination last night so it is bewildering that Lynne Cheney instead attacked Senator Kerry. Senator Kerry made clear that gay Americans should have the same basic rights, responsibilities and protections as every other American."
Another interesting development pits the battle between potential "Second Ladies," with Elizabeth Edwards jumping in the fray and expressing dismay at the Cheney & Cheney rants in the press:
"It makes me really sad that that's Lynne's response. I think that it indicates a certain degree of shame with respect to her daughter's sexual preferences that I'm certain makes her daughter uncomfortable. That makes me very sad on a personal level."
It was left to Andrew Sullivan to make the obvious and clear -headed counter to the conservative media blitz against Kerry:
"All Kerry did was invoke the veep's daughter to point out that obviously homosexuality isn't a choice, in any meaningful sense. The only way you can believe that citing Mary Cheney amounts to "victimization" is if you believe someone's sexual orientation is something shameful. Well, it isn't. What's revealing is that this truly does expose the homophobia of so many - even in the mildest "we'll-tolerate-you-but-shut-up-and-don't-complain" form."
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
2:29 PM
Chaotic elections could be the least of Iraq's problems
Hamza Hendawi of the AP reports that Iraqi elections could be postponed, according to interim prime minister Iyad Allawi and interim president Ghazi al-Yawer. Both leaders are rightly worried that the Sunni province may not be secure enough for Iraqis to vote there. They might also need to start worrying that, according to the AP, Muqtada Sadr's al-Mehdi militia is not disbanding as promised. The Mehdi forces are strongest in Sadr city, an East Baghdad slum where over 10 percent of the population of Iraq lives. If he wanted to, Sadr could derail elections far more effectively than the Sunni insurgents could.
It's also worth noting, however, that holding secure elections is probably the least of Iraq's problems right now. The other day I spoke with Marina Ottaway, a democracy expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. She pointed out that transitional elections in developing countries have always been chaotic -- South Africa's 1994 elections, for instance, were terribly disarrayed -- and that in itself isn't always the end of the world. The key issue is whether the major political players have had a chance to work out some sort of power-sharing agreement before elections actually take place. That happened in Afghanistan -- long before the recent elections, Hamid Karzai had time to negotiate with the major warlords, and you had the loya jirgas to facilitate some sort of nationwide political discussion.
But that sort of process certainly has not happened in Iraq. The Iraqi Governing Council, the interim government, and the Iraqi National Council have all been largely composed of exile groups without a major popular backing. The Iraqi parliament that will come to power in January, on the other hand, will probably include some non-trivial number of Islamic fundamentalists, Shiite radicals, Sunni tribal leaders, and Kurdish separatists. These groups have thus far been marginalized in the political process, they have had no experience working with or compromising with each other, and yet they're all somehow supposed to agree on a constitution. It's a recipe for disaster, and possibly civil war, and as far as I know, the U.S. has no real plan at all to deal with that possibility.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
12:15 PM
Ohio's governor comes out against a gay marriage amendment
As mentioned on this site last week, both of Ohio's conservative, Catholic, Republican senators decided to vote against a ballot initiative banning gay marriage. Yesterday, GOP governor Bob Taft followed their lead.
Taft, part of Ohio's most powerful political family and a man who opposes gay marriage in principle, questioned the language of the proposed law:
"It is an ambiguous invitation to litigation that will result in unintended consequences for senior citizens and for any two persons who share living accommodations. There will be as many interpretations of the words, 'Intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage,' as there are judges in the state of Ohio."
Like Senators DeWine and Voinovich, and the state's Republican attorney general, Taft said the measure would hurt Ohio's economy by making it harder to recruit and retain workers. Predictably, supporters of the marriage ban claim these voices of opposition won't prevent passage, but the dissent from such prominent Republicans certainly highlights the measures flaws.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
11:43 AM
Dealing with unemployment
Atrios has exactly the right take on the debate last night. Bush's answer to the outsourcing question -- saying that education and tax cuts should somehow come as a relief to someone who has lost their jobs overseas -- was completely tone deaf. From a practical standpoint, training and adjustment policies are the only reasonable solutions to dealing with outsourcing and the inevitable worker turnover, but that's not something that will resonate with voters.
That said, it's also worth noting that, in many respects, the Bush administration hasn't even taken the right practical steps to deal with employment turnover. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has just put out a new study noting that nearly three million workers have gone without unemployment benefits since December 2003. Last year the Republican Congress declined to extend unemployment benefits that were scheduled to expire, and workers have suffered as a result. So this isn't a case where the president is doing the economically smart, albeit unpopular, thing. His administration really has turned its back on dislocated workers, and Bush's answer perfectly reflected that reality.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
8:45 AM
Congress, the courts, and the images of our war dead
Last week, two days after a University of Delaware journalism professor filed a lawsuit demanding the release of all images taken during casket ceremonies at Dover Air Force Base since Oct. 2001, Congress went on record as deeming the current ban on media coverage at Dover consistent with the Constitution.
As we know, the stated argument for a ban runs like this: releasing photos of flag-draped caskets is an affront to the privacy of the fallen soldiers’ families. (Skeptics among us might point to a further motivation: the administration's desire to control images -- and therefore perceptions -- of the war in Iraq.)
And yet, when four American contractors were kidnapped, burned and mutilated in Fallujah in March, though there was debate over whether news organizations should show the images, the discussion was driven mostly by the public and the news organizations -- not Capitol Hill. And the privacy of the families wasn’t the main issue. Nor was the First Amendment. Rather, it was the gruesome nature of the photos.
So what gives? In a word: politics. When it’s in its political interest to have the American people to see images of the American dead -- as in this case, where they serve to back Bush's assertion that the fight in Iraq is between good and evil -- the Republican administration allows it. When showing such images could stifle rather than bolster the war cry, no dice.
By including a statement in the recently adopted Ronald Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 justifying the media ban at Dover, Congress is indirectly meddling in a federal court case on the issue. It’s sending a message to the very branch of government that’s supposed to keep the legislature in check: Don’t step on our toes. Let’s just hope the judiciary isn’t pressured into toeing the administration line on this.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
4:17 PM
Germans for Kerry (?)
John Kerry's proposal for convening an international conference on Iraq received a significant vote of confidence from Germany, one of the main opponents of the war in Iraq. German defense minister, Peter Struck, yesterday indicated in an interview with the Financial Times that Germany would attend such a conference and could be amenable to send to increasing its involvement in Iraq:
"This is a very sensible proposal. The situation in Iraq can only be cleared up when all those involved sit together at one table. Germany has taken on responsibilities in Iraq, including financial ones; this would naturally justify our involvement in such a conference."
Time, and the election, will tell if German involvement increases or decreases with a Kerry administration. But, as Struck reminds us, the only sure thing is that President Bush's chances of bringing the Germans on board are remote at best:
"At present I rule out the deployment of German troops in Iraq. In general, however, there is no one who can predict developments in Iraq in such a way that he could make a such a binding statement [about the future]."
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
2:22 PM
In Wisconsin, it's not necessarily one person, one vote (or even one ballot)
Add Wisconsin to the list of battleground states where partisan politics threaten a fair outcome on Election Day. As the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reports, Milwaukee might find itself without enough ballots on Nov. 2 because a Republican county executive is refusing to supply them.
Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett has requested an additional 260,000 ballots from the county, citing the expected high turnout for this election. But county executive Scott Walker -- co-chair of the Bush campaign in Wisconsin -- won't provide said ballots. Walker says he's worried about voter fraud and that census data doesn't demonstrate a need for more ballots. But the nationally demonstrated high interest in this vote prompted Barrett's request, and he sees the denial as an attempt to suppress vote totals in the heavily Democratic city:
"I think there is obviously a political agenda here. We're talking about the people's right to vote. I will do everything I can to make sure there isn't voter fraud. But I'll also do everything I can to be sure there is no voter suppression. ..."I'm going to lay this at the footsteps of the county if there aren't enough ballots in the city."
Clearly, Barrett has the high ground here. If he overestimated the number of ballots needed, there's no harm in having leftovers. But if voters are turned away and denied their franchise because of a ballot shortage, that's an affront to the democratic process.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
12:57 PM
Peace in Falluja?
According to Karl Vick in the Washington Post, the insurgent alliance in Fallujah is fraying, as the local insurgents are reportedly getting ready to expel some of the foreign fighters in the city, especially the ever-infamous Abu Musab Zarqawi. That's certainly good news, and augurs well for the ongoing ceasefire negotiations that the interim government is conducting with local insurgents in Fallujah. (Zarqawi's group, One God and Jihad, had voted against the ceasefire.)
The Post story, however, gives the impression that Zarqawi and his gang are responsible for all that ails the city, setting off bombs left and right and imposing their stringent Salafist brand of Islam on the city. One local insurgent says of the Arab Salafis: "They are the crux of our ailment. Most of them are Saudis, Syrians, and North Africans." But this is plainly not true. Fallujah is home to scores of young Salafi clerics who command large crowds on Friday nights. Zarqawi's is hardly the only brand of militant Islamic fundamentalism in town. Nor does the insurgency rely on foreign support. The Sunni Albuaisa tribe, which runs some 50,000 strong, has sent hundreds if not thousands of fighters against the U.S. These insurgents have expelled foreign jihadis from Fallujah before, and would likely have no problem doing so again.
Note that this local insurgency will become far more important in the run-up to the January elections. Already, as Knight Ridder reports today, many Sunnis are suggesting that the vote will be illegitimate. The region still doesn't have adequate political representation -- the largest Sunni political group, the Association of Muslim Scholars, is boycotting the election -- and militants are afraid that elections will bring in a government dominated by Shiites. If that happens, and the new government proves hostile to Sunnis, then the insurgents in Fallujah certainly won't need Zarqawi to convince them to fight.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
12:21 PM
Blasting Bush's record on civil rights
Speaking of flaws in Bush's track record, there's a new and unflattering report from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. While it's standard practice for a report to go online once commission staff finishes writing it (and before the commissioners vote on it) the timing of this one -- considering its negative view of Bush's civil-rights record -- has drawn the ire of Republicans on the commission who consider the release political.
The 181-page report looks at the administration's progress on multiple fronts, with some unfortunate highlights:
"Voting Rights: The Bush administration did not provide leadership to ensure timely passage and swift implementation of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002. As a result, Congress did not appropriate funds for election reform until almost two years into the administration.Equal Educational Opportunity: The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) does not sufficiently address unequal education, a major barrier to closing the achievement gap between minority and white students.
Affirmative Action: Instead of promoting affirmative action in federal contracting and education, the administration promotes "race neutral alternatives," in many instances not applicable and in others not overly effective at maintaining diversity.
Environmental Justice: EPA has taken few actions to ensure disparate impact of minority communities to environmental contamination.
Racial Profiling: The administration responded to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks by instituting regulations that facilitate profiling rather than prevent it. Immigrants and visitors from Arab and Middle Eastern countries were subjected to increased scrutiny, including interviews, registration, and in some cases removal.
While one Republican commissioner labeled the report "an election-driven document," chairperson Mary Frances Berry told the New York Times that charges of partisanship are unfounded:
"Every time a report turns out on a heated subject, people who don't like what the staff does make arguments about the procedures."They've all known it was coming, they've known for months. They should have said something to the staff. But to suggest now that the calendar be considered would make it appear that because of political motivations we are violating our own process at the 11th hour."
Questions of timing aside, the report's findings shouldn't be a shock to anyone who has paid attention to the Bush administration in the past four years. The president himself has touted his stances on affirmative action, the Patriot Act and the environment during this campaign, and the problems with No Child Left Behind are already being debated. This report merely underscores civil-rights issues on which "compassionate conservatism" hasn't produced results.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
11:43 AM
Is that CBS moderator really so anti-Bush?
Matthew Yglesias makes an important point on his blog: The outcome of tonight's debate on domestic policy could hinge entirely on how the moderator frames the questions. If moderator Bob Schieffer wants to talk about the millions of uninsured Americans, or the government's out-of-control spending, Bush could be screwed. On the other hand, if the discussion goes heavy on cultural issues, like abortion or gay marriage, Kerry could have a tough time explaining his (admittedly quite nuanced) positions. It all depends on who Schieffer favors.
With that in mind, I see that the Media Research Center has already started accusing Schieffer of liberal bias. Republicans will no doubt note that Schieffer works for CBS and start screaming, "The fix was in!" if Bush should lose. But is the fix in? It's worth drudging up a little research I did on Schieffer a while back:
The worst of the bunch [of moderators] might be Bob Schieffer, who will moderate the third debate on foreign policy. Schieffer, it should be noted, struck up a golfing friendship with George W. Bush during the 1990s. Last year, the "Face the Nation" host told Howard Kurtz, "It's always difficult to cover someone you know personally." Indeed, it must be. This is the same Bob Schieffer who believed that the media had asked "tough questions" during the run-up to the Iraq war. The same Bob Schieffer who, after the 2000 debates, opined, "Clearly tonight, if anyone gained from this debate it was George Bush ... seemed to have as much of a grasp of the issues [as Gore]." The same Bob Schieffer who couldn't for the life of him figure out why Bush would visit the infamously racist Bob Jones University during the 2000 campaign, saying: "The notion that Bush is a Bible-thumping conservative Republican of that ilk is something that's sort of hard to believe."
It's also come to my attention that Bob Schieffer's brother John Thomas is the U.S. ambassador to Australia, and a former business partner of one George W. Bush. Personally, I don't think Schieffer is planning to "throw" the debate to Bush or Kerry, but it's utterly silly to think that he's some sort of left-wing hack.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
11:08 AM
(Yet) another measure of Bush's lousy environmental record
Perhaps the funniest moment of last Friday's debate (aside from "Want some wood?") came when George Bush said with a straight face that he considers himself "a good steward of the land." Funny (if that's the word) because Bush is widely considered to hold the worst environmental record of any president in modern history. A report out Tuesday from an environmental watchdog further illustrates that record.
Using data from the EPA, the Environmental Integrity Project found the number of lawsuits filed against polluters during Bush's first three years in office fell 75 percent from the last three years of Bill Clinton's tenure. From January 2001 to January 2004, the administration filed only 36 suits over environmental violations.
While administration officials told the Los Angeles Times the numbers reflect a focus on settling complaints instead of lawsuits, that assertion is challenged by former EPA enforcement official Eric Schaeffer, who said the data justifies his concerns over Bush's lax approach to pollution. Moreover, as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told MotherJones.com, a number of the polluters targeted by Clinton-era lawsuits were contributors to George Bush's campaign, and those suits were dropped when the new president took office. Industry has been infamously involved in writing environmental rules under Bush, with Dick Cheney's controversial energy task force a prime example.
The EIP's findings shouldn't be surprising. To paraphrase Bush, he can run but he can't hide from his record. On the environment, it's a dismal one.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
9:50 AM
The presidential race nears the final stretch
Heading into the final three weeks, the 2004 presidential race has narrowed to ten states, at least for the all-important campaign ads. The Nielsen-Monitor Plus and The University of Wisconsin Advertising Project yesterday released the ten battleground states still in play for Bush and Kerry, with fewer and fewer voters seeing more and more TV ads on local networks. Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Wisconsin comprised 44 of the top 50 advertised to markets.
For now, Kerry and his supporters are clearly targeting Ohio while Bush and his following are after Wisconsin and Nevada. How these numbers shift in the coming weeks will ultimately determine where the election is decided. The lists below include the totals of all advertising for Kerry and Bush. Read the report for a more detailed analysis of the advertisement data and where the money is headed (for example, the Kerry campaign itself is focusing resources more heavily in Colorado and Iowa).
Top pro-Bush advertising markets:1. Miami, FL
2. Albuquerque, NM
3. Reno, NV
4. Grand Rapids, MI
5. Madison, WI
6. Green Bay, WI
7. Harrisburg, PA
8. Cleveland, OH
9. La Crosse, WI
10. Las Vegas, NV
Top pro-Kerry advertiser markets:
1. Miami, FL
2. Albuquerque, NM
3. Tampa, FL
4. Columbus, OH
5. Toledo, OH
6. Cleveland, OH
7. Green Bay, WI
8. Reno, NV
9. Orlando, FL
10. Dayton, OH
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
4:34 PM
Log Cabin Republicans take the government to court
An estimated one million gay voters backed George Bush in 2000, but the Log Cabin Republicans withheld their endorsement this year and have vocally criticized the president for his obsession with a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Now, the Log Cabin group is taking the government to court over the 1993 "don't-ask-don't-tell" policy toward gays in the military.
"The decision to file the lawsuit doesn't have anything to do with any election," Log Cabin political director Christopher Barron told the Associated Press. "We are a nation fighting a war on terror and we need a policy that protects our national security."
That's a valid concern with the military stretched thin and recruitment lagging, considering that more than 9,600 military personnel have been discharged under the policy. That includes the famous and ridiculous example of needed translators being fired because of their homosexuality.
Log Cabin officials told the AP they're hopeful about this lawsuit, thanks in part to the Supreme Court's 2003 ruling that struck down an anti-sodomy law in Texas. After 11 years, the "don't ask" policy stands as an anachronism and a roadblock to both civil rights and needed military recruitment.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
1:09 PM
It's the economists, stupid!
The poll results are in and a sample of economists provide revealing insight on the current state, and future direction, of the national economy. In the informal poll, conducted by The Economist, more than 70 percent of the 56 respondents rate President Bush's first-term economic policies as bad or very bad and almost as many give a similar rating for his second-term economic agenda.
The economists were selected, at random, from among the referees of the American Economic Review and their responses are evenly split with regards to economic expansion and job creation. But, as The Economist clearly argues, the poll reveals an overwhelming edge for Senator Kerry on questions concerning fiscal discipline and tax cuts:
"Despite their diverse assessments of today's economy, the professors are overwhelmingly critical of the central plank of Mr. Bush's economic policy-tax cuts. More than seven out of ten respondents say the Bush administration's tax cuts were either a bad or a very bad idea, and a similar proportion disapproves of Mr. Bush's plans to make his tax cuts permanent. By contrast, Mr. Kerry's plan to roll back the tax cuts for people with incomes over $200,000 wins the support of seven in ten of them."
In the second debate last Friday, President Bush defended his tax cuts, especially those for the wealthy, as vigorously as he did his decision to pre-emptively invade Iraq. It will be interesting to watch on Wednesday to see if Kerry can convince viewers of what economists already know -- that the Bush administration has had about as much success with the domestic economy as it has keeping the peace in Iraq.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
12:00 PM
Sinclair in the news
The decision by right-wing Sinclair Broadcasting to make 62 of its stations air an anti-Kerry film is rightly drawing plenty of criticism. As FCC commissioner Michael Copps put it:
"This is an abuse of the public trust. And it is proof positive of media consolidation run amok when one owner can use the public airwaves to blanket the country with its political ideology -- whether liberal or conservative."
As USA Today reports, the decision "annoyed investors," as Sinclair's stock fell Monday "about as low" as any point since 1995. In the words of Barry Lucas, whose company Gabelli & Co. owns roughly 4 percent of Sinclair, "I don't want my media companies that cover the news to be making news."
Sinclair's made plenty of news this year, from blacking out a "Nightline" special that read the names of all soldiers killed in Iraq to pressuring the FCC to loosen ownership rules. Kerry's promise to crack down on media consolidation doesn't sit well with Sinclair, but the company's partisan maneuvering shows why it's a needed step.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
11:57 AM
Flare-up in Florida
Among the tight races that could determine who controls the Senate is Democrat Betty Castor's eventful contest in Florida against George Bush's handpicked candidate, Mel Martinez. A recent flare-up in the race involves former university professor Sami Al-Arian, who is under federal indictment for allegedly helping raise funds for Islamic Jihad.
The Martinez campaign has been hammering Castor for not firing Al-Arian from the University of South Florida when she served as its president. Castor suspended him for two years with pay in 1996, when a federal investigation was pending. Al-Arian wasn't indicted until 2003.
On Monday the Castor campaign released a new ad that includes a picture of Al-Arian with George and Laura Bush during 2000, while Martinez was a chair of Bush's Florida campaign. Al-Arian also visited the White House by invitation in 2001 as part of a Muslim-American delegation. In Castor's words:
"I think Mr. Martinez has completely ignored the association that the Republicans and he had with Mr. Al-Arian. When anyone asks him about it, he blows it off and says 'it doesn't matter to me.'"Well how in the world could someone who is under investigation by the FBI escape ... the attention of the White House and the White House security? And I think he's gotten away with not having to answer that and I'm going to push back and make sure that he begins to talk about that."
Al-Arian's trial is still pending, and it's unclear how much of a role he played in funding the terrorist organization. However, it's obviously unfair for Martinez to criticize Castor for not firing him in 1996 and overlook the White House's having invited him over five years later.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
9:00 AM
Democrats might just pick up a House seat in Illinois
One of the few competitive House races featuring an incumbent is in Illinois' Eighth District, where longtime Congressman Phil Crane is considered vulnerable.
Crane got some bad news Monday, as the Chicago Tribune endorsed his opponent, Melissa Bean. It's a rare move for that paper to endorse against a Republican incumbent, but as the staff editorial explains:
"It has become evident that Crane's interest in serving his constituents has evaporated. He has used his seat in Congress as a cozy sinecure. In the last four years he has taken more than $109,000 in trips to spots around the world paid for by lobbyists and other private interests. Republican leaders privately acknowledge that Crane has gotten lazy and is out of touch with his constituents. The leaders have not been successful at shaking him out of his lethargy. It's time for a change."
Crane, elected to fill Donald Rumsfeld's old seat in 1969, was once a rising GOP star who ran for president in 1980. He's now the longest-serving Republican in Congress, and vice chair of the House Ways and Means Committee. But he has found a strong opponent in Bean, who has been helped by support from Emily's List and Howard Dean's Democracy for America. In a state trending increasingly Democratic -- and a district trending younger -- she has a good chance to overcome the incumbent and gain a needed seat for Democrats.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
8:02 AM
Supreme Court politics
During last Friday's debate, when asked about potential appointments to the Supreme Court, President Bush exploited an all too familiar strategy: "don't ask, don't tell." Unlike the 2000 presidential debates, when the make-up of the Court dominated headlines, so far, the candidates have said little about its future balance. With Clarence Thomas the only judge south of 65, it's most likely that Bush or Kerry will pick one to three judges in their four-year term. Bush admitted as much on Friday. Yet the rest of his rambling answer hides his admiration for Justices Thomas and Scalia behind the veil of the Dred Scott decision from 150 years ago:
"Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all - you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America."
Maybe Bush cited the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision because Scott originally filed his case in St. Louis in 1846, but the awkward reference continued the deliberate ducking off all things Court-related. Although given a pass in the mainstream press, Bush was called on his skirting by Georgia Congressman John Lewis, who released the following statement on Monday:
"I am relieved to hear that George Bush won't appoint judges who might reinstitute slavery. But unfortunately, we expect more than this from our judges and frankly, we need more than this from George Bush."
George Bush's Dred Scott comments underscore the fact that when it comes to the African-American community, he is completely out of touch with the issues that concern us. The President's record is appalling - his administration is the most anti-African American in a generation."
Bush's awkward history lesson also obscured the historic responsibility the next president will assume for the nation's future. Let's hope that the next debate will force both candidates to better articulate their intentions for the 21st century direction of the highest court. As Katha Pollitt writes in The Nation, its importance cannot be overstated:
The truth is, there is hardly an area of life that will not be affected by the judicial appointments made in the coming years. Will the courts continue to dismantle your right to sue state governments in federal courts? By 5 to 4, the Supreme Court decided that federal protections against age discrimination don't apply to state workers. (More recently it upheld the Americans with Disabilities Act--insofar as it applied to the right of citizens not to have to crawl up the courthouse steps.) On the same states' rights theory, by 5 to 4 it threw out parts of the Violence Against Women Act. The Patriot Act? Immigrants' rights? The environment? Ballot issues, à la Florida? Whom do you want in charge of choosing the men and women who will decide the big questions sure to arise?
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
7:45 AM
Making DeLay an election issue
The two rulings against Tom DeLay by the House ethics committee in the past ten days amounted to little more than a slap on the wrist. But Democrats hope to punish DeLay and his supporters more harshly, by trying to make his ethics violations an issue in congressional races.
Last Friday, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi forced a vote on bringing in an outside counsel to investigate DeLay. Predictably, the measure failed, but it made Republicans go on record against an investigation. While Pelosi didn't specifically ask DeLay to resign, she hinted strongly that he should:
"The burden know falls on his fellow House Republicans. Republicans must answer -- do they want an ethically unfit person to be their majority leader, or do they want to remove the ethical cloud that hangs over the Capitol?"
The ethics committee has criticized DeLay's conduct for offering to trade political support of a congressman's son for a vote on a Medicare bill, creating the appearance that a fundraiser would give improper access to the energy industry, and improperly asking the FAA to track down Texas Democrats protesting a redistricting plan. And he has more controversy pending, thanks to charges of illegal campaign contributions.
Republicans have shown no signs of replacing DeLay as leader, despite the ethics violations. As the New York Times explains, Democrats have a challenge in making DeLay an election issue:
"If Democrats hope to convert Mr. DeLay's woes into Congressional victories around the nation, they have hurdles to overcome, not the least of which is that Mr. DeLay is not a well-known figure on a par with the former speaker Newt Gingrich, another Republican leader Democrats sought to convert into a political issue. State leaders of both parties say they do not get a sense that Mr. DeLay has a profile that can move voters."'Congressional leaders like Tom DeLay, most voters in Kansas don't even know who he is,' said Scott Poor, executive director of the Kansas Republican Party. 'He's not that big a deal here. In the minds of most voters, it's a real stretch to link their wonderful congressman to Tom DeLay.'"
Still, Democrats will try to make that link. The Times reports the party used the ethics findings in e-mail fundraising appeals, and is highlighting DeLay's ties to vulnerable incumbents. It remains to be seen if Democrats can make DeLay an issue in House races, but if successful, the strategy could help them reduce the GOP majority.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
5:39 PM
What's next for Afghanistan?
In the New Republic, Marisa Katz gets the Afghan election absolutely right. On the whole, it went about as well as could be expected -- especially for a country with rampant illiteracy, roving militias, and a long history of war and anarchy. But the danger now is that the international community will simply pat itself on the back and abandon Afghanistan altogether:
The appearance of stability may be in some ways beneficial. It may lure back some organizations, such as Doctors Without Borders, which pulled out of Afghanistan in recent months because of the violence.
At the same time, the attention of the international donor community is short-lived. Often, once an election is pronounced successful, a country typically moves to the margins of the international agenda, and money is increasingly difficult to come by. East Timor, for instance, received $25 million from USAID in 2002, the year it voted for independence. This year, USAID noted in its budget justification: "East Timor's economy has declined significantly. United Nations staff is departing and foreign investments are not materializing due to the uncertainty in the investment climate, concern about regional security, and a weak judicial system." And yet USAID only requested $13.5 million for East Timor for fiscal year 2005.
A similar fate looms for Afghanistan every time Bush cites it on the campaign trail as a model achievement in his effort to democratize the Middle East. NATO, which supplies about 9,000 troops, has already said it will consider reducing that number.
I wrote about this a long time back, but much of interim president Hamid Karzai's deal-making in the months leading up to the election was tenuous at best. He co-opted warlords and generals into the government because he couldn't disarm their militias. He removed his rival, Ismail Khan, from power by promising to keep order in Herat as well as Khan did. But if Karzai doesn't receive any more international support, his promises could fall apart, his coalition could collapse, and Afghanistan would be right back where it started. At this point, though, neither George Bush nor John Kerry has made any sort of proposal to aid Afghanistan in the future, making all their quibbles about Tora Bora and registered voters look sort of petty.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
3:00 PM
Why the Green Zone matters
Yes, there's still violence in Sadr City; yes, the Sunnis may boycott the election, but perhaps the worst news from Iraq are the continuing reports that the coalition can't even guarantee security in the Green Zone anymore. This has bigger ramifications for the January election than almost anything else.
One of the reasons that the weekend elections in Afghanistan seemed to go off relatively well was that international organizations and UN monitors managed to calm down angry opposition candidates when a dispute arose. So even though the monitors hadn't been able to travel everywhere in the country, they at least had a significant presence in Kabul, and that helped. As for Iraq, if the U.S. can't secure the Green Zone, election monitors may very well pack up and leave, and Iraqi elections won't even measure up to Afghanistan standards.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
11:39 AM
Boosting Bush (nice try ...)
In Friday night's post-debate coverage, MSNBC's Hardball host Chris Matthews and his two Republican guests, Pat Buchanan and GOP lawyer and MSNBC contributor Benjamin Ginsberg (legal advisor to the discredited Swift Boat Veterans for Truth), declared victory for the President. Buchanan was particularly effusive in his praise for Bush and the likely hit in the polls for Kerry:
I think the president was outstanding at times and he was spectacular at times. He did so much better than he did in Miami. It was a different man in the arena. I think quite candidly -- maybe I am the only one here -- I thought he wiped up the floor with John Kerry. ... And my guess is you will see after this debate a firming up of the president's numbers and a rise in the president's numbers.
Well Buchanan, like most of the post-debate talking heads, was dead wrong. A poll released this morning by Reuters/Zogby finds that the Bush-Cheney ticket actually lost ground over the weekend and now stands 3 percent behind Kerry-Edwards. Not the first, or last, time the news punditry will make a bad prediction, but how long can they continue false boosting of the president without turning off viewers?
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
11:18 AM
Bush and Kerry not equal on the deficit
Over at The New Republic, Jonathan Cohn notes that, contrary to what the media says, John Kerry is more likely to reduce the budget deficit, mainly because he's already promised to scale back some of his spending programs if necessary.
There's an even easier way to make Cohn's point: Note that everyone is comparing Kerry's campaign proposals to Bush's actual budget. It's not like Bush is making a few promises that may have to go: He already has a very concrete agenda for sending the U.S. further into debt, and it already costs more than Kerry's proposals. Note also that Bush's budget, which should be a much firmer promise than anything made on the campaign trail, actually understates its own cost. The FY 2005 budget doesn't account for transition costs for privatizing Social Security, or the costs of fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax, or the costs of the corporate giveaway bill now going through Congress. So in essence, we're comparing Kerry's campaign promises -- promises that a Republican Congress would almost certainly scale back -- to a budget that lies through its own teeth. How is this equal?
Now, Kerry obviously should hammer this distinction home, but I don't think he'll get much traction just by noting that Bush is a big spender. What he can note, however, is that Bush is a big spender who doesn't get results. For instance, nearly everyone in the universe -- from conservative think-tanks to actual economists -- hates the president's backbreaking Medicare bill. Seniors even hate the bill. It's worthless. If Bush was increasing the deficit for the right reasons, that would be one thing. But he's not.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
10:57 AM
You call this responsible journalism?
Back in May, the Sinclair Broadcasting Group refused to let affiliates air a "Nightline" program showing the names and images of U.S. troops killed in Iraq, claiming the show had partisan aims. If there was any doubt then that the politics of Sinclair's leadership prompted that decision, its showing of an anti-Kerry film on 62 stations erased the doubt.
"Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal" includes interviews with some of the thoroughly discredited Swift Boat Veterans, and was produced by former Washington Times reporter Carlton Sherwood. According to its web site, the documentary charges Kerry with "slandering" U.S. troops in his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and claims Vietnamese troops read this testimony to POWs. Sherwood released the 45-minute movie direct-to-video.
Sinclair announced Sunday that the film will air on those 62 stations -- many in swing states -- within the next two weeks. It will be shown commercial-free and will preempt prime-time programming, an unusual arrangement that underscores the political nature of the decision. A decision, it should be noted, that's at odds with broadcast standards (imagine the valid outcry from the right if, say, "Fahrenheit 9/11" aired in primetime next week without a conservative counterweight). Already, some Democratic senators are sending a complaint letter to the FCC about the film.
Sinclair CEO David Smith reportedly contributed $2,000 to Bush's re-election bid, which came to light during the "Nightline" controversy. At the time, he argued:
"While I don't disagree that Americans need to understand the costs of war and sacrifices of our military volunteers, I firmly believe that responsible journalism requires that a discussion of these costs must necessarily be accompanied by a description of the benefits of military action and the events that precipitated that action."
Apparently, "responsible journalism" is imperative only when it prevents making Bush look bad.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this