4:07 PM
The Economist against Bush (and for Kerry, kinda)
Adding to the long list of conservative-leaning publications either withholding endorsement or endorsing John Kerry, The Economist just published a lengthy rebuke of the president followed by a tepid blessing of Kerry. The editorial takes Bush to task for the treatment of prisoners detained in Guantanamo Bay:
The biggest mistake ... was one that will haunt America for years to come. It lay in dealing with prisoners-of-war by sending hundreds of them to the American base at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, putting them in a legal limbo, outside the Geneva conventions and outside America's own legal system. That act reflected a genuinely difficult problem: that of having captured people of unknown status but many of whom probably did want to kill Americans, at a time when to set them free would have been politically controversial, to say the least. That difficulty cannot neutralise the damage caused by this decision, however. Today, Guantánamo Bay offers constant evidence of America's hypocrisy, evidence that is disturbing for those who sympathise with it, cause-affirming for those who hate it. This administration, which claims to be fighting for justice, the rule of law and liberty, is incarcerating hundreds of people, whether innocent or guilty, without trial or access to legal representation. The White House's proposed remedy, namely military tribunals, merely compounds the problem.
This issue has been off the front pages for a while now. But with four British men -- who were detained at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp for nearly three years -- suing the U.S. government on Wednesday for human rights violations, the truth behind Guantanamo and other international prisons will likely break to the surface again soon enough. As Archbishop Desmond Tutu said the other day, the prison is an international "disgrace." Kudos to The Economist: for critiquing American hypocrisy, and making the abuses and illegality of Guantanamo an issue before the election.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
3:50 PM
The dollar falls in Cuba (and so does Castro)
The news out of Cuba is all about money. Fidel Castro decided this week to phase out the U.S. dollar as legal tender on the island. And Cuba's daily paper, the Granma, reports that Castro has approved a new 5 peso convertible bearing the image of Che Guevara, which will come into use on Nov. 6. (You know you’re old when the faces of your revolutionary buddies start showing up on cash.)
As of Nov. 8, Cubans will stop using U.S. dollars for cash transactions. (They'll still be able to hold onto and maintain accounts in the beloved greenback, but all commercial transactions restrict the use of U.S. dollars, and, come November 8, a 10 percent tax will be instated on all exchanges of U.S. dollars.) Cuba has operated an officially sanctioned dual-currency system since 1993, when the dollar was introduced to buoy Cuba's economy after its lifeline to the Soviet Union was cut. While pesos are used to buy some basic foods at government-run stores, most quality and basic consumer items are purchased in U.S. dollars.
In the coming months, the production of pesos convertibles will have to dramatically increase to pick up the slack when the dollars disappear. An estimated $1.1 billion dollars in remittances and tourism per year stand between Cuba and an economic collapse. (Remittances alone account for an estimated 3 percent of Cuba's national income.)
Castro moved to ditch the dollar in response to what his aides call "external economic aggression” -- namely the Bush administration’s decision to tighten sanctions on Cuba, limitting the sending of remittances to immediate family and set a limit of one visit to Cuba every three years for Cuban Americans. The new ban on dollars requires that family members convert their remittance to an alternate currency before sending it on to Cuba. Castro's defiant political spin notwithstanding, the economics behind it paints a clearer picture. In the past few weeks, Cuba has been experiencing an uptick in electricity blackouts and water shortages. Mexico’s former ambassador to Cuba remarked that the ban was clearly a pragmatic move to get the dollars from the Cuban people in order to buy much-needed food and oil.
The president of the Central Bank of Cuba said, “We feel very happy, very sure of what we have done, we have hit them where it hurts, we have withdrawn its currency in our national territory…we have delivered a forceful blow [to the U.S.]” It is an attempt to assert monetary sovereignty and to affirm the belief that Bush’s new sanctions will not have the desired effect.
Some observers, though, are suggesting that the dollar phase-out might cause more problems than it solves. As the International Herald Tribune notes:
A shrinking money supply usually means one thing: interest rates will rise. Cuba already holds some of the worst credit ratings in the world, so interest rates are already high. Yet whether in formal or informal markets, credit will become still scarcer. The effects might not be so dramatic as in a market economy, but some spending by consumers and companies will be discouraged.
Add to this that Cuba's income may have shrunk. Cuban-Americans may now decide to send their remittances as euros rather than dollars, but they'll probably have to pay a 2 to 4 percent commission for the the euros, likely reducing the size of the remittances.
Castro’s announcement of the ban on U.S. dollar marked his first public appearance since a serious fall the 78-year-old leader took after tripping down stairs following a televised public speech. Castro shattered his knee, fractured his arm, and had to be taken to the hospital for surgery. (Asked if the U.S. State Department wished Castro a speedy recovery, a spokesman said, "No.")
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
3:28 PM
Is bin Laden casting a ballot?
Now that Osama bin Laden's released his latest video, we can really be sure of two things: a) He's still alive, and b) the Bush administration has failed to catch him. That's about it. Unfortunately, conservative bloggers the world over have decided that those conclusions are much too mundane and have opted for more exciting talking points: namely, that bin Laden is "endorsing" Kerry. (See here, here, here, and here.)
Personally, I don't know who bin Laden wants to win. I assume when he says that "your security is not in the hands of either Bush or Kerry," it means he's doesn't give a fig one way or the other. Or else he's angling to confuse people and cause chaos. Which leads me to wonder why we should even care what bin Laden wants. He himself might not even know which president would be better or worse for al Qaeda's cause. If our "strategy" to fight terrorism is to hang on to some lunatic's every word -- and then reflexively do exactly the opposite of what he says -- then we're in a lot more trouble than previously thought.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
2:11 PM
Bush to voters: We'll take care of election mishaps
With fears of election-day fraud and registration problems abounding, it's worth asking: Whose side is the Bush administration on? Here's a hint: Not yours:
Bush administration lawyers argued in three closely contested states last week that only the Justice Department, and not voters themselves, may sue to enforce the voting rights set out in the Help America Vote Act, which was passed in the aftermath of the disputed 2000 election.
Veteran voting-rights lawyers expressed surprise at the government's action, saying that closing the courthouse door to aspiring voters would reverse decades of precedent..
Makes sense. When, say, Republicans go around challenging voter registrations in Ohio -- solely because those voters refused to wait hours in line to pick up a GOP mailing -- we don't want voters getting upset and going to court, now do we?
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
1:13 PM
A Baathist revival in Iraq?
Whatever happened to Saddam Hussein anyways? Iraqis are trying to gather evidence for his trial, but the process is proceeding rather slowly, as the insurgency has made it difficult to dig up the mass graves. Meanwhile, Anne Appelbaum reports that the slow legal process might not be an accident: not everyone wants a long, comprehensive trial for the former Iraqi dictator:
Clearly there are some in the new Iraqi leadership who would prefer not to hold a trial at all, or at least not one involving lawyers, presentation of evidence and national debate. While visiting the United States last month, Allawi several times stated his preference for a fast trial, and a fast execution, possibly as soon as this month.
It's not hard to guess why: A short trial would let a lot of senior Baathists off the hook, would consolidate former opponents of Hussein behind Allawi, and would dispense with the whole thorny problem of "guilt" altogether. Although it seems the American government has so far persuaded him not to go that route, Allawi has embroiled the ongoing investigations and preparation in controversy by effectively removing Salem Chalabi, the Iraqi exile lawyer who set up the tribunal last winter.
If Appelbaum's correct, Allawi would rather place the blame on Saddam Hussein rather than the scores of Baathists surrounding him. One of the more troubling themes over the past few months has been the slowly accumulating evidence that Prime Minister Ayad Allawi is trying to stage a Baathist comeback in Iraq. In the interim government alone, Interior Minister Falah al-Naqib, Defense Minister Hazem Shaalan, Brig. Gen. Muhammad Shahwani, the head of the Iraqi secret police, as well as Allawi himself are all former members of the Baath Party.
To top that off, Allawi has reversed the long-standing policy of de-Baathification, instituted at the request of Ahmed Chalabi, and brought high-ranking Baathists back into the government, over the protests of several Shiite leaders. That in itself isn't a bad thing -- Chalabi's zealous de-Baathification helped swell the ranks of the Iraqi insurgency with disgruntled former officers -- but Shiites don't seem to trust Allawi's motives. And why should they? His head of secret police, Shahwani, has launched aggressive investigations against suspected pro-Iranian Shiites, as well as against Iraqis close to the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a prominent Shiite party. The split between Baathists and Shiites is becoming increasingly pronounced.
How does Saddam's trial fit into all this? As Kenan Makiya, an Iraqi dissident and erstwhile supporter of the Bush administration, has pointed out, a long drawn-out trial for the ex-dictator would help smooth over many of the factional divisions in Iraq, by proving that one man and his party was largely responsible for Iraq's misery. This would counter the perception among Shia and Kurds that the Sunnis as a whole -- who filled the ranks of the Baath party -- were responsible. Unfortunately, Allawi is apparently doing everything in his power to confirm the Shiites' worst fears.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
12:53 PM
Following the money
In his fight for re-election, Senate minority leader Tom Daschle has raised more money than any other Senate candidate, with his campaign raising more than $17 million (not counting the funds used on his behalf by 527 groups and the Democratic Party) according to FEC figures released Thursday. But underscoring the importance of that race, challenger John Thune has raised nearly $14 million, trailing only Daschle and Illinois Democrat Barack Obama.
A list of the top 50 fundraisers among Senate candidates shows how evenly matched the fundraising efforts have been in competitive races (all figures are through Oct. 13). North Carolina features Richard Burr (No. 6 in fundraising with more than $11 million) against Erskine Bowles (ranked eighth with $10.3 million). Florida’s Mel Martinez and Betty Castor are tenth and eleventh on the list, while Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski and Tony Knowles are also back-to-back with just under $5 million each.
Some of the more glaring fundraising disparities include Arlen Specter raising more than $13 million, compared to less than $4 million for challenger Joe Hoeffel; the GOP’s Jim DeMint collecting nearly $9 million in his open-seat contest versus Inez Tenenbaum ($5.3 million); Patty Murray in Washington leading challenger George Nethercutt by more than $3 million -- and the financial prowess of Obama and Chuck Schumer, both collecting eight figures despite challengers who don’t even rank in the top 50.
The FEC data also shows the dramatic incumbency advantage in House races. Among the top 50 fundraisers in House contests, only two are challengers and only eight are running for open seats. Thirty-two of the 50 best-funded incumbents are Republicans -- led by Speaker Dennis Hastert. The Democratic incumbent with the most money is Martin Frost, but he’s barely topping Pete Sessions, with whom he’s fighting an incumbent-versus-incumbent contest thanks to Tom DeLay’s controversial gerrymandering scheme.
Of course, the parties and their unaffiliated bedfellows are pumping plenty of additional funds into close races. But the FEC data shows just how closely divided some of the most important Senate races sit as the election season winds down.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
11:34 AM
Driving turnout with fear of intimidation
With Election Day just four days away, charges of voter intimidation and other dirty tricks continue to worry activists in several states. Groups like the AFL-CIO and NAACP are urging members to keep an eye out for such tricks. As the NAACP memo, titled "The Long Shadow of Jim Crow," puts it:
In every national American election since Reconstruction, every election since the Voting Rights Act passed in 1965, voters -- particularly African American voters and other minorities -- have faced calculated and determined efforts at intimidation and suppression. The bloody days of violence and retribution following the Civil War and Reconstruction are gone. The poll taxes, literacy tests and physical violence of the Jim Crow era have disappeared. Today, more subtle, cynical and creative tactics have taken their place.
The memo goes on to detail a history of intimidation, with recent examples emphasizing alleged vote-suppression tactics against minority voters:
Most recently, controversy has erupted over the use in the Orlando area of armed, plainclothes officers from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) to question elderly black voters in their homes. The incidents were part of a state investigation of voting irregularities in the city's March 2003 mayoral election. Critics have charged that the tactics used by the FDLE have intimidated black voters, which could suppress their turnout in this year’s elections. Six members of Congress recently called on Attorney General John Ashcroft to investigate potential civil rights violations in the matter.This year in Florida, the state ordered the implementation of a "potential felon" purge list to remove voters from the rolls, in a disturbing echo of the infamous 2000 purge, which removed thousands of eligible voters, primarily African-Americans, from the rolls. The state abandoned the plan after news media investigations revealed that the 2004 list also included thousands of people who were eligible to vote, and heavily targeted African-Americans while virtually ignoring Hispanic voters.
This summer, Michigan state Rep. John Pappageorge (R-Troy) was quoted in the Detroit Free Press as saying, "If we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we're going to have a tough time in this election." African Americans comprise 83% of Detroit’s population.
In South Dakota’s June 2004 primary, Native American voters were prevented from voting after they were challenged to provide photo IDs, which they were not required to present under state or federal law.
Similary, the AFL-CIO sent an e-mail to members charging "Republican operatives behind President George W. Bush have launched a massive, coordinated vote suppression effort in key battleground states across America" and highlights some examples:
In Pennsylvania, Republican House Speaker and Bush-Cheney '04 State Regional Campaign Chair John Perzel acknowledged his job is to suppress the largely minority Philadelphia vote. "The Kerry campaign needs to come out with humongous numbers here in Philadelphia," Perzel told U.S. News & World Report. "It's important for me to keep that number down."In Florida, documents prepared for top RNC and Bush campaign operatives list voters in predominantly black areas of Jacksonville whose votes Bush supporters likely will challenge, according to the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, citing the BBC.
In Ohio, Bush supporters filed 35,000 voter eligibility challenges and were preparing to send challengers to 8,000 polling places on Election Day to suppress more votes, according to The Washington Post. A judge had to step in to block their efforts.
These voter-suppression charges are hurled mostly at Republicans, who in turn argue these accusations are exaggerated. But if even the appearance of attempted suppression galvanizes enough people to exercise their vote, it could help buck the trend of falling turnout. Regardless of who wins on Tuesday, increased participation would be a nice step.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
10:59 AM
You call this a controversy?
The Los Angeles Times covers the al Qaqaa explosives incident by claiming that the issue "cuts both ways." What? How on earth does this cut both ways? Let's review:
The Pentagon claims that the explosives were gone before the military arrived at al Qaqaa. Then an ABC news crew embedded with the 101st Airborne Division produces a video of U.S. soldiers finding explosives at al Qaqaa. David Kay, a weapons expert who pretty clearly knows a thing or two about weapons in Iraq, told CNN's Aaron Brown that he is positive that the explosives in the ABC video are RDX and HMX. In other words, the explosives in question were at al Qaqaa, under seal, when the military first arrived.
Next the Pentagon claims it has satellite imagery of Iraqi trucks next to bunkers in al Qaqaa that were taken shortly before the invasion. Then John Pike of Globalsecurity.org analyzes the photos and notices that the trucks were nowhere near the warehouses with the explosives in question.
Finally the Pentagon brings out an Army major to give a press conference. The Major claims that his men had taken away the explosives from the warehouse. Except that the ABC video shows that explosives in question were there after the Major had left.
This isn't something that "cuts both ways". It's a pretty straightforward story, and the headline should read something like "Amateur Hour at the Pentagon." Regardless of how big a deal you think the explosives are in the grand scheme of things, the fact that the Bush administration has thrown out several different, factually incorrect stories to confuse people is ridiculous. As the Spinsanity folks pointed out in their book All the President's Spin, this is precisely the tactic the Bush administration uses to befuddle the media and turn an evidence-based story ("Pentagon lost explosives") into a labyrinth of claims and counter-claims ("Pentagon lost explosives? Issue cuts both ways.") And they do it because they know the press will play along.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
10:18 AM
One last time: The Bush economic record
The Commerce Department's latest growth figures -- a lower-than-expected 3.7 percent over the last quarter -- need a bit of context. The numbers were below what many analysts predicted, and well below what President Bush promised his tax cuts and policies would deliver. Over at the Angry Bear site, Kash provides a helpful chart showing that the best days of the so-called "Bush recovery" may be behind us. That's troubling, to say the least.
Since this is the last big economic figure to be released before the election, let's do a quick wrap-up of the president's record, shall we? Since the recession began, 31 states have lost jobs under Bush. And remember, that's since the recession began, so he can't blame President Clinton for any of this. Even more damningly, there have been about 2.8 million fewer jobs created than were promised when the Bush administration sold the nation his 2003 tax cuts as a "Jobs and Growth" bill. It was quite the little scam -- economist Mark Zandi has shown that an alternate, more sensibly designed set of tax cuts probably would have produced much better job growth.
Meanwhile, real wages continue to drop, poverty has risen, and all we have to show for it is a deficit stretching as far as the eye can see. On the bright side (since surely there must be a bright side), corporate profits have continued to skyrocket for 14 straight quarters. Everyone else, though, is on their own.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
10:04 AM
O'Reilly factors in settlement
Fox News host Bill O’Reilly settled the sexual harassment complaint against him Thursday. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed, but O’Reilly has agreed to drop his extortion countersuit against the Fox producer who accused him of some disturbing and bizarre harassment.
As the Washington Post reports Friday, the combative host announced the settlement on his top-rated Fox program (which has seen a viewership bounce since the suit was filed):
Describing himself as an "object of media scorn," O'Reilly told viewers: "On a personal note, this matter has caused enormous pain, but I had to protect my family and I did. Some of the media hammered me relentlessly because, as you know, I am a huge target, as is Fox News...The good news is that 'Factor' viewers and listeners seem to have given me the benefit of any doubt when some in the media did not. You guys looked out for me and I will never forget it. This brutal ordeal is now officially over, and I will never speak of it again."
Maybe O’Reilly will also emerge from this ordeal less likely to throw around theories about other public figures’ sex lives. Last week, the Boston Herald compiled some of O’Reilly’s greatest hits on that front. Some highlights:
"President Clinton, you know, I know he likes adulation and affirmation. That's obvious, but I think this was just exciting for him. It was fun. You know what I mean? It was fun! That was the primary motivation. If you look at all the women he's been linked with, they all have - you know, they're all kind of glamorous, except for Monica Lewinsky. That's a totally different thing, but it's like a score. And this is - to him, it's not important because it's just - it's like a sport. Instead of playing golf, he goes out . . . he has phone sex with Monica Lewinsky." (March 1999)"I am on the record as believing Monica Lewinsky is not the brightest bulb in the house. She may be shrewd and manipulative, but perceptive? No way. However, President Clinton is smart, very smart, and I think he realized Miss Lewinsky's limitations and exploited them to the fullest. It angers me that a man as powerful as Mr. Clinton would put his reputation and the country's welfare at risk dealing with a woman this immature. That speaks volumes about what kind of a man the president truly is." (from a Feb. 1999 "Factor")
"Politicians, news people, clergy all have images and all depend on the trust of the public to succeed... You do something like (Bosley), although it's not illegal, it embarrasses your employer because your employer operates on credibility." (concerning Catherine Bosley, a news anchor fired for taking part in a wet-t-shirt contest while on vacation)
Like Rush Limbaugh talking about drug addicts, O’Reilly might throw fewer stones know that he’s had the public looking into his glass house.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
5:25 PM
Iraqi civilian deaths: 100,000
A new study designed and conducted by researchers at Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University, and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad reports that over 100,000 excess deaths have occurred in Iraq since the invasion began 18 months ago.
In a public statement in advance of the report, released today by the British-based medical journal, The Lancet, Les Roberts of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health acknowledged the grave and underreported truth about the war:
"Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100,000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The use of air power in areas with lots of civilians appears to be killing a lot of women and children."
The researchers did 33 cluster surveys of 30 households each, recording the date, circumstances and cause of deaths. They found that the risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher than before the war. Before the war the major causes of death were heart attacks, chronic disorders and accidents. That changed after the war and they blamed air strikes responsible for many of the deaths. Gilbert Burnham, who collaborated on the research, was particularly surprised by the findings:
"We were not expecting the level of deaths from violence that we found in this study and we hope this will lead to some serious discussions of how military and political aims can be achieved in a way that is not so detrimental to civilians populations."
Well, it's well documented that the dirty little secret of the Iraq war is the large number of innocent civilians being killed in combat operations and those simply murdered under archaic and sadistic rules of civilian engagement. As the photographer Nina Berman explains, in an interview with MotherJones.com:
"It's not just the guys with the guns that are killing in Iraq, it's the truck drivers who are coming back really messed up because their orders are to run over anything that doesn't get out of the way. In a country with a big urban population, with lots of children, they are running over children. That's the dark dirty little secret that people don't want to talk about. Here are our wonderful innocent liberators over in Iraq killing people. Not just bad people, but all people."
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
05:06 PM
Halliburton under investigation
It’s a little late in coming, probably too late to have much impact on the election, but the no-bid Halliburton contracts John Kerry keeps talking about are now the subject of an FBI investigation.
As the Associated Press reported late Thursday:
The line of inquiry expands an earlier FBI investigation into whether Halliburton overcharged taxpayers for fuel in Iraq ,and it elevates to a criminal matter the election-year question of whether the Bush administration showed favoritism to Vice President Dick Cheney's former company."
For the investigation, the FBI has asked to speak with Bunnatine Greenhouse, the Army Corps of Engineers official who earlier this week alleged corps officials intervened to help Halliburton unfairly gain multimillion contracts. Greenhouse’s lawyer said she will cooperate if she gets whistleblower protection against the Pentagon.
A Halliburton spokesperson dismissed the investigation as "old allegations" recycled for election purposes. A Cheney spokesperson said the vice president has not yet been contacted about the investigation. But with its late launch date, the public won’t know the answers until after the votes are cast.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
4:59 PM
Iraq's insurgency: Still not going away
In case anyone was wondering how much support insurgents have in Iraq, this bit of reporting by Patrick Kerkstra says it all:
In hotspots such as the Baghdad slum of Sadr City -- which has been more peaceful in recent weeks -- drivers slalom through streets littered with IEDs. The bombs are marked with pylons and other warning signs when U.S. forces are out of the area; the signs are removed as patrols move in.
And none of the locals seem to be saying a word. Meanwhile, Newsweek is reporting something we've been mentioning for awhile around these parts -- that foreign jihadists like Abu Musab Zarqawi are not solely responsible for Iraq's insurgency. Some of the insurgency is homegrown, and some of it is probably led by ex-Baathists, especially soldiers in Saddam Hussein's former intelligence service, the Mukhabarat. Newsweek also points out that the failure to secure explosives at al Qaqaa is probably only the beginning:
But while the dispute has grabbed the headlines, United Nations officials tell NEWSWEEK that the Al Qaqaa case may only be the tip of the iceberg. As many as 10,000 other conventional-arms dumps dotted around Iraq are believed to have been looted after the U.S. invasion, the officials say. In addition, as many as 30 out of 90 of Saddam's known nuclear research facilities were also stripped down—some to the ground—by looters.
While much of the material taken from the nuclear sites is believed to have been "dual use" manufacturing equipment largely useless to terrorists, the looting of conventional-arms depots means that Zarqawi and the ex-Baathists are not unlikely to run out of weapons any time soon—and that the insurgency may have a long way to go before it runs out of steam.
As Eric Umansky points out, al Qaqaa might not be a big deal in the grand scheme of things (especially if ABC is right and much less explosive material was lost than previously thought). But what is a big deal is that it's symptomatic of a larger pattern of the U.S.'s failure to secure ammo dumps, nuclear sites, and other sensitive areas. By Umansky's calculations, it would have taken only one extra division to secure the 900 ammo dumps around the country. But we didn't do that. Why? And why isn't anyone being held accountable for this?
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
02:37 PM
Bunning still off his game
Speaking of Republican pitchers, the campaign of Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning continues to fall apart thanks to the candidate’s odd behavior. In the latest poll there, Bunning’s lead is now within the margin of error, after the same poll showed him up 17 points earlier this month.
The state’s three largest newspapers all endorsed the formerly little-known Daniel Mongiardo, including the influential Louisville Courier-Journal, which argued:
We have long regarded Sen. Bunning as honest and as a straight shooter, and have held him in greater respect than our differences over policy might suggest. That is why both the tenor of his campaign and his own personal conduct are so troubling.His assault on his rival has been outrageous. One ad, in particular, suggests Sen. Mongiardo has become rich by bilking Medicaid, and it shows a mansion and airplane that do not, in fact, belong to Sen. Mongiardo. At a minimum, Sen. Bunning showed slipping judgment in approving such a scurrilous and unfounded attack.
Bunning responded by saying the paper "has a history of supporting bad ideas for Kentucky" and that he doesn’t watch or read the news. So on Wednesday, the Democratic Party launched an ad questioning if "he missed the news" on the state’s laid-off workers, uninsured children, etc.
Bunning has clearly driven down the level of discourse in his campaign, notoriously joking about how Mongiardo looks like a son of Saddam Hussein, taking a Bush-like approach to the word "liberal" and blatantly skipping a scheduled debate without even giving an excuse. Earlier this week, Bunning supporter (and state Senate president) David Williams took things down another rung, calling Mongiardo a "switch hitter" and aruging:
"What a shame it would be if we traded the strong left hand of Jim Bunning -- the punch that he has -- for the limp wrist of Mongiardo."
First of all, Bunning’s "strong hand" is his right, not his left. And when campaign surrogates are questioning an opponent’s sexuality, it’s a sure sign of desperation.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
2:00 PM
Eminem vs. Bush, Part II
Last December the Secret Service considered rap-artist Eminem a threat to President Bush after hearing the line "F*#k money, I don't grab the dead presidents. ... I'd rather see the president dead," in his song "We as Americans." The Secret Service decided not to pursue Eminem after an initial investigation, but may reopen the case after watching his latest video release.
The new video, "Mosh," is now #1 on MTV and the most requested (and downloaded) video in the country. An animated montage of anti-war and anti-Bush statements, it confronts the president on everything from knowing about 9/11 and calculating the war in Iraq before the attack to covering himself in a false patriotism while leading the country to war based on falsified intelligence. The lyrics sound a powerful call-to-action for all those suffering under the Bush administration's policies who seem, thus far, too disaffected to fight back:
"Teen million people, Are equal at this high pitch Maybe we can reach al Queda through my speech Let the president answer a higher anarchy Strap him with an Ak-47, let him go, fight his own war Let him impress daddy that way No more blood for oil, we got our own battles to fight on our own soil No more psychological warfare, to trick us to thinking that we ain't loyal If we don't serve our own country, we're patronizing a hero Look in his eyes its all lies The stars and stripes, they've been swiped, washed out and wiped And replaced with his own face, Mosh now or die If I get sniped tonight you know why, Cause I told you to fight."
Directed, produced and edited by the Guerilla News Network's Ian Inaba, the video has ambitions larger than the Bush-Kerry election. And Inaba announces a first amendment challenge to the corporate broadcasters who, notoriously, silence dissent:
"Now, it's up to the broadcasters. Will they ban the top selling musical artist for being anti-establishment while they allow other propaganda to air? Or will they finally allow an artist who has the courage to speak out to take center stage and utilize the airwaves for something other than typical celebrity fodder?"
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
1:38 PM
Is our president learning?
President Bush may not understand why actually being flexible is important, but he seems to understand that appearing flexible is politically shrewd:
George Bush has raised the possibility of altering US tactics in Iraq in a move that his campaign manager said showed a commander-in-chief willing to learn from setbacks.
The President tinkered with his re-election message as seven nationwide polls and the state-by-state electoral vote count showed him and his Democratic challenger, John Kerry, still locked in a virtual dead heat.
"A president must lead with consistency and strength in these troubling times," Mr Bush told supporters in Onalaska, Wisconsin. "In war, sometimes you change your tactics - but you never change your principles."
In Washington, Mr Bush's campaign manager, Ken Mehlman, told reporters several hours later that "the goal is fixed [but] the tactics are flexible" in Iraq. Neither man detailed changes in the approach to Iraq, where about 1100 soldiers have died in combat in the past 19 months.
No indication of what will be done differently in Iraq. No high-level officials responsible for the screw-ups in Iraq will be fired. No one's even admitting that any mistakes were made. But the president claims that he's thinking about being flexible, and that, presumably, is good enough. I would hope that major media outlets don't start covering this story as, "Bush ready to learn from mistakes," in the absence of, you know, actual evidence that Bush is learning from his mistakes.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
1:17 PM
Schilling shilling for Bush
John Kerry has yet another political decision to make. If he wins the presidency, and invites his beloved Boston Red Sox to the White House, what does he do about star pitcher Curt Schilling?
Like just about every Massachusetts resident, Kerry had to brag about the Sox winning their first World Series title since the Wilson administration. In an official statement, Kerry said:
"I've been rooting for this day since I was a kid. I couldn't be more thrilled for the team and for all the fans who stuck by the Red Sox year after year after year. This Red Sox team came back against all odds and showed America what heart is. In 2004, the Red Sox are America's team."
But Kerry has to be somewhat disappointed that Schilling -- who won two huge playoff games despite a severe ankle injury -- used his post-Series appearance on "Good Morning America" to encourage voters to select George Bush on Tuesday. Schilling has also agreed to campaign for Bush in the Sox-fan-heavy swing state of New Hampshire starting Friday.
Kerry hasn’t publicly responded to Schilling’s move. In the pitcher’s defense, Kerry would raise his taxes, as his $12 million salary (plus endorsements) puts him squarely in that "top 2 percent" income bracket for whom the Bush tax cuts were rather helpful.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
12:36 PM
Calling in votes
The non-partisan group Common Cause wants to ensure every eligible voter is actually able to vote. To that end, the group has set up the toll-free voter alert hotline 866-MYVOTE-1, a nationwide number where those who experience problems can be connected to their local board of elections (as well as get the location of their polling place).
The hotline also allows voters to leave messages detailing their troubles. In a conference call conducted Thursday, Common Cause officials said the hotline has already received about 28,000 calls, including more than 1,000 complaints from Broward County, Fla., where many voters haven’t received the absentee ballots they requested.
Organization officials said the hotline should identify which local and state election officials are not responding to voters’ concerns. Common Cause is working with responsive officials to make sure poll workers follow voter eligibility rules. And it has lawyers and exit-poll volunteers who will monitor polling places on Tuesday, looking for systemic problems and making sure voters aren’t wrongly turned away. As Common Cause executive Chellie Pingree explained:
"Our interest is that everybody who wants to vote is able to vote, and that all votes that are cast are counted."
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
12:30 PM
Blame our troops
Unbelievable. When Republicans aren't falsely accusing John Kerry of denigrating our troops, they're going out and actually blaming our troops for the missing explosives at al Qaqaa. Media Matters has the roundup, including this quote from "America's mayor":
GIULIANI: The president was cautious. The president was prudent. The president did what a commander in chief should do. And no matter how much you try to blame it on the president, the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough? Didn't they search carefully enough?
Maybe it's just me, but a president whose White House staff rejects calls for more troops to secure the piece isn't being "cautious" or "prudent." I believe "reckless" is the right word. Over at Tapped, Matthew Yglesias notes that the Bush administration never ordered enough troops precisely because they wanted a quick invasion that would scare our enemies into submission. (A theory we've discussed here.) Blaming the troops for failing to do something they had neither the imperative nor the manpower to do is pretty galling, to say the least.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
11:34 AM
Ahnold for Bush (one day only!)
Arnold Schwarzenegger will campaign with George Bush in Ohio on Friday, and the president had better hope the appearance drums up plenty of votes. That’s because, according to the moderate California governor, it’s the only appearance he’ll make on Bush’s behalf:
"For me it's a balancing act, of course you know, because if I don't campaign for President Bush, the Republicans will be angry. If I campaign for President Bush the Democrats are angry. I think there is a happy medium which I made very clear. I will not go and travel around the country with the president because my work is here."
At a Wednesday appearance near Los Angeles, Schwarzenegger -- while endorsing Bush -- focused his campaigning on Proposition 71, a state ballot initiative supporting increased stem-cell research (which Bush consistently opposes). And in response to a reporter’s question, Schwarzenegger conceded "we know that the outcome" will see Kerry win California on Tuesday, rather than give a partisan we-can-win-any-state response.
The governor, who has his own presidential ambitions (assuming a future constitutional amendment allows him to run), sure sounds like a man unwilling to risk his popularity for a president with radically different social policy and worryingly low approval ratings:
"I think it's important that everyone express their opinions come next Tuesday. And people should vote on what they want and I, of course, encourage people to vote yes and reelect President Bush, but my wife (Democrat Maria Shriver) says no. I go the other way. So that's great."
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
11:02 AM
Al Qaqaa "dispute" resolved
For whatever reason, the missing explosives at al Qaqaa turned into a "controversy" over the past few days, with credible witnesses claiming that looting in the complex had occurred on the one hand, and the Bush administration claiming "no they didn't" on the other. In the real world, this wouldn't be a controversy at all, but in media world, the Bush say-so gets equal weight with actual evidence. Anyways, via Atrios, I see that a local ABC affiliate is ready put this little dispute to rest. Their crew was embedded with the 101st Airborne Division, and had actual footage of the explosives:
Using GPS technology and talking with members of the 101st Airborne 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS determined our crew embedded with them may have been on the southern edge of the Al Qaqaa installation, where that ammunition disappeared. Our crew was based just south of Al Qaqaa. On April 18, 2003 they drove two or three miles north into what is believed to be that area.
During that trip, members of the 101st Airborne Division showed the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew bunker after bunker of material labelled explosives. Usually it took just the snap of a bolt cutter to get in and see the material identified by the 101st as detonation cords.
Of course, that hasn't stopped the administration from trying to confuse everyone and anyone. The latest line is that the Russians took the explosives, although Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita has distanced himself from this little theory.
Now I don't know if the Russians took the explosives or not; I certainly hope they have them and not al Qaeda or Tawhid al-Jihad or some other terrorist group. But I'm not sure how this makes the story any better. The Bush administration still didn't have enough troops to secure an important depository, and the invasion force still failed to stop looting in a dangerous area. If you leave the henhouse unlocked, and it turns out that, luckily, your kindly neighbor took all the chickens rather than the fox, you're still guilty of leaving the henhouse unguarded.
We also haven't quite answered why the White House sat on this story for so long, or why the CPA ordered Iraqis not to tell anyone that the explosives were missing. But as long as the Bush administration throws up a fog shroud, important little details can get left in the gutter.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
9:25 AM
Blogging from London: anti-Bush vs. anti-American
The British, like the French, like the Germans, like -- well, too many Europeans to mention, want President George W. Bush to lose on Nov. 2. In a poll conducted by the London Guardian and ICM Research, 60 percent of Britons held an unfavorable view of Bush; 50 percent want Senator John Kerry win the presidency compared with 22 percent who prefer Bush. This overwhelmingly negative view of the current American administration did not translate to ill-feelings towards Americans in general -- 62 percent of Britons held a favorable view of Americans while only 21 percent viewed Americans unfavorably.
These past few years the estimated 6 million American civilians and 500,000 military troops living abroad have been getting an earful of foreigners' opinions about U.S. foreign policy. And some are questioning whether Brits and other foreigners really make a distinction between disliking the Bush administration, on one hand, and, on the other, disliking America and Americans. In a stinging op-ed in the Guardian, American journalist Carol Gould argues that while British anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism is nothing new, it has recently gotten so bad, that she now fears for her safety in London.
I am aware that many Americans are leaving their homes abroad and returning home after decades in Europe because they can no longer endure the daily abuse. Anti-Americanism is not a result of Abu Ghraib or of a Rumsfeldian pronouncement. It is a disturbing and hurtful form of psychosis that is rapidly eroding the all-important special relationship.
I do not yet fear for my life in St John's Wood, but it sure is heaven strolling around the artists' studios at the Torpedo factory in Alexandria, Virginia and being greeted as me, not as a bloody American or an accursed Jew.
The piece expectedly prompted fellow Americans to write-in, expressing a range of reactions, from agreement to bewilderment to anger. Certainly, few Americans have been subjected to a physical assault, or even the kind of verbal harangues Gould cites. Nevertheless, there are several irritants that an American in Britain can reliably count on. For example, the Brits often use the terms "the Americans" and "the Bush administration," but it would be a mistake to read blanket anti-Americanism into this. As Sharon Manitta, the spokeswoman for Democrats Abroad, who has lived abroad for 25 years, told MotherJones.com:
There is sort of a sine curve; you get periods when they don't think we are too bad and other periods when they think we're dreadful. One thing I found very touching during the anti-war marches was the signs in London that said: we like Americans, we just don't like the American administration. And I was very touched that they differentiated that, but the thing is that there is always this love-hate relationship in the media in Britain between the U.S. and the U.K., and how we are perceived, and it's something we have to live with. Many times I feel like I'm giving a civics lesson to the British media because I try to clarify things that they have the complete wrong end of the story, and I want to make sure that they understand clearly what's going on. I would say it's like: "I'll explain baseball to you, if you explain cricket to me."
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
9:00 AM
Murdoch chooses sides (of the world)
It’s official. Rupert Murdoch is moving his media empire to the United States.
The move, approved by News Corp. shareholders on Tuesday, will see Murdoch’s empire incorporated in Delaware and listed on the New York Stock Exchange as early as Nov. 4.
As to who will be president-elect when that occurs, Murdoch continues to maintain, with no hint of irony, that his Fox News channel isn’t taking sides:
"We're not in the least bit biased, we're a fair and balanced company…It's full of Democrats and Republicans, the others only have Democrats. We don't take any position there at all."
However, the 73-year-old mogul did admit that his print media, both in the U.S. and overseas, have enthusiastically supported George Bush’s foreign policy agenda and will continue to do so. And he argued the U.S. economy would fare better if Bush remains at the helm:
"I think you'll get a lift to the market and you'll get continuation of his tax reduction program which will help, and interest rates will stay low, probably.”
No doubt Fox News will continue doing its part to make Murdoch’s prediction come true.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
3:35 PM
Pork farming in swing states
She's not the best-known Cabinet official stumping for George Bush, but Ann Veneman might be the most important. As the Chicago Tribune reports Wednesday, the agriculture secretary and other USDA officials have been campaigning for the president around the country -- and touting some new USDA grants that happen to help swing-state voters.
“Veneman has made 18 official trips outside the nation's capital in the past three months, including four to Florida, three to Ohio, two to Minnesota and one each to Wisconsin, Iowa and Missouri. During that same period last year she made nine such trips, according to USDA news releases."Five of Veneman's top aides, meanwhile, have made as many as 47 trips in the last seven weeks alone, 28 of those to battleground states, according to schedules published weekly by the USDA."
During the last two months, the Tribune adds, the USDA has announced roughly $3.2 billion in grants and loans, “nearly 10 times as much as the during the same period last year.’‘ The states receiving the largest amount of aid, naturally, are vote-rich battlegrounds Ohio and Florida.
This is a prime example of “the power of incumbency," and is nothing new. As Larry Noble of the Center for Responsive Politics points out:
There is a long history of this, and traditionally each administration starts dishing out money and grants to key states right before an election. The problem is, it appears to be getting worse and worse with each election.
While the cliché that citizens vote their pocketbook won’t help the administration overall, Bush obviously hopes fresh money in farmers' pockets will make them go to the polls in a grateful mood.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
2:45 PM
More voter intimidation
Voter intimidation continues apace in swing states. With polls shifting back and forth between Bush and Kerry, the "dirty tricks" campaign of disenfranchisement has a new target: new voters on college campuses. As part of a strategy of young voter suppression in a number of states, the Republican Party in New Hampshire is leading the way in challenging college student voters throughout the Granite State. Ryan Smith, a senior at Keene State College, was unfairly deemed ineligible to register when a town official told him that his college identification and a piece of mail were insufficient:
"All I wanted to do was vote. It left me wondering whether all the hassle was worth it."
For all of the rhetoric surrounding new voters and young people registering, the awful truth is that these voters -- like African Americans, Latinos, and Women, among others -- are being targeted and intimidated in this election precisely because they're more likely to vote Democrat. This includes the excessive warnings and Republican-driven legislation (driver licenses, tax status, health and auto insurance) against out-of-town college students registering where they live for the vast majority of the year.
Unlike most states, New Hampshire, which Bush barely won in 2000 and where he trails slightly in the latest state polls, allows voters to register on Election Day. Secretary of State William M. Gardner -- upon the request of Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club -- held a news conference yesterday to explain the rules pertaining to college students from outside the state:
"To vote is the crown jewel of democracy, and we don't want anyone taking advantage of it on either side."
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
12:05 PM
Last-minute campaign tactics
As the presidential campaigns wind down, it's worth looking out for a surprise Karl Rove strategy. Recall that in 2000, he had Bush visit safely-blue California in the final days before the election, to give off an aura of confidence and inevitability. The little stunt almost cost Bush the election, but that doesn't mean Rove will stop trying. Now Noam Scheiber gets an interesting email from a Democratic operative suggesting that Bush is doing so well in "blue states" like New Jersey and Hawaii because his campaign is buying up ads on national cable. So even though Hawaii is probably a sure thing for Kerry, the state has been inundated with Bush ads and is closer than would be expected. Of course, it's worth noting that Bush's "inflated national numbers" aren't all that great, so maybe Rove really isn't the evil genius we all feared he would be.
Meanwhile, Thomas Oliphant reports that GOP politicians are asking Bush to stay away from red-leaning swing-states, since he tends to rile up Democrats there just as much as Republicans. Seems that Bush's relentless attack ads are more effective than the man himself. He's really quite the uniter, our president.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
10:40 AM
"Disappearing" prisoners in Iraq
The Washington Post speaks out against the Pentagon's practice of "disappearing" prisoners held in Iraq. As always, because this practice has been developed behind close doors, without congressional oversight, we have no way of knowing exactly who is affected. White House counsel Alberto Gonzalez argued that foreign fighters in Iraq are not subject to protection under the Geneva Conventions. The Justice Department, going one step further, has suggested that even "protected persons" can be taken out of Iraq and interrogated -- potentially to a country like Syria that uses torture. But how would we know?
Now, no doubt many Bush supporters will shrug and say, "So what, it's just al Qaeda fighters who are being disappeared." But these tactics never simply stay put. As the Schlesinger report on Abu Ghraib pointed out, tactics that were originally intended for Al Qaeda and Taliban "enemy combantants" ended up "migrat[ing]" to Abu Ghraib, where many perfectly innocent Iraqis were held. It's not okay at all.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
10:39 AM
More complaints about our North Korea non-policy
In the past, we've noted just how warped the Bush administration's approach to North Korea was. (I believe the key line was: "If you want negotiations to move along, you actually have to negotiate something.") One official recently described the approach as "no carrot, no stick, and no talk." Now South Korea is joining in, asking the U.S. to put forward "a more creative and realistic proposal" so that talks can actually move forward. Quite predictably, the Bush administration has refused, unwilling as ever to appease Kim Jong Il.
This whole "appeasement" thing is ridiculous. Yes, Kerry, like Clinton before him, has proposed to disarm North Korea through diplomacy. Yes, that would involve giving a bad, bad man some things that he wants. You could even say he would be guilty of coddling dictators. But so what, as long as its effective? If your main goal is to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, you may end up appeasing the bad guys from time to time. On the other hand, if your main goal is to show resolve in the face of evil, as Bush's is, then you may find that your enemies have armed themselves with nuclear weapons. While the latter approach may be morally praiseworthy, but it's also insanity from a proliferation standpoint, and that's something everyone else in the known universe recognizes.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
5:06 PM
What tolerant president?
Andrew Sullivan has a great take on Bush's recent announcement that he would support same-sex civil unions. Regardless of Bush's private views on the matter, the president has always been careful to give off the impression that he opposes gay marriage, gay unions, anything and everything. And he's been willing to play up that impression whenever he thought he could profit from it. Back when it looked like the Federal Marriage Amendment would be an election-year boon to Republicans, Bush never said a word about endorsing civil unions.
So frankly, it really doesn't matter if Bush is personally quite open-minded, just like it's sort of besides the point to ask whether the FMA would actually permit same-sex civil unions or not. The president and his party backed the amendment explicitly to pander to homophobia and win votes. Pleading tolerance now is pretty weak.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
2:42 PM
The New York Post casts its lot
Quelling any remaining doubts that the New York Post is in any way fair and balanced, Rupert Murdoch's tabloid ran a pro-Bush opinion column on its front page today. In doing so, it not only underscored the clear bias of the Murdoch empire, but crossed a journalistic line in devoting the front page -- which even the Post normally reserves for news (though, in its case, often stretching the definition of news) -- into a platform for one of its columnists.
That columnist is Steve Dunleavy, and the column details how his son's coming deployment in Iraq makes his support of Bush "personal" as well as "business":
"When John Kerry says wrong war, wrong time, wrong place he undermines not my boy, but our boys. He embarrasses the United States abroad and he saps morale."And that demands the severest reprimand. It is duplicity and cowardice and political opportunism of the worst kind. It's enough to make you cry."
The column reads like a litany of Bush campaign talking points -- its spinning of Kerry's stance on the war, its tired invocation of Jane Fonda, its argument that Kerry undermines troops by questioning Bush's leadership. On the opinion page, this would just read like a hastily written, and shrill, letter to the editor. On the front page, it -- like Sinclair Broadcasting's anti-Kerry film showing -- just shows how willing some in the far-right media are to be partisan shills first and news operations second.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
12:08 PM
Just don't call it a puppet government
The Los Angeles Times reports something that's been in the cards for awhile -- the United States is trying to ensure that its preferred parties -- the parties in the Iraqi interim government --win a majority in the January elections. As Spencer Ackerman writes, this is a problem insofar as the interim parties don't necessarily represent the Shia majority in Iraq, and have already been denounced by prominent Sunni groups.
This brings up a question about the set-up of the January elections. As things are structured right now, parties will run on a unified list system. That means that each political party or group of parties will run a list of candidates, and if that list gets, say, 35 percent of the vote, then the top candidates on the list are selected to fill 35 percent of National Assembly seats. As designed, this system is quite clearly set up to do one of two things: a) ensure that the Shia majority get a majority of seats in the Senate, or b) allow the United States to back a consolidated slate of candidates and manipulate the election. The president has indicated that he would allow an elected government dominated by Shiite fundamentalists, but the vice-president and other Pentagon officials seem to prefer option b). So it's either hostile Islamic majority or unpopular puppet government. Take your pick.
A third option would have been to create a bicameral legislature, with a lower house based on proportional representation, and an upper house with strong minority protection -- something similar to our very own House and Senate. This would have ensured a Shia majority while allowing Sunnis and Kurds to maintain a strong voice and veto power. (Law professor Alec Walen sketched out this possibility back in 2003.) Unfortunately this was never considered, which means that either the Bush administration figured they could install their own preferred leaders in Iraq, or else they just never gave the actual workings of Iraqi democracy much thought.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
10:47 AM
"Keep Your F***in’ Limey Hands Off Our Election!”
Last week, the London Guardian launched Operation Clark County, an unusual attempt to "help readers have a say in the American election by writing to undecided voters in the crucial state of Ohio." Ohioans quickly -- and colorfully -- made their feelings known.
It's easy to laugh at the Guardian, but its hilariously misguided meddling does tap into a very real sense, in Britain and elsewhere around the world, that the outcome of the U.S. election is a very big deal -- quite possibly a matter of life and death -- to non-Americans.
A feeling of powerless is widespread. Ian Katz, the Guardian’s features editor writes, “For millions of people around the world, this election will have far more of an impact on our lives than even elections in their own country.”
Brits aren't the only foreigners to try to empower non-Americans in this upcoming election. The Netherlands-based theworldvotes.org has been registering people around the world to “vote” in the U.S. elections. Once registered, participants are regularly polled on their choice of president. Shortly before the U.S. elections take place, participants will be sent a ballot by email, and a global vote will be taken. Similarly, Canadian-based “Voices ’04: Voices Without Votes” seeks to encourage U.S. voters to participate in the upcoming election and urges them to keep in mind the viewpoints expressed by the non-U.S. citizens who post “letters to America.” Writes one participant, “I have never been to the United States, but I want to vote in the upcoming elections … Every action of the U.S. President affects my life deeply in political, economic, social and cultural terms.”
And it's not just ordinary folks that are getting in on the act; world leaders are, too. Former Malaysian President Mahathir Mohammad recently sent an open letter appealing to the American-Muslim community not to vote for Bush, while Vladimir Putin urged voters to keep Bush on, saying that terrorist attacks in Iraq are aimed at preventing Bush’s re-election, and that, if they succeed, they “could lead to the spread of terrorism to other parts of the world.” And if you aren’t the President or former leader of a country? Well, there’s always money. While foreign financial contributions cannot be made to the campaigns themselves, 527s are still in the grey. Though technically etc. etc. … As Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, reminds us, 527s don’t need to play by FEC rules. Even disclosure laws are voluntary, making it next to impossible to track down the origins of this soft money.
Apart from these rather hazy windows of opportunity for foreign nationals, there is little legitimate impact they can have come Nov. 2 except to sit and watch the numbers roll in. Many Americans think that is the way it should be. As one U.S. blogger remarked in his response to theworldvotes.org project, “Do any of these respondents really want me to play a role in determining their domestic policies?” Arguably not. And rightfully so. Democratic elections are supposed to reflect the opinions and interests of the members of that democracy. But what happens when the actions of one country disproportionately influence foreign affairs? The world wants to vote.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
10:15 AM
Illinois governor creating health care hassles for Bush
Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich is determined to bring affordable health care to his state, and he continues to be a thorn in the FDA's side. On Monday, the governor requested approval to import flu vaccine from overseas to inoculate Illinois seniors. State officials have reportedly found 30,000 available doses from the French company Aventis-Pasteur, and believe Britain's GlaxoSmithKline could provide even more, Blagojevich said:
"After scouring Europe for as much flu vaccine as they could find, we were able to identify at least 30,000 doses that can be shipped within hours of approval by the FDA," Blagojevich told the Associated Press. "I'm calling on the FDA to act as quickly as possible to approve this transaction. Time is of the essence."
Blagojevich has challenged the FDA before on medical issues. Earlier this month, he and Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle announced a program in which their states link residents with overseas prescription-drug providers. He'd earlier asked for FDA permission to import drugs from Canada and, when his request was denied last year, he let Illinois set up a website linking residents to vetted Canadian pharmacies.
With the flu vaccine and drug importation on the agenda as big election-year issues, Blagojevich's moves will do nothing to hurt his popularity among Illinois voters. But he's causing some small headaches for George Bush's FDA.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
4:19 PM
The Guardian gives quirky election coverage another shot
Documentography, a London-based collective, is sending five photographers to the U.S. this week to follow five American households as they decide on their choices for the next American president. As part of the Guardian's 2004 election coverage, the photographers -- two Brits, a Frenchman, a Brazilian, and a Dane -- will document the response of "ordinary" Americans to the final week of the election. Danish photographer Anna Kari, the mastermind behind the project, hopes to counterbalance the vain coverage of the mainstream press a la John Stewart and "The Daily Show," but with a more serious focus:
"I think political debate is a lot more aggressive in the US; it's like a stageshow. People are very radical in their opinions. Or maybe we don't hear from the middle ground so much. I feel like I have to go down to local paper level to hear people's voices."
The Documentography project follows the Guardian's somewhat unsuccessful experiment of sending unsolicited letters from Brits to undecided voters in Clark County, Ohio. The responsefrom Americans to that experiment, for the most part, was less than friendly and revealed the severe disconnect between people of both sides of the Atlantic (many begin "Dear Limey ") For Documentography, each photographer will post ten pictures each day on Guardian Unlimited, along with accompanying text and three minutes of sound. Check out the exhibits - with chronicles individual families in San Diego, CA; Tallahassee, Florida; LaGrange, Georgia; Canton, Ohio; and, of course, Crawford, Texas -- to get a sense of what Americans in these diverse regions are talking about and how they receive "outsiders" this close to a deeply divided election. And, as Kari makes clear, the conversations will extend far beyond politics:
"It could be two neighbours talking about who they'll vote for, or ambient sound from a football stadium. We won't constantly be asking the families, 'Who are you voting for? What about Iraq?' It will be much more about daily life, about sitting around a barbecue with a beer."
Well, that sounds like an improvement over the tedious and caricatured coverage of swing voters we've been subjected to over the past months.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
02:31 PM
Ex-presidents for Kerry
John Kerry getting far more support than George Bush not only from Nobel Prize winners, scientists and the international community, he's also getting more assistance from former presidents.
This evening, Bill Clinton makes his return to the stump on Kerry's behalf, speaking at a rally in Philadelphia. In an interview with ABC News on Sunday, Clinton said he wants to campaign for Kerry despite his ill health, "because the differences between the two candidates and the courses they'll pursue in the next four years are so profound." The 42nd president plans to do as much campaign work as his recovery from heart surgery permits in the next week to help boost Kerry.
Meanwhile, former President Jimmy Carter has had some harsh words for the Bush administration. On a book tour in Europe to promote his first novel, Carter shared his view of how George Bush has exploited the Sept. 11 attacks:
"[The United States] suffered, in 9/11, a terrible and shocking attack ... and George Bush has been adroit at exploiting that attack, and he has elevated himself, in the consciousness of many Americans, to a heroic commander-in-chief, fighting a global threat against America."
Both Carter and Clinton -- the only living Democratic presidents -- had prominent speaking roles at the party's convention in July. By comparison, GOP equivalents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush were left off the prime-time schedule in New York. And while both are endorsing George W. Bush, they've been far less visible or enthusiastic in support of their candidate.
In an interview last week with the Denver Post, Ford said he has "open door" access to the White House, though he infrequently speaks with the president (Clinton, by comparison, speaks to Kerry roughly once a week). While he praised Bush's response to Sept. 11, Ford took both parties to task for the negative tone of the campaign:
"The bitterness that exists between Democrats and Republicans, I think, has degenerated into ... a stalemate, and I'm very, very unhappy with it. It does turn off voters, and it results in a lack of action that has to be done for the country's good."
In addition, the President Bush smart enough not to send troops into Baghdad has been stumping for Republican candidates, but hasn't appeared much with his son.
Both Ford and Bush Sr. faced challenges from the far right that has now become a key part of Dubya's base, and their absence probably reflects the campaign's efforts to speak to the base instead of reaching out to moderates. Still, the Democrats sure seem like the more united party.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
12:29 PM
More criminal negligence in Iraq
Of all the failures so far in the Iraq war, perhaps the most preventable -- and potentially, the most catastrophic -- was the disappearance of 350 tons of explosives from a facility near Baghdad during the post-invasion looting in April 2003.
On Monday, the International Atomic Energy Agency presented a letter to the U.N. Security Council stating that coalition forces were repeatedly warned to secure the material before the looting took place, warnings on which they obviously didn't follow through. The IAEA said the loss of the explosives was confirmed Oct. 10 by the Iraqi interim government, and U.S. coalition forces were told within a few days.
The missing materials reportedly include HMX and RDX, commonly used in plastic explosives. Worse, according to the IAEA, some of the missing explosives can be used to detonate a nuclear device. David Bamford of the BBC reports "even a kilogram of these high-powered explosives was enough to level a building." With 350 tons reported missing, the math yields some scary possibilities.
John Kerry was quick to work the issue into his campaign speech Monday in Colorado, citing the missing weapons of Bush's "incredible incompetence" in Iraq. The White House response, as described by the Associated Press:
"White House spokesman Scott McClellan played down the threat posed by explosives missing from the Al Qaqaa military installation. He said there was no threat of nuclear proliferation, and preferred to concentrate on weapons destroyed, not those lost. 'We have destroyed more than 243,000 munitions,' he said. 'We've secured another nearly 163,000 that will be destroyed.'"
Talking about munitions captured is all well and good, but the White House is obviously trying to gloss over the fact that someone -- and nobody's sure who -- now has plenty of weapons that clearly should have been secured. With the insurgency still raging, that's a dangerous wild card sitting somewhere in the desert.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
11:39 AM
Wolfpacks for Truth!
Just days before the election, the Bush campaign is still hitting its "Vote for Kerry and Die" talki