The Word from Crawford September 30, 2004February 27, 2017 You have doubtless seen this already – but it’s too good to take any chance that you have not. Great reading from George Bush’s hometown paper to keep in mind as you watch tonight’s debate: Kerry Will Restore American Dignity Few Americans would have voted for George W. Bush four years ago if he had promised that, as President, he would: Empty the Social Security trust fund by $507 billion to help offset fiscal irresponsibility and at the same time slash Social Security benefits. Cut Medicare by 17 percent and reduce veterans’ benefits and military pay. Eliminate overtime pay for millions of Americans and raise oil prices by 50 percent. Give tax cuts to businesses that sent American jobs overseas, and, in fact, by policy encourage their departure. Give away billions of tax dollars in government contracts without competitive bids. Involve this country in a deadly and highly questionable war, and Take a budget surplus and turn it into the worst deficit in the history of the United States, creating a debt in just four years that will take generations to repay. These were elements of a hidden agenda that surfaced only after he took office. The publishers of The Iconoclast endorsed Bush four years ago, based on the things he promised, not on this smoke-screened agenda. Today, we are endorsing his opponent, John Kerry, based not only on the things that Bush has delivered, but also on the vision of a return to normality that Kerry says our country needs. Four items trouble us the most about the Bush administration: his initiatives to disable the Social Security system, the deteriorating state of the American economy, a dangerous shift away from the basic freedoms established by our founding fathers, and his continuous mistakes regarding terrorism and Iraq. President Bush has announced plans to change the Social Security system as we know it by privatizing it, which when considering all the tangents related to such a change, would put the entire economy in a dramatic tailspin. The Social Security Trust Fund actually lends money to the rest of the government in exchange for government bonds, which is how the system must work by law, but how do you later repay Social Security while you are running a huge deficit? It’s impossible, without raising taxes sometime in the future or becoming fiscally responsible now. Social Security money is being used to escalate our deficit and, at the same time, mask a much larger government deficit, instead of paying down the national debt, which would be a proper use, to guarantee a future gain. Privatization is problematic in that it would subject Social Security to the ups, downs, and outright crashes of the Stock Market. It would take millions in brokerage fees and commissions out of the system, and, unless we have assurance that the Ivan Boeskys and Ken Lays of the world will be caught and punished as a deterrent, subject both the Market and the Social Security Fund to fraud and market manipulation, not to mention devastate and ruin multitudes of American families that would find their lives lost to starvation, shame, and isolation. Kerry wants to keep Social Security, which each of us already owns. He says that the program is manageable, since it is projected to be solvent through 2042, with use of its trust funds. This would give ample time to strengthen the economy, reduce the budget deficit the Bush administration has created, and, therefore, bolster the program as needed to fit ever-changing demographics. Our senior citizens depend upon Social Security. Bush’s answer is radical and uncalled for, and would result in chaos as Americans have never experienced. Do we really want to risk the future of Social Security on Bush by spinning the wheel of uncertainty? In those dark hours after the World Trade Center attacks, Americans rallied together with a new sense of patriotism. We were ready to follow Bush’s lead through any travail. He let us down. When he finally emerged from his hide-outs on remote military bases well after the first crucial hours following the attack, he gave sound-bytes instead of solutions. He did not trust us to be ready to sacrifice, build up our public and private security infrastructure, or cut down on our energy use to put economic pressure on the enemy in all the nations where he hides. He merely told us to shop, spend, and pretend nothing was wrong. Rather than using the billions of dollars expended on the invasion of Iraq to shore up our boundaries and go after Osama bin Laden and the Saudi Arabian terrorists, the funds were used to initiate a war with what Bush called a more immediate menace, Saddam Hussein, in oil-rich Iraq. After all, Bush said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction trained on America. We believed him, just as we believed it when he reported that Iraq was the heart of terrorism. We trusted him. The Iconoclast, the President’s hometown newspaper, took Bush on his word and editorialized in favor of the invasion. The newspaper’s publisher promoted Bush and the invasion of Iraq to Londoners in a BBC interview during the time that the administration was wooing the support of Prime Minister Tony Blair. Again, he let us down. We presumed the President had solid proof of the existence of these weapons, what and where they were, even as the search continued. Otherwise, our troops would be in much greater danger and the premise for a hurried-up invasion would be moot, allowing more time to solicit assistance from our allies. Instead we were duped into following yet another privileged agenda. Now he argues unconvincingly that Iraq was providing safe harbor to terrorists, his new key justification for the invasion. It is like arguing that America provided safe harbor to terrorists leading to 9/11. Once and for all, George Bush was President of the United States on that day. No one else. He had been President nine months, he had been officially warned of just such an attack a full month before it happened. As President, ultimately he and only he was responsible for our failure to avert those attacks. We should expect that a sitting President would vacation less, if at all, and instead tend to the business of running the country, especially if he is, as he likes to boast, a “wartime president.” America is in service 365 days a year. We don’t need a part-time President who does not show up for duty as Commander-In-Chief until he is forced to, and who is in a constant state of blameless denial when things don’t get done. What has evolved from the virtual go-it-alone conquest of Iraq is more gruesome than a stain on a White House intern’s dress. America’s reputation and influence in the world has diminished, leaving us with brute force as our most persuasive voice. Iraq is now a quagmire: no WMDs, no substantive link between Saddam and Osama, and no workable plan for the withdrawal of our troops. We are asked to go along on faith. But remember, blind patriotism can be a dangerous thing and “spin” will not bring back to life a dead soldier; certainly not a thousand of them. Kerry has remained true to his vote granting the President the authority to use the threat of war to intimidate Saddam Hussein into allowing weapons inspections. He believes President Bush rushed into war before the inspectors finished their jobs. Kerry also voted against President Bush’s $87 billion for troop funding because the bill promoted poor policy in Iraq, privileged Halliburton and other corporate friends of the Bush administration to profiteer from the war, and forced debt upon future generations of Americans. Kerry’s four-point plan for Iraq is realistic, wise, strong, and correct. With the help from our European and Middle Eastern allies, his plan is to train Iraqi security forces, involve Iraqis in their rebuilding and constitution-writing processes, forgive Iraq’s multi-billion dollar debts, and convene a regional conference with Iraq’s neighbors in order to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq’s borders and non-interference in Iraq’s internal affairs. The publishers of the Iconoclast differ with Bush on other issues, including the denial of stem cell research, shortchanging veterans’ entitlements, cutting school programs and grants, dictating what our children learn through a thought-controlling “test” from Washington rather than allowing local school boards and parents to decide how young people should be taught, ignoring the environment, and creating extraneous language in the Patriot Act that removes some of the very freedoms that our founding fathers and generations of soldiers fought so hard to preserve. We are concerned about the vast exportation of jobs to other countries, due in large part to policies carried out by Bush appointees. Funds previously geared at retention of small companies are being given to larger concerns, such as Halliburton — companies with strong ties to oil and gas. Job training has been cut every year that Bush has resided at the White House. Then there is his resolve to inadequately finance Homeland Security and to cut the Community Oriented Policing Program (COPS) by 94 percent, to reduce money for rural development, to slash appropriations for the Small Business Administration, and to under-fund veterans’ programs. Likewise troubling is that President Bush fought against the creation of the 9/11 Commission and is yet to embrace its recommendations. Vice President Cheney’s Halliburton has been awarded multi-billion-dollar contracts without undergoing any meaningful bid process — an enormous conflict of interest — plus the company has been significantly raiding the funds of Export-Import Bank of America, reducing investment that could have gone toward small business trade. When examined based on all the facts, Kerry’s voting record is enviable and echoes that of many Bush allies who are aghast at how the Bush administration has destroyed the American economy. Compared to Bush on economic issues, Kerry would be an arch-conservative, providing for Americans first. He has what it takes to right our wronged economy. The re-election of George W. Bush would be a mandate to continue on our present course of chaos. We cannot afford to double the debt that we already have. We need to be moving in the opposite direction. John Kerry has 30 years of experience looking out for the American people and can navigate our country back to prosperity and re-instill in America the dignity she so craves and deserves. He has served us well as a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and has had a successful career as a district attorney, lieutenant governor, and senator. Kerry has a positive vision for America, plus the proven intelligence, good sense, and guts to make it happen. That’s why The Iconoclast urges Texans not to rate the candidate by his hometown or even his political party, but instead by where he intends to take the country. The Iconoclast wholeheartedly endorses John Kerry. © Copyright 2004 The Lone Star Iconoclast ☞ Look. It’s fun that this comes from Crawford, but who cares. What matters are the facts, and the facts speak for themselves. Don’t be misled by Gallup (of which, more in a day or two). November 2, 2004, is going to be remembered as the day America regained her footing.
5 Quick Ones September 29, 2004February 27, 2017 1. Thanks for your terrific e-mail rules. I am assembling the commandments. 2. If you were looking for a way to help George Bush, here is one way to do it that even saves a little money (unless you binge the next day). 3. In preparation for tomorrow’s first debate, here is a site someone has put up comparing his words and deeds. One might almost say flips and flops. 4. Here is another, complete with photo of a spatula. 5. Finally, on that issue of nuclear terrorism raised Monday? ‘I would like to put your mind at ease, at least a little,’ writes Michael Axelrod. ‘When Graham Allison says things like, For example, one ‘dirty bomb,’ which simply consists of conventional explosives dispersing radioactive materials, exploded in downtown Manhattan, would make the island uninhabitable for years …‘ – he reveals his ignorance of matters nuclear. The dirty bomb threat is greatly exaggerated. Just do the physics. Read about it here. Terrorists would need to steal something like a 1,000 Curie industrial source, but these sources all encased in large amounts of concrete and shielding and cannot be moved. Without the shielding the terrorists would quickly expire from the radiation dose. Spent reactor fuel would be too difficult to move. Uranium and Plutonium are not radioactive enough to make a dirty bomb. Actually they are excellent shields for radiation (better than lead). If you blew up a big mass of uranium it would simply scatter about, not be a threat and could be easily cleaned up. The dirty bomb scenario is mostly a scare story. ‘How about stolen Russian nukes? Do you really think the Russians are so stupid as not to have built in safeguards? Besides a small portable bomb needs to have its DT gas recharged. Yes, these things decay and become inoperative unless properly maintained which requires the appropriate infrastructure. ‘Almost no country would risk giving or selling a nuclear weapon to terrorists. Why? Blowback. If country x gives out nukes they lose control. The very weapon they give out could get used against them. This is why countries build missiles to carry their nuclear weapons to a target. You have to maintain control. ‘That leaves the terrorist themselves getting the material, designing, assembling a bomb, smuggling and detonating it. All this without testing? Do you think the terrorist are smarter than the Manhattan Project Team? And they did test, and the device was pretty big (for smuggling). While this scenario is not impossible because modern technology has made things easier, the actual threat is likely very small.’ ☞ Whew! And there I was worried for nothing. Be sure to watch the debate tomorrow – 9pm Eastern time. Happy birthday, Jane, Scooter, Darrique.
Change Horses or Drown September 28, 2004February 27, 2017 ‘To announce that there should be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, it is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American people.’ – Theodore Roosevelt Just how tough and resolute is our leader? How would he have fared on the rivers of the Mekong Delta, like John Kerry, or held up in the Hanoi Hilton, like John McCain? Well, the truth is, he’s pretty darn tough. When the going got rough in Iraq, he did not flinch. ‘Bring ’em on,’ he said. You can’t get much tougher than that. In checking that quote yesterday (was it bring ”em’ on or bring ‘it’ on?), Google took me straight here. It’s more than a year old, and it will certainly incense those who believe a wartime president must not be criticized. But see Teddy Roosevelt, above. And note, as William Safire recently did, Franklin Roosevelt’s comeback to President Hoover, who warned of changing horses in midstream. ‘Change horses or drown!’ Even if you feel George Bush was the right man to get us into Iraq and you like the way he did it – even if, indeed, you can’t imagine any man having been able to do it better – George W. Bush is not, even so, the leader the world is looking to coalesce behind in the continuing war on terror. We desperately need a fresh start. TWO DAYS LEFT TO COLLECT $50,000 Richard Stanford: ‘I’d remind your readers that the Texans for Truth reward offer is set to expire – unclaimed – September 30.’ So if anyone actually saw Lieutenant Bush doing his duty, here’s some easy money for you. And speaking of money . . . HERE’S HOW YOUR PRESIDENT LOOKS OUT FOR YOUR$ From a piece in the Los Angeles Times. In very short part (it’s worth reading the whole thing – it’s not long): The spectacle has grown so grotesque that even conservatives like Glenn Hubbard, Robert Novak and the Wall Street Journal editorial page writers – who regard upper-class tax cuts the way teenage boys regard sex – have denounced it. We really can do better, folks. And we will.
Seven E-Mail Rules That Will Change The World September 27, 2004February 27, 2017 If you help me come up with three more, we can call them Commandments. But first . . . THE PROUD BOYFRIEND With your subscription to this site come a free drink and a fashion show. (Match that, Andrew Sullivan.) SAKS FIFTH AVENUE presents CHARLES NOLAN Fall 2004 tomorrow, September 28, at 5:30pm. RSVP: 212-451-3949. If your husband’s got the Gulfstream and you can’t make it to New York, just click here to see it. (How ironic: I spent the first 47 years of my life trying desperately to know as little as possible about women’s clothes and now all I can think about is the ‘sell through’ on the yellow waffle coat.) E.L. DOCTOROW Unsigned: ‘I know you hate our commander-in-chief with every fiber of your being, but for you to reprint this E. L. Doctorow garbage is very disappointing.’ ☞ I don’t hate him with even one fiber. But I do hate to think of all the damage he’s done. I thought the Doctorow piece was insightful. After all, what kind of man does kick kids off after-school programs in order to cut taxes for the wealthy? What kind of man can sleep, let alone vacation, when just $16 million of the $4.2 billion designated for water and sanitation projects in Iraq – and just $2 million of the $786 million earmarked for health projects – has been spent? (In the words of Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, quoted here a few days ago, ‘It’s beyond pitiful.’) What kind of man calls on the United Nations to ban the stem cell research that could spare your family the agony of Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s? Or takes cops off the street and allows assault weapons back on? HOW MUCH SAFER DO YOU FEEL? Read Nuclear Terrorism by Graham Allison, a former top Pentagon official and long-time Harvard professor. Click here to see what a 10-kiloton nuclear blast would do to your zip code. Lynn writes (or cuts and pastes, I couldn’t tell from where): *President Bush has, at least twice, attempted to cut funding for the Nunn-Lugar program, which continues to secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union. *President Bush has secured less plutonium and bomb-grade uranium in the two years since 9/11 than in the two years before. *President Bush has kept funding for the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, which secures loose nukes and fissile material, flat at around $1 billion, even after a 2001 Department of Energy advisory board recommended an annual allocation of $3 billion. *President Bush insisted that the proposed Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty have no verification regime, thereby gutting a treaty that would have curbed new fissile material, even in countries that have not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, such as India and Pakistan. *President Bush (and his Republican leadership in the House) defeated a Democratic measure to double the number of containers at ports and airports checked for WMD. The one billion dollar cost would have been paid for by reducing the tax cut of 200,000 millionaires by five thousand dollars each. *President Bush has no coherent strategy to prevent nuclear terrorism and has shown disdain for arms control treaties. ☞ I assume that some of this is overdone or one-sided. But the general thrust rings all too true . . . and makes ludicrous the notion that only ‘Bring ’em on Bush’ can keep our children safe. Not to mention that our children may soon be hearing from their local draft boards, thanks to the largely unilateral way President Bush rushed into war without a plan to win the peace. RIGHT TRAQ, WRONG TRAQ The President’s by now famous remark downplaying negative reports from Iraq – ‘I saw a poll that said the ‘right track-wrong track’ in Iraq was better than here in America’ – makes particularly poignant the description you may have seen of what the war would be like if we were the ones being liberated (3000 American deaths last week, etc.). Click here. And now, at last . . . SEVEN E-MAIL RULES THAT WILL CHANGE THE WORLD We’re all, busy, okay? Life is short. Sometimes we want long rambling rants like mine. But ow much more efficient our lives could be if we all adhered to these simple rules: 1. If your entire message can fit on the subject line, put it on the subject line-followed by EOM (end of message). Nothing more. For example: SUBJ: Thanks, Sanji! EOM Or append it to the existing subject line: SUBJ: Dinner Thursday? ← YES! THANKS! CU THERE! EOM 2. Make the subject line descriptive. If you make it: SUBJ: check this out and it turns out to be yet another copy of Bush’s resume (“I was arrested twice for drunk driving . . .”) that we’ve all seen 50 times by now, it is annoying. But if you make it: SUBJ: Bush’s resume, then we can smile faintly and delete it in three-tenths of a second. This is especially true if you’re forwarding a link – let alone sending an attachment. Tell us what it is, so we know whether it’s worth opening your e-mail, following the link, or downloading the attachment. Instead of: SUBJ: Funny! How about: SUBJ: Jewish haikus Instead of SUBJ: do you know this guy? How about: SUBJ: do you know Danny Shindler? Or even (if there’s no more to your message than that): SUBJ: do you know Danny Shindler? EOM. The obvious reason is to save time, but the other reason is to make searching easy. Say this grows into a spirited exchange about Danny Shindler, because you do know him. And that a month later, one of you wants to go back and find that thread. Isn’t the logical thing to search on “Danny Shindler” rather than trying to remember that the thread was entitled “do you know this guy?” 3. If your message is to one person, begin the subject line with that person’s first name: SUBJ: Jane – separation of church and state That way, she instantly knows you are speaking to her, and this is not a blast e-mail to the 300 people on your list. This is especially important if you are forwarding something that the recipient may have seen – the Bush resume – but also have a personal message. (“Have you seen this? And by the way, Thursday’s meeting has been moved from 3pm to 2pm.”) Otherwise, the recipient may see it’s a “forward” she’s already seen and delete it – and miss the meeting. 4. If you’re sending to a large group, use “blind copies” (unless there’s an awfully good reason to have everyone see the e-addresses of all 215 recipients). 5. If you’re responding to a group e-mail, hit REPLY rather than REPLY ALL unless you really think the whole group wants to see your reply. (Ah, the boorish irony of those who REPLY ALL with the message, “I do not appreciate your cluttering my inbox – please take me off your list.”) 6. If you’re attaching a letter or a newsclip, also cut and paste it into the body of the e-mail to spare the recipient’s having to open the attachment. 7. Place post scripts before your sign off, for reasons amply elucidated in the only really important column I have ever posted in this space. Other candidates for this list? Fire away. Three more and we can burn them into tablets.
The Word from the Right September 24, 2004February 27, 2017 No one would argue that the Washington Times leans liberal. Here is reporting from its editor-at-large. Everyone with a stake in the world really needs to read this. A bridge too far? By Arnaud de Borchgrave Published September 22, 2004 _____ MADRID. — Before the Iraqi war, Europe’s principal intelligence services shared the Bush administration’s view that Saddam Hussein was hiding his stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. Today, these same services disagree with the White House on several critical assessments. Off-the-record conversations with intelligence chiefs in five major European countries — each with multiple assets in Iraq — showed remarkable agreement on these points: * The neocon objectives for restructuring Iraq into a functioning model democracy were a bridge too far. They were never realistic. * The plan to train Iraqi military and security forces in time to cope with a budding insurgency before it spun out of control was stillborn. * The insurgency has mushroomed from 5,000 in the months following collapse of Saddam’s regime to an estimated 20,000 today and still growing. Insurgents are targeting green Iraqi units and volunteers for training, and some have already defected to the rebels. * Iraqi soldiers trained by the U.S. are complaining the equipment ordered by the U.S. from Ukraine being assigned to them gives them “second-class status.” * To cope with the insurgency, the U.S. requires tenfold the rebel strength — or some 200,000 as a bare minimum. Short of that, the insurgency will continue gaining momentum. The multiple is based on the British experience in Northern Ireland for a quarter-century as well as France’s civil war in Algeria (1954-62), when nationalist guerrillas were defeated militarily, but won the war diplomatically. France deployed half a million men to defeat the fellaghas in Algeria. * The U.S. occupation has lost control of large swathes of Iraq where the insurgency operates with virtual impunity. * Iraq was a diversion from the war on a global movement that was never anchored in Baghdad. * Iraq does not facilitate a solution to the Mideast crisis. And without such a solution, the global terrorist movement will continue spreading. * Iraq has become a magnet for would-be Muslim jihadis the world over; it has greatly facilitated transnational terrorism. * Charting a course out of the present chaos requires an open-ended commitment to maintain U.S. forces at the present level and higher through 2010 or longer. * The once magnificent obsession about building a model Arab democracy in Iraq now has the potential of a Vietnam-type quagmire. * Everything now undertaken in Iraq is palliative to tide the administration over the elections. * What is urgently needed, whether a Bush II administration or a Kerry White House is for the world’s great democracies to meet at the summit to map a common strategy to confront a global challenge. The war on terrorism — on the terrorists who have hijacked Islam — is only one part of a common approach for (1) the defense of Western democracies and (2) the gradual transformation of an Arab world that must be assisted out of poverty, despair and defeat. * A war on terrorism without a global strategy, which must include funding major educational reforms in poor countries like Pakistan, where wannabe jihadis are still being churned out by the hundreds of thousands, could only lead to the gradual erosion of Western democratic structures. * The “war on terror” is a misnomer tantamount to rhetorical disinformation. One can no more fight terrorism than one could declare war on Adolf Hitler’s Panzers in World War II or Dreadnoughts in World War I. Terrorism is a weapons system that has been used time and again for the last 5,000 years. The root causes are the problem, not the weapon. * Ignoring the causes guarantees escalation — to weapons of mass destruction. Arnaud de Borchgrave is editor at large of The Washington Times and of United Press International. ☞ The world yearns for an American president in whose intelligence, judgment and goodwill it can trust; for whose experience and life story it can feel admiration; around whose leadership it can rally. IT’S TOO LATE FOR PRESIDENT BUSH, BUT IF IT WEREN’T Here is a speech that a certain swami I know imagines he might give. The problem (other than that he would never give it) is that it’s simply too late. He has lost the goodwill of the world. FINALLY, JUST IN CASE YOU HAVEN’T SEEN THIS . . . Dan Rather, CBS News Anchor 1) given documents he thought were true 2) failed to thoroughly investigate the facts 3) reported documents to the American people as true to make his case 4) when challenged, launched an investigation, quickly apologized 5) substance of the bogus documents appears to have been true anyway 6) cost to the world in lives and money: zero 7) Bush camp conclusion: should be fired as CBS News Anchor George W. Bush, President of the United States 1) given documents he thought were true 2) failed to thoroughly investigate the facts 3) reported documents to the American people as true to make his case 4) when challenged, stonewalled an investigation, never apologized 5) substance of the bogus documents appears to have been . . . bogus 6) cost to the world in lives and money: incalculable 7) Bush camp conclusion: four more years! Have a great weekend.
E. L. September 23, 2004February 27, 2017 Here is one you may have missed in the Easthampton Star by author E.L. Doctorow, best known for his giant best-seller Ragtime. You don’t have to agree with every word to find it important – and haunting. The Unfeeling President By E.L. Doctorow September 9, 2004 – Easthampton Star I fault this president for not knowing what death is. He does not suffer the death of our 21-year-olds who wanted to be what they could be. On the eve of D-Day in 1944 General Eisenhower prayed to God for the lives of the young soldiers he knew were going to die. He knew what death was. Even in a justifiable war, a war not of choice but of necessity, a war of survival, the cost was almost more than Eisenhower could bear. But this president does not know what death is. He hasn’t the mind for it. You see him joking with the press, peering under the table for the weapons of mass destruction he can’t seem to find, you see him at rallies strutting up to the stage in shirt sleeves to the roar of the carefully screened crowd, smiling and waving, triumphal, a he-man. He does not mourn. He doesn’t understand why he should mourn. He is satisfied during the course of a speech written for him to look solemn for a moment and speak of the brave young Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. But you study him, you look into his eyes and know he dissembles an emotion which he does not feel in the depths of his being because he has no capacity for it. He does not feel a personal responsibility for the 1,000 dead young men and women who wanted to be what they could be. They come to his desk not as youngsters with mothers and fathers or wives and children who will suffer to the end of their days a terribly torn fabric of familial relationships and the inconsolable remembrance of aborted life . . . they come to his desk as a political liability, which is why the press is not permitted to photograph the arrival of their coffins from Iraq. How then can he mourn? To mourn is to express regret and he regrets nothing. He does not regret that his reason for going to war was, as he knew, unsubstantiated by the facts. He does not regret that his bungled plan for the war’s aftermath has made of his mission-accomplished a disaster. He does not regret that, rather than controlling terrorism, his war in Iraq has licensed it. So he never mourns for the dead and crippled youngsters who have fought this war of his choice. He wanted to go to war and he did. He had not the mind to perceive the costs of war, or to listen to those who knew those costs. He did not understand that you do not go to war when it is one of the options but when it is the only option; you go not because you want to but because you have to. Yet this president knew it would be difficult for Americans not to cheer the overthrow of a foreign dictator. He knew that much. This president and his supporters would seem to have a mind for only one thing — to take power, to remain in power, and to use that power for the sake of themselves and their friends. A war will do that as well as anything. You become a wartime leader. The country gets behind you. Dissent becomes inappropriate. And so he does not drop to his knees, he is not contrite, he does not sit in the church with the grieving parents and wives and children. He is the president who does not feel. He does not feel for the families of the dead, he does not feel for the 35 million of us who live in poverty, he does not feel for the 40 percent who cannot afford health insurance, he does not feel for the miners whose lungs are turning black or for the working people he has deprived of the chance to work overtime at time-and-a-half to pay their bills – it is amazing for how many people in this country this president does not feel. But he will dissemble feeling. He will say in all sincerity he is relieving the wealthiest 1 percent of the population of their tax burden for the sake of the rest of us, and that he is polluting the air we breathe for the sake of our economy, and that he is decreasing the quality of air in coal mines to save the coal miners’ jobs, and that he is depriving workers of their time-and-a-half benefits for overtime because this is actually a way to honor them by raising them into the professional class. And this litany of lies he will versify with reverences for God and the flag and democracy, when just what he and his party are doing to our democracy is choking the life out of it. But there is one more terribly sad thing about all of this. I remember the millions of people here and around the world who marched against the war. It was extraordinary, that spontaneous aroused oversoul of alarm and protest that transcended national borders. Why did it happen? After all, this was not the only war anyone had ever seen coming. There are little wars all over the world most of the time. But the cry of protest was the appalled understanding of millions of people that America was ceding its role as the last best hope of mankind. It was their perception that the classic archetype of democracy was morphing into a rogue nation. The greatest democratic republic in history was turning its back on the future, using its extraordinary power and standing not to advance the ideal of a concordance of civilizations but to endorse the kind of tribal combat that originated with the Neanderthals, a people, now extinct, who could imagine ensuring their survival by no other means than pre-emptive war. The president we get is the country we get. With each president the nation is conformed spiritually. He is the artificer of our malleable national soul. He proposes not only the laws but the kinds of lawlessness that govern our lives and invoke our responses. The people he appoints are cast in his image. The trouble they get into and get us into, is his characteristic trouble. Finally, the media amplify his character into our moral weather report. He becomes the face of our sky, the conditions that prevail. How can we sustain ourselves as the United States of America given the stupid and ineffective warmaking, the constitutionally insensitive lawgiving, and the monarchal economics of this president? He cannot mourn but is a figure of such moral vacancy as to make us mourn for ourselves. We can do better.
If This Is My Last Column, You’ll Know Why (We're Going to Win) September 22, 2004February 27, 2017 COOKING LIKE A GUY™ I am sitting here with the label from a package of “refrigerated EGG BEATERS healthy real egg product” and a USE BY date of July 1. You are thinking that it’s September 22, and I am too late. But I am thinking, “Two thousand and one? This thing has been in the freezer since July 1, 2001?” Now, freezers are remarkable things, although at some point over the summer (but which summer, I wonder?) I apparently transferred this healthy real egg product from the freezer to the fridge. Didn’t they find a frozen 5,000 year old man in a glacier? They warmed him up, stuck a tennis racket in his hand, and he only lost 6-4, 6-2. Still, as I gazed at the USE BY date, two conflicting emotions were at were within me – my deep distress at wasting food (even now, there are children starving in China), and my strong will to live. With all the while a third force pulling at my wee brain – hunger. Or perhaps more accurately – hankering. I just had a hankering for some healthy real egg product. And I also have a frying pan even glue wouldn’t stick to. Nothing sticks to this. It puts Charles’s expensive Calphalon™ pans to shame. I think you could literally mix Epoxy in the pan, let it sit, and then just wipe it all out with a rag. It was hanging from a hook high above the bread section at our supermarket when I snagged it for $12.95. I love this pan. So I figured if there’s anything wrong, I will see it or smell it, and I opened the container, half expecting a healthy real chicken product to jump out, tennis racket in hand. But no . . . just the yellow liquid there always is when, every year or so, I treat myself to Egg Beaters. On with the stove, into the frying pan, toss in some salt and an individually wrapped slice of American cheese (omelet! omelet! I hear you cry) . . . having carefully broken the cheese slice into little pieces for even distribution through the egg product, now quickly turning into a smooth egg pancake if you don’t deftly move it around and fold it over on itself and attempt to give it some texture. Turn off the heat while Egg Beaters still highly runny, keep moving stuff around, and – voila! Eat it right out of the pan. (No muss, no fuss. This is the essence of COOKING LIKE A GUY™.) I am here to tell you it was delicious. If I am not here tomorrow, you will know why. WE’RE GOING TO WIN Senator Kerry’s Iraq speech Monday was a hit. His two speeches at our $4 million reception and dinner that evening were terrific. You can see it happening: The fight is rising in our candidate. The powerful end game for which he is known is building – and, while there will surely be bumps along the way – we are going to win. The latest Zogby poll is now showing Pennsylvania back in our column (we are going to win Pennsylvania) and Florida back to totally tied (we are going to win Florida, also – see last Friday’s column for 10 reasons why). Electoral-vote.com still shows New Jersey (15 electoral votes) tipping to Bush, based on an outdated September 12 poll – but no WAY will the President carry New Jersey. (Gore won it last time 56/40. And that was WITHOUT Springsteen.) With New Jersey and Florida, we’re at 281 to their 241. (You need 270.) We are going to win. I got an e-mail today (well, yesterday, as you read this) from a well known member of a well known conservative think tank. He sat next to one of his colleagues at a wedding the other day, to whom for now, at least, he asks that I refer as “X.” He says that X is “perhaps the premier conservative policy journalist of our time.” And he says that over the wedding cake he learned that X is voting for Kerry. Anecdotal, to be sure, but good to hear if you’re working for John Kerry, as I am. Likewise: I got $10,000 today from a fellow whose only previous presidential contribution since 1992 – you can look these things up on opensecrets.org – was $500 to Bush. And I got $25,000 today from an entrepreneur I’ve never met WHO HAD NEVER MADE A POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION BEFORE. People are getting it. This isn’t business as usual. President Bush went to the UN today, and – lost in all the understandable focus on Iraq – he affirmed that the United States wants to shut down stem cell research . . . worldwide. The President called it cloning, which is easier to decry; but the Costa Rican resolution he supports explicitly includes not just reproductive cloning – which almost all agree should be banned – but also therapeutic cloning, the stuff of stem cell research. Last time, we lost the vote – thankfully – but by the barest of margins, 79-80. The President has every right to want to impede stem cell research . . . and we have every right not to reelect him. So if you know any independent voters who worry about things like Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s, let them know about this. It’s not just Nancy Reagan and Ron Reagan who are concerned – everyone should be. And if your skeptical friends brush off the threat that President Bush will actually manage to seriously impede this research (“Oh, pshaw – that will never happen!”), remind them, first, that by using the expression “pshaw,” they show they are of an age ripe for such afflictions, so they’d best not dismiss this issue too lightly. And remind them, second, that President Bush has already made considerable progress in impeding this research . . . and that “assault weapons” happened against the wishes of almost everybody, so why not this? We are now taking cops off the streets and putting a wider variety of assault weapons back ON the streets, and as improbable as that seems, there you have it. Remind them that a disastrous war happened, that the never-to-be-touched Social Security surplus was spent, that judges like Pickering and Pryor were forced through, that . . . well, before I lose control and turn this ramble into a screed, let me conclude by telling you just one quick fundraising story: A dear old friend sent me $500 months ago — seemingly HIS first political contribution ever, too. I sent it back marked “NSF.” Being a financial guy, he would know, I knew, that NSF is bank shorthand for “Insufficient Funds.” It was the first time in nearly six years as treasurer I had done that, but this was just not right. He and his wife are as eager as the rest of us to win, and he is a man of good humor, good heart, great intelligence and significant means. Five hundred dollars? The law allows each of us to invest $57,500 in this enterprise – he was missing, at the very, very least, one zero. Well, after many further entreaties, he sent $5,000 and came to Monday night’s dinner – and left saying it was a terrific night he would never forget. And that was even before the deep-dish apple crisp with vanilla ice cream. (As usual with these things – and it kills me – everyone leapt from their seats the minute Senator Kerry finished speaking to go try to say hello to the next President of the United States. So we had 380 desserts left over . . . even after allowing for the several that I, and a handful of other stalwarts who have already met Senator Kerry and who hate to see even a penny of our contributors’ money go to waste, did our patriotic best to consume.) My point: when people let themselves get involved, and realize they are part of something REALLY IMPORTANT, as my friend ultimately did, it goes from being something they seek to avoid to something they are really proud of having been able to do. The purpose of this site is not to cost you money. (Note that the Anadarko Petroleum suggested here June 14 at $56.50 broke $64 yesterday and that the NTII re-recommended at $2.60 August 16 now sits around $3.80 – not that this is a fair sampling.) So if you have credit card debt on which you pay interest, stick to your plan to pay it off. Read no further. And if you agree with President Bush about stem cell research, or about running large deficits to fund giant tax cuts for the best off . . . if you think invading Iraq in the manner we did was well thought out and has discouraged terrorism, then you, too, should read no further. I annoy you enough as it is! And I appreciate your willingness to read my point of view!) But if you actually could afford to renovate your bathroom – or, dare I dream it – your kitchen . . . and if we do share some of the same concerns . . . then consider putting the renovation off for a year and saving your country instead. Go crazy. Dig deep in these critical last few days. Click here. Or if it really is a renovation-size contribution you are considering, click “Me-Mail” up top. When we win, you will know for the rest of your life that at a crucial moment in your country’s history, you helped make the difference in a really tight race. Many of you already have. Thank you! As for E.L. Doctorow, I have to put him off until tomorrow.
Nits, Gnats, Cats and More September 21, 2004January 20, 2017 THE VIEW FROM NEBRASKA AND INDIANA This article was published in Sunday’s Denver Post. I’ve bolded parts for easy skimming: Published: Sunday, September 19, 2004 Nebraska GOP red has shade of anger By John Aloysius Farrell Denver Post Washington Bureau Chief Washington – When it comes to presidential politics, there is no more reliably Republican state than Nebraska. In the course of the past 50 years, it has edged out Indiana, Mississippi – even Utah – as the deepest swath of red of all. The emerging streak of anti-war sentiment in the Nebraska delegation to Congress, therefore, is downright noteworthy. Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., seethed last week as he cross-examined administration witnesses at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. Hagel, a decorated U.S. Army veteran who served in Vietnam, said he is deeply skeptical about the claims of progress that President Bush and his advisers have made about Iraq. The Nebraskan compared “this mess” to the U.S. failures in Vietnam. “We are in deep trouble,” he warned. Hagel chided “all these smart guys who got us in there (to Iraq) … all the smart guys who said how easy this was going to be and who reassured us not to worry.” The topic of the hearing was a package of $87 billion that Congress approved for Iraq last fall. Sen. John Kerry voted against it, and Bush often cites that vote when arguing that Kerry can’t be trusted to keep the U.S. safe. But while the Pentagon and its contractors have run through their share of the $87 billion, the administration has failed to spend much of the $18.4 billion earmarked for rebuilding Iraq’s economy. Sen. Richard Lugar, a Republican from Indiana – another dependably red state – chaired the hearing. “Of the $18.4 billion the Congress appropriated for Iraq more than 10 months ago, only $1.1 billion has been disbursed,” Lugar said. “This is an extraordinary, ineffective administrative procedure. It is exasperating.” As conditions in Iraq deteriorate, the administration now wants to shift $2 billion of the unspent money to pay for military and security costs. Lugar chastised the “blithely optimistic people … the dancing-in-the-street crowd” in the Bush administration who assured Congress that casualties and costs would be low and that U.S. troops would be met as liberators. “Now,” said Lugar, “the nonsense of all of that is apparent. The lack of planning is apparent.” Lugar read aloud from a letter he received from a Marine second lieutenant serving in Iraq. “My guys never fail to step up to any challenge,” the lieutenant wrote. But “this war is one that cannot be won by Marines and soldiers. The only thing we can do is to keep a lid on it and buy time. We chase the mujahedeen around and, in doing so, catch and kill a few. “In a society with no jobs, a faltering economy and little or no infrastructure, there is plenty of incentive to fight,” the lieutenant wrote. “The incentive needs to be removed.” Hagel joined Lugar and the panel’s Democrats in endorsing the lieutenant’s sentiments. “The military is not going to ultimately win Iraq,” said Hagel, who then drew on a phrase from the Vietnam War. “You don’t win the hearts and minds of the people at the end of a barrel of a gun. “This is how we get ourselves into trouble: when we delude ourselves,” said Hagel, referring to administration assurances that great progress has been made. “Of $4.2 billion designated for water and sanitation, $16 million has been spent; … of $786 million earmarked for health, $2 million has been spent. It’s beyond pitiful. It’s beyond embarrassing. It is now in the zone of dangerous.” The Senate hearing came midway through a month in which, after a summer of political fancies, the reality of war has returned with a vengeance to the nation’s capital. August was among the costliest months of the war, and the pace of casualties has accelerated in September. The White House admits that a gloomy CIA intelligence estimate warns that Iraq may collapse into civil war. The Pentagon acknowledges there are now swaths of Iraq under the control of terrorists and insurgents. Before he retired Aug. 31, Republican Rep. Doug Bereuter, who represented eastern Nebraska for 13 terms in Congress, sent an extraordinary letter to his constituents. The prewar reports of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction represent a “massive intelligence failure,” Bereuter wrote. And “the inability of the administration to clearly establish a link between al-Qaeda and Saddam (Hussein), despite the intimations of various administration leaders like Vice President Dick Cheney, is no surprise.” The war is “a mistake,” Bereuter wrote. “The cost in casualties is already large and growing, and the immediate and long-term financial costs are incredible.” There is little chance the president will lose Nebraska’s five Electoral College votes this fall. But if Bush can’t convince Nebraska Republicans that he’s fighting the right war against terror, how will he fare in battleground states? It may be a sign his Iraq policy, and his re-election hopes, are indeed in deep trouble. John Aloysius Farrell’s column appears each Sunday. Contact him at jfarrell@denverpost.com. ☞ If you heard Senator Kerry’s speech yesterday morning, you know we can do better. TINY URLs – 2 Ralph Sierra: ‘I first read about URL crunchers in one of your previous columns. They’re great. I recommend snipurl.com because of its ability to create “snips” you can actually remember (‘snipurl.com/honda’ instead of snipurl.com/436a) and (2) the ability to password protect them.’ GNATS Thanks to Bill Spaced, Bob Fyfe, Stefan Kujawa and several others who showed me how to turn off ‘save embedded tags’ in Word, so Nevada, and other places and times and so on, no longer have little red dots beneath them. NITS In early editions of Friday’s column I included some governorships that had not switched from Republican to Democrat since 2000. Corrected, thanks to your e-mails. Also, at first I was using the $9,000 figure for the pay cut between the new jobs being created and the old jobs being lost. One of you persuaded me it’s not possible to know that number with much certainty, so I deleted it. CATS Mike Gavaghan: ‘Alec could have even more fun thinning his junk mail by using the name of a favorite pet. That trick led to our cat getting offered a ‘pre-approved’ credit card. Click here.’ Tomorrow: E.L. Doctorow
Talking Points September 20, 2004February 27, 2017 “…It really depends upon how our nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us…but if we’re a humble nation they’ll respect us.” George W. Bush, October 11, 2000 OUR LEADER, UNSCRIPTED If you have broadband and somehow missed the news conference at which the President was asked if he could think of a mistake he had made, click here. BUT HE GOT AN HONORABLE DISCHARGE! Thanks to mediamatters.org for pointing out how little this means. An honorable discharge is not necessarily a job recommendation. For example: John Allen Muhammad, convicted last November for his participation in the D.C. sniper shootings, served in the Louisiana National Guard from 1978-1985, where he faced two summary courts-martial. In 1983, he was charged with striking an officer, stealing a tape measure, and going AWOL. Sentenced to seven days in the brig, he received an honorable discharge in 1985. REPUBLICANS FOR HUMILITY William Frey, MD: ‘I believe you will find these sites useful and consistent with your belief that a significant number of former Bush supporters will vote him out of office. I am proud to be among them. The first is Come Back to the Mainstream and the second, Republicans for Humility.’ ☞ And don’t tell me humility means giving in to the terrorists. Almost no one criticized our actions in Afghanistan – only the halfway measures that kept us from getting Bin Laden and his crew at Tora Bora while the getting was good. But invading Iraq in the way we did played directly into Bin Laden’s hands. It weakened us and strengthened the terrorists. KERRY AND IRAQ It’s not that complicated. THE AUTHORIZATION: Kerry has consistently said he voted to authorize the President to go to war, but only to do so – as the President promised – as a last resort. The President recklessly and arrogantly misused the authority Congress voted, with disastrous consequences. The fault here lies not with a Senator for wanting the President of the United States to be in a strong bargaining position, but with the President for misusing that authority. THE $87 BILLION: THEY opposed the $87 billion before THEY flip-flopped and approved it – because THEY wouldn’t let it pass when it would be funded by rolling back a portion of the high-end tax cuts. Kerry’s ‘no’ vote was against the funding mechanism (borrowing the funds from our kids). Had he succeeded in killing the bill, the Senate would have come back 10 minutes later to find a compromise. No serious person ever questioned providing the money; it was a fight over whose money it would be. Kerry was fighting for average Americans and their kids. The Republicans, as has too often become their trademark, were fighting to be sure that the richest among us sacrificed nothing. And, finally, speaking of the richest among us . . . THE OWNERSHIP SOCIETY A New York Times editorial decrying President Bush’s appealing-sounding ‘ownership society’ reports: ‘In 2004, take-home pay as a share of the economy dropped to its lowest level since 1929, when the government started keeping records.’ In the past nearly three years of economic recovery, the distribution of economic growth has become more skewed than at any other time in modern memory. Currently, 47 percent of growth is flowing to corporate profits. As I’ve said so many times in this space since George Bush took office, it is a positively grand time to be rich and powerful in America. The owners are doing just fine, thank you very much. Tomorrow: Gnats, Cats, and Tiny URLs
We’re Going to Win September 17, 2004March 28, 2017 Prasanth: ‘Am I correct in feeling that there is a sense of panic among Democrats that this election, which seemed so winnable, is getting away from them?’ ☞ There have been bumps, but we are going to win. I. ISSUES We’re going to win, first of all (before getting into turn-out, the Electoral College, Florida and all of that), because over the next 46 days, as voters begin to really focus, they will conclude that on the issues they care about, President Bush has not served us well. Take jobs. After 9/11 and after he knew we were in a recession and after the eruption of corporate scandals, President Bush announced that his policies would create 6 million new jobs during his presidency. Instead, we will have lost 1 million jobs – a swing of 7 million worse than he promised – not least because it turns out that giving the biggest tax cuts to those who need them least is not the best way to rev up the economy. (Could anyone, including President Bush, actually have believed that it was?) We didn’t reelect Herbert Hoover – the last president to lose jobs on his watch – and we’re not going to reelect George Bush. Take living standards. Millions slipping into poverty . . . millions more without health insurance . . . new jobs that pay less than the old jobs that were lost . . . Medicare recipients hit with a 17% hike in premiums (on top of 13% last year) . . . median real household income – which was up $5,489 in the Clinton years – down $1,314. Voters know presidents aren’t omnipotent (although they usually boot even good presidents from office when things are not going well). But they must also sense that a president who fights for a higher minimum wage and a higher earned income tax credit and the Family and Medical Leave Act and 100,000 more cops on the street and after-school programs and universal college loan assistance and health insurance – and pledges to save Social Security first, as Clinton did and Kerry would – is just fundamentally different from a president who, with his party, opposes all those things and makes his main focus repeated tax cuts for the very rich. Over the next 46 days, John Kerry will make it clear that – as he has said all along – the first $200,000 of income will not be more heavily taxed under the Kerry Administration. Indeed, he will propose more middle-class cuts. But that, yes, on income above $200,000, we’ll be back to paying taxes more or less as we were under Clinton because we have a war on terror to fight (Bush is the first president ever to cut taxes in time of war). And because we are running a $600 billion deficit (when you include the amount by which Bush promised not to raid the Social Security surplus but has). And because it’s not just ‘our money,’ as Bush is so fond of saying (those $300 tax refund checks or even the $1,500 reductions many families got), it’s also our debt. A $600 billion deficit works out to $8,000 for each family of four. You got your $300 or your $1,500 tax reduction, but you borrowed $8,000 to do it. I grant you that people’s eyes glaze over at numbers – which is how Bush got away with this in the first place and managed to win nearly as many votes as Gore. (‘By far the vast majority’ of the help from his tax cuts, he looked into the camera and lied, would go ‘to people at the bottom end of the economic ladder.’) But if voters tune out the details, as they surely will, many will intuitively sense that the swing from a $5 trillion projected surplus (which is how then Governor Bush initially justified his tax cuts) to a multi-trillion-dollar projected deficit does not make us a stronger, more secure nation. Voters will sense that our increasing dependence on borrowing from China, Japan and elsewhere to finance our deficit does not brighten our children’s future, even if it did allow the issuance of those $300 checks – and an $800,000 tax reduction to folks like my friend who gets $3.2 million a year in dividends from a stock he inherited. And yes, there are the assault weapons President Bush has allowed back on the streets, the stem cell research he works to impede, the environmental regulations he has rolled back and the developing global climate crisis he has ignored. The tax incentives for buying $100,000 Hummers, the Supreme Court (!!!!!) – and more. But what this election will largely turn on are the War on Terror and – separately – the war in Iraq. And on these the President’s record is abysmal: He ignored urgent warnings about Osama Bin Laden before 9/11 and, having done so, failed to kill him two years ago, after 9/11, before al-Qaeda had a chance to regroup and metastasize. He pulled resources off that mission-not-accomplished to attack Iraq, breaking his pledge to invade only as a last resort. He lost the goodwill of the world and played right into the hands of Osama Bin Laden, helping to recruit thousands of new terrorists. In short, as John Kerry has said all along, he rushed to war without a plan to win the peace, badly weakening our country – with no end in sight. Now that we’re there, we have a huge commitment (“you break it, you own it,” Colin Powell presciently advised, to no avail). But why on Earth would we reelect a man whose reckless, cocky misjudgment could have allowed for such a disaster? So I think that as people start really thinking about these things, as they watch the debates and as they get to see more of John Kerry, they will decide it is time for a new team. II. PROCESS But forget all that. What about the horse race? Here are a dozen reasons to take heart: 1. We’re much, much stronger on the issues – see above. 2. We won last time when Democrats were largely complacent. Things always seemed to get a little better every year (it’s human nature for the previous eight years to feel like “always”) so what difference did it make? Well, now the difference is apparent. Democratic turn-out will be enormous. We saw unprecedented turn-out in the primaries and we are seeing direct-mail results that have direct-mail consultants slack-jawed. We are depositing 50,000 checks a day. Millions of new voters are registering, and Democrats who haven’t voted for years plan to come out this time. Writes a friend: Jay and I got a phone call last week from Jay’s uncle, a Vietnam Vet and a resident of South Carolina who has NEVER voted in his entire 55+ year life. Well, this year he has registered to vote and will be voting for John Kerry. I cannot stress how much of a miracle this is. As much as I want to believe that all the complacent non-voters will get off their behinds this year, I am now actually seeing it and it is very encouraging. 3. Last time we got 51 million votes – 537,000 more than Governor Bush – despite 3 million votes that went to Nader.Nader voters are almost all well-meaning and smart. My firm belief is that – in swing states where it matters – they will not fail to do all they can to fire George Bush. As reported here Tuesday, two-thirds of Nader’s 2000 leadership group have already signed onto a statement urging everyone in swing states to vote for Kerry. 4. So we’re going to get millions more Democrats than we got last time and we’re going to get Nader voters where it counts.But what about Bush voters? Last time, 50 million people voted for Bush, and I am willing to stipulate that 90% or perhaps even 95% of them are just thrilled. Bring it on, baby! (Democratic presidents couldn’t stand up to Hitler or to the residents of Hiroshima or to Khrushchev in the Cuban Missile Crisis or to Milosovich in Kosovo – only Dubya has the guts and brains to get Bin Laden and keep us safe. Look how well he mocks Kerry and how shrewdly he leaves it to others to mock Kerry’s bronze star and silver star! Dubya is one tough warrior.) Okay – we’re not going to get those voters. But if 5% of the 50 million who voted for Bush last time feel betrayed (consider, for example, this Seattle Times endorsement of John Kerry) . . . Four years ago, this page endorsed George W. Bush for president. We cannot do so again — because of an ill-conceived war and its aftermath, undisciplined spending, a shrinkage of constitutional rights and an intrusive social agenda. The Bush presidency is not what we had in mind. Our endorsement of John Kerry is not without reservations, but he is head and shoulders above the incumbent. . . . that’s millions more votes for Kerry, millions fewer for Bush. And I think it’s at least 5%, because it feels as if I’ve gotten e-mails from almost that many. Here’s one I got just today: I grew up in a Republican household, have almost always voted Republican, and voted for GWB in ’00. This November, however, I am firing the incumbent. Here’s why, in no particular order. Obviously, some items are more important than others: Saudi prince was told of Iraq invasion before Secretary of State Colin Powell Steel tariffs (imposed by an MBA!) Environmental policies The Supreme Court appointments in next four years Against women’s right to choose Military not prepared to go to war (e.g., humvee’s not properly armored) Opposes using science to protect me and my family (stem cell research) Underestimated prescription drug benefit cost by a mile Cheney’s secret energy task force 43 says he didn’t speak to 41 before going to war (where is Freud when we need him?) Demonization of Max Cleland Lied re who put up “mission accomplished” sign on aircraft carrier he landed on Mixing church and politics Assault weapons Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages (I am hetero) If you post this, please do not use my name. I do not want to argue politics with anyone. 5. More than half the country believes we are on the “wrong track” – and the proportion is even higher among undecided voters. Incumbents don’t get rehired when most people think we’re on the wrong track. 6. So why isn’t any of this reflected in the polls? Well, to begin with, there’s this, hot off the newswire: Bush Convention Bounce Fades; Race A Virtual Tie-Pew Poll DOW JONES NEWSWIRES September 16, 2004 4:00 p.m. WASHINGTON (AP)–The GOP convention gave President George W. Bush a double-digit lead, but the race has settled into a virtual tie, with voters still worried about the economy and Iraq, according to polling by the Pew Research Center. The first of two national polls by Pew, done Sept. 8-10, reflected the president’s post-convention bounce. Bush was ahead of Democrat John Kerry 52-40 among registered voters and by an even wider margin, 54-39, among likely voters, a narrower group. By the second poll, done Sept. 11-14, the Bush lead had evaporated. In that poll, Bush and Kerry were knotted at 46% among registered voters. Among likely voters, Bush was at 47% and Kerry at 46%. “There is a great deal of instability and uncertainty in the electorate,” said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. “This poll finds a lot of the positive impact Bush had in the convention remains. But Bush’s vulnerabilities on Iraq and the economy continue, and these have anchored the race.” After the Republican convention and its well-orchestrated criticism of Kerry, Bush grabbed a lead ranging from 5 points to 11 points in various national polls. That lead appeared to be shrinking in some polls by late last week, and a Harris poll out Thursday showed the race even. A poll sponsored by Investors Business Daily showed the same thing. So Bush is slipping fast. I am the first to admit we haven’t done everything perfectly and that we face a tough fight. But we are going to win, and you need to keep these numbers in perspective: Following their conventions, sitting Presidents who went on to win a second term have led by an average of 27 points. Even including the LOSERS, elected incumbents leave their Conventions up an average of 16 points. So whether Bush left his convention up by 11, as Newsweek had it, or by the 5 or 6 points most others deemed more likely, either way, it was way sub par. Incumbents do not go on to win when a majority of the voters think the country is on the wrong track and their convention lead is so far below the 27-point average. 7. We’ve begun to fight back. If you saw James Carville on the Today Show last week or have heard Paul Begala lately or caught Joe Lockhart on TV, you know the Campaign has expanded to include some very talented tough veterans of the Clinton campaigns. Was this a shake-up? Whether you call it an expansion or a shake-up, Carville cut to the heart of it: John Kerry sees a problem and fixes it. George Bush sees a problem and denies it. What kind of leader would you rather have? 8. There is a great deal of frustration among Democrats – Prasanth for one – that we waited too long to fight back.But what we were hearing from undecided voters was that they really didn’t want a lot of negative stuff from us about Bush, they wanted us to take the high road. And we did. At our Convention, there was no mocking of Bush, and the Campaign purposely toned down some of the speeches. Mine, for example. The only requested edit to my speech had to do with being less negative about Bush. (“But there’s so much to be negative about!” I pleaded.) With hindsight, I don’t know whether this was wise or not. I like to think it was. But either way, it reminds me of one of the most tried-and-true plot lines in all of human drama. You’ve seen it countless times: The good guy is taunted by the bully and just moves on. He is taunted and mocked some more – but avoids confrontation. Then they take his bookbag and throw it into the lake. Still nothing. By now the audience is screaming, *HIT* THE SONOFABITCH! And when he finally does (a) everybody thinks it’s justified; (b) everybody remembers the high road he tried to take; (c) a lot of fair-minded people (read: undecided voters) are rooting for him. If the good guy had hit the bully at the first taunt, or even the second, what kind of crowd pleaser would it be? And might not some folks have figured he was just as petty as the other guy, and too prone to get into the mud? Well, whether this was literally the plan or not I don’t know. But I think we have now earned the right to hit back, and I think we will. So buck up, Prasanth. 9. Our guy is a fighter, and his pattern, in campaign after campaign, is to hang back – and finish strong. And win. Mock his Navy years if you will, while insisting that Bush served honorably. (Bush had no doubts about the Vietnam War – he was all for it, so long as he didn’t have to actually fight in it.) But this is a guy who volunteered to face death for months and who turned his boat into oncoming gunfire and attacked the enemy head on. So he may not be quite the indecisive wimp Dick Cheney and the rest of the team are having so much fun portraying him as.* (Click here for a compilation of 30 Bush policy flip-flops . . . or here to print it out as a poster.) *The famous $87 billion vote? THEY were against it before they were for it! Flip-flop! They were against it when it would have required rich folks to pay for a portion of it with a partial rollback of their tax cut. Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Click here. 10. In several of the key battleground states (albeit not Florida), the governorships have switched from Republican to Democrat since 2000. This is a good sign for two reasons. First, it suggests more people in those states were voting Democratic than Republican. Second – as Jeb Bush showed in Florida – it helps to have the governorship. One of you will correct me if I’m wrong, please, but I don’t think any swing state governorships have flipped from D to R since 2000 (California is not a swing state). But here are some crucial states that have flipped our way: PENNSYLVANIA (21 electoral votes), Ed Rendell . . . MICHIGAN (17 votes), Jennifer Granholm . . . ARIZONA (10), Janet Napolitano . . . NEW MEXICO (5), Bill Richardson . . . WISCONSIN (10), Jim Doyle . . . TENNESSEE (11), Phil Bredeson . . . VIRGINIA (13), Mark Warner . . . and I may be leaving a couple out. 11. So what about Florida? We will win Florida because: We won it last time. Against the 537 margin of victory they claimed, I believe we will get many of the 97,488 votes Nader got in Florida last time. Also, many of the estimated 45,000 gay Florida votes Bush got last time (which count double, because a switch from Bush adds one to our column AND subtracts one from theirs). Note that the Log Cabin Republicans have decided they cannot abide Bush either. Last time, Florida’s African-American community did a spectacular job of turn-out with a program called ARRIVE WITH FIVE. This time, they will Arrive with SIX. And because Florida now allows early voting – beginning October 19 – those who have not managed to arrive with six the first day can keep working at it until they’ve met their goal. Last time, 50,000 likely Gore-voters were shamelessly disenfranchised by Katherine Harris, then Florida Secretary of State (and chair the Florida Bush campaign). Not this time. (You don’t know that story? Click here.) Last time, African-American voters were sometimes asked for two or even three forms of photo ID, and otherwise intimidated. This time, we will have lawyers at every polling place. The latest Bendixen numbers show the Cuban-American vote swinging significantly in our direction. Some moderate Republicans, who expected compassionate conservatism from a uniter, not a divider, will switch sides. As will true conservatives like Andrew Sullivan and Walter Olson, who now rail against Bush. Turn-out in the minimum-wage community will be high because there is an initiative on the ballot that would raise the minimum wage. And let us not forget the 16,000 Palm Beach “Jews for Buchanan.” No confusing butterfly ballot this time. In short: we are going to find those 537 votes. We are going to win. So the next time you are feeling low, SNAP OUT OF IT. Feeling low plays right into Karl Rove’s hands. Write a letter to the editor or get on the horn to some distant cousin or classmate and make sure she’s registered to vote. 12. Finally, we’re going to win because, in the words of the Reverend Theodore Parker, “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” And because as Bush himself has said (watch for yourself): “There’s an old saying . . . fool me once, shame on – shame on you. Fool me – you can’t get fooled again.” And because the taller guy almost always wins. [To contribute, click here.]