Year: 2004

“…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

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:

1. Saudi prince was told of Iraq invasion before Secretary of State Colin Powell

2. Steel tariffs (imposed by an MBA!)

3. Environmental policies

4. The Supreme Court appointments in next four years

5. Against women’s right to choose

6. Military not prepared to go to war (e.g., humvee’s not properly armored)

7. Opposes using science to protect me and my family (stem cell research)

8. Underestimated prescription drug benefit cost by a mile

9. Cheney’s secret energy task force

10. 43 says he didn’t speak to 41 before going to war (where is Freud when we need him?)

11. Demonization of Max Cleland

12. Lied re who put up “mission accomplished” sign on aircraft carrier he landed on

13. Mixing church and politics

14. Assault weapons

15. 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:

1. We won it last time.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.)

6. 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.

7. The latest Bendixen numbers show the Cuban-American vote swinging significantly in our direction.

8. 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.

9. Turn-out in the minimum-wage community will be high because there is an initiative on the ballot that would raise the minimum wage.

10. 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.]

NADER

A message from 74 of his 113 top supporters:

We, the undersigned, were selected by Ralph Nader to be members of his 113-person national ‘Nader 2000 Citizens Committee.’ This year, we urge support for Kerry/Edwards in all ‘swing states,’ even while we strongly disagree with Kerry’s policies on Iraq and other issues. For people seeking progressive social change in the United States, removing George W. Bush from office should be the top priority in the 2004 presidential election. Progressive votes for John Kerry in swing states may prove decisive in attaining this vital goal.

☞ Please note: this does not mean that the remaining 39 members of Nader’s top 113 supporters disagree. Some have presumably died (out of heartbreak over how badly things turned out?) and others have presumably not yet been reached or decided whether to participate. To see the current list – ranging from Ben Cohen and Susan Sarandon to Bonnie Raitt and Phil Donahue – click here.

KERRY

Jack: ‘You trashed Bush. Now can you ‘see’ Kerry with the same eyes? Show us why Kerry’s last 50 years qualify him to be Pres.!’

☞ Well, I can make a start, anyway (even if I can’t make the items on this list grammatically parallel [hey: YOU try it!]):

• Superb education, which he took seriously.

• Volunteered for and fulfilled four years’ service to his country, which he also took seriously – volunteering for the most dangerous duty, earning the respect of his crew, awarded Bronze and Silver Star, saving at least one man’s life.

• Principled leader who helped end a bad war – a very serious business.

• Prosecutor who worked successfully to put bad guys away.

• Fought for victims’ rights and rape counseling.

• Experience as Lieutenant Governor.

• Leader in the U.S. Senate (voted FOR every weapons appropriation Ronald Reagan signed into law), with 19 years experience on the Foreign Relations Committee.

• Would appoint moderate, mainstream judges and Justices, preserve separation of church and state.

• Is jazzed to make health care more efficient, affordable and available . . . to promote stem cell research, fund education initiatives, work toward a sustainable environment.

• Would not be a puppet of the gun lobby, tobacco lobby, oil industry.

• Would make most folks, not the wealthiest few, his main priority.

• .. Would not ignore CIA warnings of an “immediate” and “tremendous” threat to the United States. Would not have let bin Laden escape Tora Bora or recklessly rushed into war without a plan for winning the peace. Would not have inflamed an entire region, created thousands of new terrorists, and turned a massive surplus of global goodwill on September 12, 2001, into a massive deficit.

• Would give us a fresh start in the eyes of the world, which has come to distrust and dislike George Bush.

• Listens to a wide range of opinion.

• Reads the newspaper.

I’m not saying he’s perfect, but in the words of the Seattle Times, which endorsed Bush in 2000, “he is head and shoulders above the incumbent.” Thanks for asking.

In case you missed this in the Fairbanks, Alaska, News-Miner:

If results matter, just look
By Alex Prichard

George W. Bush’s new campaign slogan is “Results Matter.” As the election approaches, I suggest we examine the record to see how well President Bush’s results have matched his promises over the last four years.

George Bush and Dick Cheney promised to cut health-care costs. The Bush-Cheney 2000 Web site stated, “There are 43 million uninsured Americans. … George W. Bush will reverse this trend by making health insurance affordable for hard-working, low-income families.” In reality, under Bush, the number of uninsured Americans has grown and health insurance premiums have increased by 12.5 percent per year.

The budget-busting $530 billion prescription drug bill will provide little relief and prohibits Medicare from negotiating for lower drug costs.

They promised to be fiscally conservative. The Bush-Cheney 2000 Web site stated, “As president, Governor Bush will … pay the debt down to a historically low level.” In reality, they have turned a record surplus into a record deficit of $445 billion this year alone.  [Over $600 billion when you include their spending rather than saving the Social Security surplus.]

Much of the debt has arisen from increased discretionary spending by a Republican Congress and irresponsible tax cuts focused on the richest Americans. The Bush tax cuts alone account for more than half of the 2004 deficit.

They promised to protect Social Security. Their Web site stated, “The Social Security surplus must be locked away only for Social Security.” Instead, they spent $159 billion of the Social Security trust fund in 2002 alone. Because Social Security taxes were used to pay for tax cuts and the war in Iraq, Alan Greenspan is now warning that Social Security benefits will probably have to be cut.

They promised to create jobs. In 2002, they claimed that tax cuts would provide an “economic stimulus” and create 300,000 jobs per month. In reality, they only created 32,000 jobs in July and Bush is likely to be the first president since Herbert Hoover to have a net loss of jobs during his watch.

Because the tax cuts were heavily tilted to the very rich, took years to implement and shifted the tax burden from investment income to wage income, they were poorly designed as an economic stimulus package.

A more effective and cheaper economic stimulus package would have been short-term tax cuts for middle-class workers and financial aid to states. For most families, the benefit from the Bush income tax cuts will be more than offset by increases in local taxes, health-care costs, gasoline prices and college tuition and by cuts to services.

They are still making unrealistic promises. They are now promising to cut the size of the deficit in half by 2009, but their forecast includes unrealistic domestic budget cuts, doesn’t include the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and ignores the costs of implementing their own proposals to make the tax cuts permanent.

Even under these very unrealistic budget forecasts, the size of the deficit decreases only until 2009, then increases rapidly as the baby boomers start to retire in 2011.

Since the last election, the country has had to deal with corporate scandals, the attacks of Sept. 11 and a lagging economy. Not all of these factors were under President Bush’s control, but he came into office with a massive budget surplus.

He could have chosen to spend money on rebuilding our roads and schools (fixing school buildings alone is estimated to cost $127 billion), stimulating job creation, paying down the debt or addressing the looming health-care crisis.

Instead, he chose to spend the surplus and more on tax cuts that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, have shifted the overall tax burden from the rich to the middle class, and to pay $200 billion for the war in Iraq.

Whatever your views on the war in Iraq, everyone should agree that we, not our children, should pay the costs. The current deficit spending means that our children will have to pay for the cost of the war in Iraq on top of their own defense needs, which likely will include the continuing threat of terrorism.

This massive debt puts the U.S. economy at the mercy of foreign investors, endangers Social Security and Medicare, increases our interest payments and limits our ability to react to future economic crises.

Despite the fact that the Republicans have controlled the House of Representatives, the Senate and the presidency for four years, the reality has consistently fallen far short of the promises. This year, don’t believe the rhetoric, look at George Bush’s record and hold him accountable, because “Results Matter.”

Alex Prichard is a 10-year Fairbanks resident.

Tomorrow: Reassuring Prasanth

TAXES

John Kerry has pledged to keep the tax cuts on income up to $200,000. He would tax your income above $200,000 the way it was taxed under Clinton/Gore.

It’s really that simple. If you make less than $200,000 a year, taxes are a non-issue.

If you make more than $200,000 a year, you have to decide whether you’re willing to pay a little more to help finance the war on terror.

End of story.

TERRORISM

George Bush has lost the trust and goodwill of the world. Even if John Kerry winds up following the exact same policies that a re-elected George Bush would, President Kerry will be more successful, because the world will know he arrived at these policies not through swagger and arrogance but through analysis and consultation.

Even if you agree with George Bush that Donald Rumsfeld has done a ‘superb’ job . . . even if you agree it was wise not to commit ground troops to finish bin Laden at Tora Bora . . . even if you agree it was in our best interests to pull Special Forces off the hunt for al-Qaeda so they could begin preparing for the war in Iraq . . . even if you agree it was OK for George Bush to break his pledge to Congress and the world to attack Iraq only as a last resort . . . it doesn’t matter. We will be more successful fighting terrorism – and we will create fewer terrorists – if we regain the trust and goodwill of the world.

THE ECONOMY

The job market and the stock market both do better under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents. And they certainly will do better under John Kerry than under this Republican president.

STEM CELLS

John Kerry is pro-science. He encourages the stem cell research that Bush is working to impede. If you worry about being stricken by Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s someday – or seeing your parents or spouse stricken – vote Kerry.

#

There is so much more to say – one bursts to say it – but sometimes (a lesson I should heed more often) less is more. Let me give the rest of the page to this op-ed from Friday’s San Jose Mercury News. It is by former eight-term congressman Pete McCloskey, a highly decorated Korean War veteran:

Posted on Fri, Sep. 10, 2004
If you’re a true Republican, you’ll vote for Kerry
By Pete McCloskey

Although I’m a lifelong Republican, I will vote for John Kerry on Nov. 2. The choice seems simple under traditional principles of the Republican Party.

I first met John Kerry in the spring of 1971. Each of us was just back from Vietnam — he as a Navy officer and I as a member of Congress — and were appalled by what we had seen there. I found Kerry to be idealistic, courageous and, above all else, truthful to a fault. He demonstrated courage in Vietnam, but as Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. once said, the courage to speak against prevailing opinion in civil strife is often greater than that demanded on the battlefield.

During Kerry’s public career after his election to the Senate, he has clearly grown and matured. I believe he is incapable of deliberate deceit or dissembling. This alone represents a refreshing hope for a return of public faith in our government.

That Kerry has attained the solid support of former Secretary of Defense William Perry, with whom he has worked for years on issues of nuclear proliferation, confirms his ability to study, listen and reach sound judgments.

The primary issue in November will be who can best lead us in the bitter struggle against the Islamic fundamentalists who perpetrated 9/11 and are willing to die to kill Americans throughout the world. The Iraq occupation has caused thousands of new suicide bombers to join the jihad against us; with Kerry as president, the nation will properly refocus the battle away from Iraq and against the true enemy, Al-Qaida.

As Kerry has stated, we desperately need the cooperation of every country in the world, friend and enemy, where terrorist cells can germinate and operate.

We need to be more humble in asking for this assistance. A return to the “speak softly but carry a big stick” philosophy of Teddy Roosevelt should be far more effective than the bluster, bravado and “shock and awe” firepower of the neocon advisers who have commandeered White House foreign policy.

There are many other reasons to support John Kerry.

The incredible budget deficits projected to be $2.3 trillion or more in the next decade, disrespect for the United Nations, international law and Geneva Conventions, secrecy in government — all of these are positions Kerry would certainly reverse.

As a Catholic, Kerry is sure to maintain the constitutional separation between church and state, recognizing that while we are indeed a nation under God, everyone is free to choose his or her own faith in God.

He will also end the inordinate secrecy that has characterized this administration. It seems incredible that a matter as important as our national energy policy could be decided in secret by Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force — individuals whose very names have been withheld from the public.

Kerry’s record on environmental issues is superb, an area where the Bush administration has been a disaster.

Finally, there’s the matter of John Ashcroft and prospective judicial appointees who could undo Roe vs. Wade, a woman’s right of choice and many of the civil liberties we have earned over 225 years.

Each of the foregoing reasons for supporting Kerry is based on traditional Republican values of fiscal responsibility, limited governmental intrusion and the accountability of individuals.

In truth, John Kerry and John Edwards come far closer to the Republicanism of Teddy Roosevelt, Earl Warren, Barry Goldwater, George Bush the elder and, yes, even Richard Nixon, than does the present incumbent.

Ending secrecy and bringing truth and honesty back to the White House are reasons enough to elect Kerry and Edwards.

IT’S ALL IN THE SUBTITLE

Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter has just come out with a new book: WHAT WE’VE LOST: How the Bush Administration Has Curtailed Our Freedoms, Mortgaged Our Economy, Ravaged Our Environment, and Damaged Our Standing in the World.

Careful you’re not caught carrying it outside a free speech zone.*

*This is what’s known as a cheap shot. But sometimes, cheap shots are irresistible.

YOUR $87 BILLION

This election is turning a lot of us into copy writers. One of you sent me this proposed script:

DRAFT RESPONSE AD ON IRAQ WAR SPENDING (60 seconds):

[Kerry speaking directly to the camera:]

My fellow Americans, George Bush has had a lot of fun attacking me over how I voted on his 87 billion dollar spending request for the Iraq War. He thinks it’s a big laugh line. But he’s laughing all the way to the bank, with YOUR grandchildren’s money.

My position has been perfectly clear all along:

No. 1: I support spending whatever it takes to get the job done in Iraq.

No. 2: I DEMAND that we pay for it honestly by asking the wealthiest Americans to give back just SOME of the enormous tax breaks Bush gave them.

That’s why I voted the way I did. Bush, by contrast, just ran up the deficit another 87 billion dollars. Instead of asking his wealthiest supporters to make ANY sacrifice at all, he favored dumping the debt burden on all of our grandchildren.

I support spending what we need, but I OPPOSE Bush’s refusal to pay for it honestly. He calls that a flip-flop. I call it common sense. You be the judge.

END

☞ A good script? Bad script? You be the judge.

YOUR WORLD TRADE CENTER

Another of you – a well known prize-winning author who prefers to remain nameless (which leaves me all but desperate to tell you my ‘rename maneless’ pun, but like Strangelove wrestling his arm to his side, I resist) – offers this advice:

‘Kerry’s No. 1 message for the next 60 days should be this:

Bush let 9/11 happen. It’s his fault. It is his greatest shame.

He was warned, and he did nothing but continue his vacation. Then for two years he tried to keep secret the fact that he was warned. But now we know (cite President’s Daily Briefing, roll tape of Condi revealing its title). And then? He did nothing. Mr. President, what actions did you take to protect America?

Insert here: Elizabeth Drew’s piece in the New York Review of Books and Bill Maher’s rant from HBO:

New Rule: You can’t run on a mistake. Franklin Roosevelt didn’t run for re-election claiming Pearl Harbor was his finest hour. Abe Lincoln was a great president, but the high point of his second term wasn’t theater security. 9/11 wasn’t a triumph of the human spirit. It was a screw-up by a guy on vacation. Now, don’t get me wrong, Mr. President. I’m not blaming you for 9/11. We have blue-ribbon commissions to do that.

‘It has the virtue of being true, and the related virtue of being plausible. People already half know it, but they need to hear it from the candidate.’

☞ I’m not sure it should come from the candidate, because as Paul Krugman argued chillingly in Monday‘s New York Times, ‘once war psychology takes hold, the public desperately wants to believe in its leadership.’ And even if it didn’t, blaming Bush for 9/11 is strong. I would settle for recognizing that it’s a myth he did as much as anyone could. (As early as January 7, 2001, he was told by the CIA that bin Laden represented a ‘tremendous’ and ‘immediate’ threat to the United States – and instead of building on the ongoing initiatives to take him out, Bush shut those initiatives down.) He did nothing. He should have done much more. That didn’t cause 9/11, but it might have prevented it.

You really should take the time to read the Krugman column, if you can.

Tomorrow (I hope): Your Taxes

AH STAND CORRECTED!

Brad: ‘You write of Zell Miller: ‘And then, a little later, he challenged CNBC’s Chris Matthews to a duel.’ Wrong. He said he wished he lived in a time when he COULD challenge Matthews to a duel.’

☞ You are absolutely right.

A SMART SYSTEM FOR JUNK MAIL

Alec T. Whittaker: ‘I have no middle initial. When I buy anything or respond in a way that suggests my name might become public, I add an initial. ‘T’ for Tobias means that any mail I get from you (if you had my address) goes straight into the trash and I’m not in danger of junking something important.’

WE COULDA BEEN SMARTER

Mark Phariss: ‘Bush’s principal argument for re-election is his war on terrorism, but in fact that’s one of the principal reasons he should NOT be re-elected.

• Leading up to 9/11, Bush downgraded his terrorism czar to a sub-cabinet level position and ignored intelligence reports informing him that Osama bin Laden wanted to attack in the US.

• After 9/11, he didn’t go in for the kill at Tora Bora, allowing Osama bin Laden to escape.

• He pursued a war in Iraq that had nothing to do with 9/11, diverting our attention from the war on terrorism and Osama bin Laden, as Bush’s father’s own national security adviser said it would, inflaming the Muslim world, and creating thousands of new terrorists.

• His evident disdain for other nations’ views, both before and after 9/11, has made it more difficult for us to get international support in our war on terrorism.

‘Simply saying Bush ‘misled’ us into a war with Iraq – though true – does not connect the dots on why that UNDERMINES our war on terrorism.’

☞ And let’s not forget that he opposed creation of a Homeland Security department for nine months . . . opposed creation of the 9/11 Commission . . . and has extremely close ties to the Saudis, who may not be the great allies we would like to think they are.

Dana Dlott: ‘The G.O.P’s position, as far as I can tell, is that if a Democrat had been president in 1941 we would have lost WWII. It’s a good thing Kerry voted against the B-1 bomber. Costing more than $200 million per copy, this dog crashes repeatedly and has been so useless that since it was put in service 20 years ago it has done nothing worth note. The B-1 has been a disaster. It isn’t stealthy, its electronic warfare systems don’t work correctly, and its support costs are astronomical. The Serbs – no one’s idea of world-class adversaries – managed to shoot decoys of them nine times, forcing changes in attack plans. The Air Force would rather fly 50 year old B-52 junkers than this clunker.

‘John Kerry votes for a bill. The Republicans say, Hmmm, this is something the Democrats support, let’s load it up with a bunch of pork amendments and crazy right-wing rhetoric and have another vote. Then Kerry votes against the ridiculous amended bill. This isn’t flip flopping, this is being smart.’

SMART THOUGHTS ON ROTH IRA CONVERSIONS

Many of you know that the estimable Less Antman, whose asterisk blinks eternally at upper left on this page (‘Ask Less’), is a wonderfully smart and witty financial advisor. The latest issue of his newsletter begins:

One of my favorite uses of the Roth IRA is to turn a year or two of low income into an opportunity to save enormous amounts of income tax (and possibly estate tax) [by converting some or all of a regular retirement into a Roth IRA].

To read the whole thing and, doubtless, learn a good deal about retirement accounts, click here. To sign up for his (free) newsletter, click here.

THE PRESIDENT

‘The problem isn’t George Bush’s decisiveness. It’s his decisions.’ – Ellen Goodman in the Boston Globe

THE KEYNOTER

It’s very ‘last week’ – and the Bush bounce is already pretty well gone (that was fast) – but did you actually see Zell Miller’s speech at the Convention? It was noteworthy because it was billed as the KEYNOTE address, just as Barack Obama’s was in Boston five weeks before. But where Barack’s was filled with hope and inspiration for the future, Zell’s was so angry it wasn’t just angry or even angry, it was scare-the-children, purple with RAGE.

Because (as Jon Stewart so aptly put it), after four years of controlling the White House and Congress and the Supreme Court, they have a lot to be angry about, and they’re not gonna take it anymore!

How dare anyone run for president against George W. Bush . . . a man who has lost more jobs on his watch than any president since Herbert Hoover, who has rolled back environmental regulation and fought to impede stem cell research here at home and around the world. A man who played right into the hands of Osama bin Laden by (a) ignoring all the warnings he was given, beginning at Blair House January 7, 2001 (‘a tremendous, immediate’ threat to the United States); (b) letting bin Laden get away when we had the chance to kill or capture him at Tora Bora; and (c) inflaming much of the Middle East (thereby helping to recruit thousands of new terrorists) by rushing into war in Iraq without adequate world support and without a plan to win the peace. How dare the Democrats want a change, Zell seemed to be asking.

And then, a little later, he challenged CNBC’s Chris Matthews to a duel. (I assume you know this, but in case you missed it, I am not making it up.)

The Republicans want this guy? Hey – take him!

THE VEEP

I don’t begrudge Dick Cheney his five deferments – I was too scared to be drafted, too. But one of them tells you that this was a guy who was truly determined to live to . . . well, if not ‘to fight another day,’ then at least to send other people’s kids to fight another day. He got his student deferments and then his deferment for being married, but then on October 26, 1965, they announced that childless married men were fair game for the draft. Nine months and two days later, the Cheney’s daughter arrived.

THE A.G.’S WIFE

Listen: I respect everyone’s religious faith. But to anyone who is unnerved by, say, the 2004 Texas Republican Platform, which calls for an end to the separation of church and state, I just think it’s important to note that these folks are quite sincere (as they are entitled to be), and that they are increasingly influencing our government. One of them is President, another is Attorney General (who has himself anointed in Crisco oil before being sworn in to important jobs). Others are just in college, hoping one day to help steer the ship of state – as they are totally entitled to want to do.

With that in mind, here’s part of a piece by Mac VerStandig, a junior at the University of Wisconsin, describing his recent visit to Patrick Henry College, on whose board of trustees Janet Ashcroft, the A.G.’s better half, serves as secretary:

In Purcellville, Va., sits one of America’s youngest and most respected schools.

Less than 10 years old, Patrick Henry College has already gained notoriety for tremendous placement of its students in internships all over Washington, D.C., from the White House to the Capitol. The secretary of the school’s Board of Trustees is none other than Janet Ashcroft, the attorney general’s wife. And early alumni of the college have gone on to work in places as prestigious as the aforementioned internship hubs.

. . . A strict Christian college in the tradition of Bob Jones University, the Virginia school boasts a student body of fewer than 1,000 and almost all of which had been home schooled.

Moreover, according to a March 8 New York Times article, the school formerly enrolled only a single black student. He dropped out.

. . . In order to enter the college, students must sign a document saying that they accept the Christian Bible – in its entirety – as being literal. In fact, the school’s website explains, ‘Any biology, Bible or other courses at PHC dealing with creation will teach creation from the understanding of Scripture that God’s creative work, as described in Genesis 1:1-31, was completed in six 24-hour days.’

. . . And PHC does little to help expand students’ worldview. In fact, the college works as an almost incestuous compound where pupils are so radically exposed to their own homogeny that the real world comes as a shock. One PHC student, upon meeting this writer – a practicing Jew who imbibes openly – inquired almost innocently, ‘What does it feel like to know that you’re going to hell?’

The question is sensible if you consider that students at the Virginia college are prohibited from touching alcohol while attending school (including weekends and other non-class times).

Yet PHC’s crippling shelter only grows greater with its ‘courtship policy.’ Should a male student wish to date a female student, he must first get the permission of her parents. . . Should the parents sign off on the courtship, the two budding young romantics will be permitted to hold hands on campus – so long as they are walking of course. That’s right, at PHC, if you’re sitting down, standing still or otherwise immobile, you better not be caressing the palm of another student.

☞ To each his own. Where it gets awkward is when, say, John Ashcroft tries to use the power of the federal government to overturn the twice-passed-by-referendum Oregon assisted-suicide law or the passed-by-referendum California medical marijuana law. Or when this crowd attempts to amend the US Constitution to discriminate against gays and lesbians – or when the House, as it recently did, approves a bill that would prevent the Courts from ruling certain discriminatory laws unConstitutional. In those cases, it’s not to each his own, it’s ‘you will do as I say, because God speaketh through me.’ Shouldn’t it be enough to know that we who don’t see it the same way will burn in hell?

Tomorrow: A Smart System for Thinning Junk Mail; Smart Thoughts on Roth IRA Conversions