By a friend of mine....
Down the Dukakis Trail
(To the tune of "Ghost Riders in the Sky")
A veteran from Vietnam went out to Ioway
Upon his medals boasted as he stumped both night and day
When all at once a mighty herd of Deaniacs he saw
Come rushin' off the Internet and into Iowah
Yipie i ay yipie i oh
Down the Dukakis Trail
Their eyes were all on fire and their laptops made of steel
Their donor base was howling and their workers full of zeal
A bolt of fear went through the vet as they caucused far and wide
And Howard Dean was rising fast 'til he made his fateful cry
Yipie i AAAARGGGGHHHHH! Yipie i AAARGGGHHH!
Down the Dukakis Trail
His face was flushed his eyes were wild his shirt was soaked with sweat
When he screamed and lost his lead to the Massachussetts vet
Who rode both sides of Vietnam to the nomination show
'Cause being both against and for's "electable" you know
Yipie i ay yipie i oh
Down the Dukakis Trail
But then some other vets appeared he heard one call his name
Your medals rust you've lost our trust but your head don't hang with shame
Make your peace with other soldiers or you're sure to feel our pain
As we tell all the nation of the fantasies you claimed
Yipie i ay yipie i oh
Down the Dukakis Trail
Down the Dukakis Trail
Down the Dukakis Trail....
Copyright S.D. Roberts 2004. Permission is hereby granted to use these words however you see fit as long as this copyright notice is included. Have fun with it.
September 16, 2004
September 08, 2004
WWJKD?
What Would John Kerry Do?
I keep asking that question of Kerry supporters, hoping to find out the current platform and any honestly substantive agenda the candidate may have. I don't expect anyone to change my mind, but I honestly do want to know what Kerry has to recommend him other than being a rich Democrat senator from Massachussetts, as compared to a rich Texas Governor with an ex-Prez daddy. But I never seem to get any real answers. Instead I hear:
BUSH IS EVIL!
OK, I'll play along, he's Satan Incarnate. So, about that litigation abuse, WWJKD?
BUSH IS A LIAR!
Well, he's a politician and I've seen his lips move, and I'm certainly not going to argue the relative degrees of verity with electronic wanna-be Jesuits. But to stem job outsourcing and smooth the bumps of a shifting world economic structure, WWJKD?
KERRY SERVED IN VIETNAM!
I know that. Everyone who's been within ten feet of any media outlet in the last year knows that. But what we don't know and would like to hear is, on say the impending implosion of Social Security and Medicare, WWJKD?
KERRY ISN'T BUSH!
I'm sure everyone on all sides is thankful about that, not least of all Theresa Kerry and Laura Bush. But, in Iraq, WWJKD?
KERRY WON MEDALS!
Yes yes, in Vietnam. We know. Which he really ought to quit talking about and try talking about some current issues instead, like structural reform of health care instead of more taxpayer-funded bandaids. So WWJKD?
BUSH SCREWED UP!
Well, that's certainly one view with some validity, but it's kinda past-oriented. In terms of the future, WWJKD?
BUSH IS EVIL!
And so it goes.
I keep asking that question of Kerry supporters, hoping to find out the current platform and any honestly substantive agenda the candidate may have. I don't expect anyone to change my mind, but I honestly do want to know what Kerry has to recommend him other than being a rich Democrat senator from Massachussetts, as compared to a rich Texas Governor with an ex-Prez daddy. But I never seem to get any real answers. Instead I hear:
BUSH IS EVIL!
OK, I'll play along, he's Satan Incarnate. So, about that litigation abuse, WWJKD?
BUSH IS A LIAR!
Well, he's a politician and I've seen his lips move, and I'm certainly not going to argue the relative degrees of verity with electronic wanna-be Jesuits. But to stem job outsourcing and smooth the bumps of a shifting world economic structure, WWJKD?
KERRY SERVED IN VIETNAM!
I know that. Everyone who's been within ten feet of any media outlet in the last year knows that. But what we don't know and would like to hear is, on say the impending implosion of Social Security and Medicare, WWJKD?
KERRY ISN'T BUSH!
I'm sure everyone on all sides is thankful about that, not least of all Theresa Kerry and Laura Bush. But, in Iraq, WWJKD?
KERRY WON MEDALS!
Yes yes, in Vietnam. We know. Which he really ought to quit talking about and try talking about some current issues instead, like structural reform of health care instead of more taxpayer-funded bandaids. So WWJKD?
BUSH SCREWED UP!
Well, that's certainly one view with some validity, but it's kinda past-oriented. In terms of the future, WWJKD?
BUSH IS EVIL!
And so it goes.
September 04, 2004
Bounce!
A national Newsweek poll conducted September 2nd and 3rd and released today seems to confirm yesterday's TIME poll, indicating that Bush has a clear post-convention lead of 11 points, both head-to-head against Kerry and in three-way including Nader. The poll was of 1008 registered voters.
For the first time in over a year, the Newsweek polling shows a majority (53%) in favor of re-electing Bush. More interesting to me was the breakdown of whom voters would like to see as the 2008 Republican nominee. (Figures are shown as ALL/Republican respondees only). The top two were Rudy Giuliani (50%/65%) and John McCain (48%/47%). Arnold Schwarzennegger came in third at (22%/30%), and Jeb Bush, Bill Frist, and George Pataki brought up the rear.
For the first time in over a year, the Newsweek polling shows a majority (53%) in favor of re-electing Bush. More interesting to me was the breakdown of whom voters would like to see as the 2008 Republican nominee. (Figures are shown as ALL/Republican respondees only). The top two were Rudy Giuliani (50%/65%) and John McCain (48%/47%). Arnold Schwarzennegger came in third at (22%/30%), and Jeb Bush, Bill Frist, and George Pataki brought up the rear.
August 29, 2004
Jumping the Shark
I don't have time right now for the long entry I'd like to write on this subject, but I think we're going to be looking back on the last two weeks as the moment that the Kerry campaign jumped the shark and started sliding down the Mondale/Dukakis/Gore road.
This opens me entirely to being slam-dunked into the Dustbin of Stupid Presidential Campaign Predictions. It's a long time until November and fresh events and revelations can change things drastically. Anarchists could run riot at the GOP convention, get beat up by Republican delegates on camera, and win the sympathy vote for Kerry. Bush could lose his sanity in the middle of his speech and start babbling like an ayatollah on acid. Dick Cheney and Colin Powell could be revealed as child pornographers.
LOTS of things can happen to change the dynamics of a race, and this one still has over 60 days to go. But I believe that barring such events and revelations, the current indicators say that Kerry is on his way down. Of course, I'm the guy who took Gephardt in the Veepstakes immediately after Iowa, so take the prediction with whatever amount of salt grains you prefer.
The major factor in my calculations is Kerry's insistence of using Vietnam as his campaign keystone. I think it's rapidly becoming a millstone, and for many more reasons than just the Swift Boat ads. Frankly, I think it was a tactical and strategic blunder of enormous proportions, and will sink him. Vietnam is still an open wound in the American psyche, and poking it with a sharp stick does not win many hearts and minds. Especially in wartime.
Among other things, Kerry's insistence on trying to own both sides of Vietnam plays into the flip-flopping meme the GOP has managed to hang on him. And it doesn't play in a good way. Consider that Kerry is proud of his service to the country, and his medals won in committing what he himself called war crimes and atrocities...cognitive dissonance. Irreconcilable images.
Having put so much of his weight onto the Vietnam issue, Kerry is left without too many other tools to effectively use at this late date. He's on the defensive now and is likely to pretty much stay on the defensive right through election day. And challengers don't win playing defense. If Kerry can't change the momentum (and the subject) back into his favor, and quickly, he's done.
HINT: If you're a Kerry supporter, "Vote John Kerry for Another Vietnam!" is NOT a good subliminal message to have floating around the country right now. But that's the message that is getting out. And it won't win the election.
This opens me entirely to being slam-dunked into the Dustbin of Stupid Presidential Campaign Predictions. It's a long time until November and fresh events and revelations can change things drastically. Anarchists could run riot at the GOP convention, get beat up by Republican delegates on camera, and win the sympathy vote for Kerry. Bush could lose his sanity in the middle of his speech and start babbling like an ayatollah on acid. Dick Cheney and Colin Powell could be revealed as child pornographers.
LOTS of things can happen to change the dynamics of a race, and this one still has over 60 days to go. But I believe that barring such events and revelations, the current indicators say that Kerry is on his way down. Of course, I'm the guy who took Gephardt in the Veepstakes immediately after Iowa, so take the prediction with whatever amount of salt grains you prefer.
The major factor in my calculations is Kerry's insistence of using Vietnam as his campaign keystone. I think it's rapidly becoming a millstone, and for many more reasons than just the Swift Boat ads. Frankly, I think it was a tactical and strategic blunder of enormous proportions, and will sink him. Vietnam is still an open wound in the American psyche, and poking it with a sharp stick does not win many hearts and minds. Especially in wartime.
Among other things, Kerry's insistence on trying to own both sides of Vietnam plays into the flip-flopping meme the GOP has managed to hang on him. And it doesn't play in a good way. Consider that Kerry is proud of his service to the country, and his medals won in committing what he himself called war crimes and atrocities...cognitive dissonance. Irreconcilable images.
Having put so much of his weight onto the Vietnam issue, Kerry is left without too many other tools to effectively use at this late date. He's on the defensive now and is likely to pretty much stay on the defensive right through election day. And challengers don't win playing defense. If Kerry can't change the momentum (and the subject) back into his favor, and quickly, he's done.
HINT: If you're a Kerry supporter, "Vote John Kerry for Another Vietnam!" is NOT a good subliminal message to have floating around the country right now. But that's the message that is getting out. And it won't win the election.
July 23, 2004
One Berger, With Lies
The flap over Sandy Berger's Frequent Visitor program at the National Archives continues, and the finger-pointing by Democrats continues. The scripted attack line is that Republicans leaked the news of the Berger investigation to take some of the sting out of the 9/11 Commission Report and some of the light out of the upcoming DNC convention. Or both. In this, they have been ably assisted by many in the media, who would have us believe that the real scandal is all Republican.
The problem is, there's a total lack of evidence that the story was leaked by Republicans, and a fair amount of circumstantial evidence that the story was leaked by Berger's team. Even seasoned political observers have to cringe at the hypocrisy emanating from the Kerry campaign and the Democrats on this one.
The known basics: Former Clinton White House National Security Advisor Samuel "Sandy" Berger was deputized by Clinton to review documents at the National Archives in preparation for testifying to the 9/11 Commission. During the course of several visits, Berger asked NA employees to violate security procedures by leaving the room, so he could take and make "private phone calls." Apparently intimidated by Berger's status, some did so. Also contrary to NA rules and procedures, employees did not search the contents of Berger's leather portfolio case when he exited the viewing room. Documents were subsequently discovered missing, and NA employees began watching Berger more closely. He was observed placing documents in his clothing. The NA employees then began numbering and coding documents which Berger requested, and discovered that they were indeed not all returning to the secure files, but going missing in Berger's possession.
Then it gets a little murky. It is reported that Archives officials notified Clinton attorney Bruce Lindsey about the affair (something Linsey now denies) and that Berger then returned some, but not all, of the missing documents to the archives, along with some hand-written notes he had taken while in the viewing room and also removed contrary to procedure. A National Archives employee came to Berger's house to retrieve the documents still missing, and was told they could not be found. The FBI then came and searched Berger's house, finding some hand-written notes on the Middle East peace talks of the 1990's that also should not have been removed.
All of this happened several months ago, in the fall of 2003. The documents in question, the items that kept coming up missing and roused NA staff suspicions to the point that they set up a "sting" on Berger, were drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration's handling of al-Qaida terror threats during the December 1999 millennium celebration. These documents carried our nation's highest security classification, CODEWORD.
Some thoughts before continuing to discussion of the current flap.
First, the odds that Berger "inadvertently" removed these documents is zero, the odds that he did not know that his hand-written notes were supposed to be reviewed for content before leaving the room is also zero. He concealed them and removed them on purpose, knowing full well that he was committing felony violations of both NA procedure and national security law. As a former National Security Adviser it is simply not credible that he could NOT have known all of this. The lesson of John Deutch was fresh. You can't even get into the viewing rooms without signing papers acknowledging all of these things. And red-covered security documents of a few dozen pages do not blend in so well that they are repeatedly, on more than one occasion, "inadvertently" slipped into one's briefcase or folder--or one's clothing.
Second, it's ridiculous to assume that Berger had no reason for taking these documents. The question becomes what his reason or reasons were. Reports indicate that while the documents were all drafts of a single final document, they were not all identical. At a minimum, they were copies that contained hand-written notes and annotations from various Clinton administration staffers, including those of Berger and main author Richard Clarke. Or they may have been copies of various stages of the draft, showing how it evolved. Or both.
So it is reasonable to assume that Berger wanted some of those annotations or draft versions to disappear from the Archives, and was willing to commit serious crimes of national security to accomplish his purpose. Had he simply wanted a copy on which to base his upcoming testimony, one would have sufficed. The same reasoning applies if he wanted a copy to help guide Democrat campaign strategy. And indeed, some of the copies that Berger took have not been recovered. (It is also possible that the copies Berger returned had been altered, and/or that he had already susbstituted doctored copies in place of other Archive copies.) In any case, Berger is in deep trouble, and it's not something that's just going to go away, as Deutch can tell him. Deutch's crime appeared to have been an honest error, a claim that Berger is going to find tough to sell, and it took a presidential pardon to get Deutch off the hook.
Onward to the "leak" flap. On July 19, this story appeared on the AP wire, revealing that Berger was under investigation for removing documents. Immediately Democrats from A to Z began claiming that the story had been leaked by the White House in order to overshadow the 9/11 Commission Report, due to come out in a few days, or the upcoming DNC convention. Or both.
The evidence that Republicans leaked this story? NONE. Zero. Zip. Nada. Zilch. But Democrats from Bill Clinton to the Kerry campaign iteslf, along with many prominent "unbiased" media outlets, continue to point fingers at the Bush administration, trying to get the focus off of Sandy Berger.
The author of the original article has not said (and will not say) where the story came from. But there are some clues, some circumstantial evidence, that could point the way. And ALL of that evidence points in exactly one direction--at Sandy Berger and his advisers.
To begin with is the article itself, which tells the story almost exclusively from the mouth of Sandy Berger's attorney, Lanny Breuer. If the article was original investigative journalism, or had been leaked by a hostile GOP source, it would almost certainly contain something more damning than Berger's own "inadvertent mistake" mea culpa. It does not. In fact, it notes that the House Intelligence Committee had not yet been informed of the breach. That's one.
The reasoning that the news was leaked by Republicans to draw attention away from the 9/11 Commission report falls flat. The 9/11 report is actually very positive for the Bush administration, debunking almost all the spectacular claims made by the Frothing Left about Bush perfidy. The White House has had "vetting" copies of the report for weeks, plus the benefit of inside information from Republican Committee members, and knew this. Why would they want to cloud over it? Similarly, the proper timing for leaking this item in order to cloud the DNC convention would be during, or immediately after, the convention, not before it. In fact, the single most effective time to leak this news for GOP'ers would be right at the end, or shortly after, the GOP convention or in the last few weeks before the election. The timing of the news, which was bound to come out anyway, seems positioned to help (or at least do the minimum amount of damage to) Democrats, not Republicans. That's two.
Then we have the detail that Berger added Joe Lockhart to his damage control team in January. As Clinton White House press secretary, it was the team of Lockhart and Lannie Davis that perfected the technique of selective timing of bad news releases to minimize political damage. In the press they found many willing accomplices who would publish immediately and ask few questions, as long as they got the scoop. As Davis himself said in this article explaining the details of the technique, charmingly entitled "Damage Control 101--How to get the bad news out quickly - and quietly," their favorite "go-to" guy for releases was AP's John Solomon, and they used him more than any other reporter.
When Davis was questioned yesterday about whether he had anything to do with the leaking of the Berger story, he dodged, bobbed, weaved, and evaded answering. But going back to the original release, the one composed almost entirely of Berger's own lawyer-approved version, we can't help but note that the author was none other than John Solomon of the AP. And that's three.
None of which you will find in the august pages of the Washington Post or the New York Times, or hear from Dan Rather, all of whom continue to insist that a tale of a Democrat stealing national Security materials and pre-emptively timing the release of the story is a somehow a Republican scandal.
The problem is, there's a total lack of evidence that the story was leaked by Republicans, and a fair amount of circumstantial evidence that the story was leaked by Berger's team. Even seasoned political observers have to cringe at the hypocrisy emanating from the Kerry campaign and the Democrats on this one.
The known basics: Former Clinton White House National Security Advisor Samuel "Sandy" Berger was deputized by Clinton to review documents at the National Archives in preparation for testifying to the 9/11 Commission. During the course of several visits, Berger asked NA employees to violate security procedures by leaving the room, so he could take and make "private phone calls." Apparently intimidated by Berger's status, some did so. Also contrary to NA rules and procedures, employees did not search the contents of Berger's leather portfolio case when he exited the viewing room. Documents were subsequently discovered missing, and NA employees began watching Berger more closely. He was observed placing documents in his clothing. The NA employees then began numbering and coding documents which Berger requested, and discovered that they were indeed not all returning to the secure files, but going missing in Berger's possession.
Then it gets a little murky. It is reported that Archives officials notified Clinton attorney Bruce Lindsey about the affair (something Linsey now denies) and that Berger then returned some, but not all, of the missing documents to the archives, along with some hand-written notes he had taken while in the viewing room and also removed contrary to procedure. A National Archives employee came to Berger's house to retrieve the documents still missing, and was told they could not be found. The FBI then came and searched Berger's house, finding some hand-written notes on the Middle East peace talks of the 1990's that also should not have been removed.
All of this happened several months ago, in the fall of 2003. The documents in question, the items that kept coming up missing and roused NA staff suspicions to the point that they set up a "sting" on Berger, were drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration's handling of al-Qaida terror threats during the December 1999 millennium celebration. These documents carried our nation's highest security classification, CODEWORD.
Some thoughts before continuing to discussion of the current flap.
First, the odds that Berger "inadvertently" removed these documents is zero, the odds that he did not know that his hand-written notes were supposed to be reviewed for content before leaving the room is also zero. He concealed them and removed them on purpose, knowing full well that he was committing felony violations of both NA procedure and national security law. As a former National Security Adviser it is simply not credible that he could NOT have known all of this. The lesson of John Deutch was fresh. You can't even get into the viewing rooms without signing papers acknowledging all of these things. And red-covered security documents of a few dozen pages do not blend in so well that they are repeatedly, on more than one occasion, "inadvertently" slipped into one's briefcase or folder--or one's clothing.
Second, it's ridiculous to assume that Berger had no reason for taking these documents. The question becomes what his reason or reasons were. Reports indicate that while the documents were all drafts of a single final document, they were not all identical. At a minimum, they were copies that contained hand-written notes and annotations from various Clinton administration staffers, including those of Berger and main author Richard Clarke. Or they may have been copies of various stages of the draft, showing how it evolved. Or both.
So it is reasonable to assume that Berger wanted some of those annotations or draft versions to disappear from the Archives, and was willing to commit serious crimes of national security to accomplish his purpose. Had he simply wanted a copy on which to base his upcoming testimony, one would have sufficed. The same reasoning applies if he wanted a copy to help guide Democrat campaign strategy. And indeed, some of the copies that Berger took have not been recovered. (It is also possible that the copies Berger returned had been altered, and/or that he had already susbstituted doctored copies in place of other Archive copies.) In any case, Berger is in deep trouble, and it's not something that's just going to go away, as Deutch can tell him. Deutch's crime appeared to have been an honest error, a claim that Berger is going to find tough to sell, and it took a presidential pardon to get Deutch off the hook.
Onward to the "leak" flap. On July 19, this story appeared on the AP wire, revealing that Berger was under investigation for removing documents. Immediately Democrats from A to Z began claiming that the story had been leaked by the White House in order to overshadow the 9/11 Commission Report, due to come out in a few days, or the upcoming DNC convention. Or both.
The evidence that Republicans leaked this story? NONE. Zero. Zip. Nada. Zilch. But Democrats from Bill Clinton to the Kerry campaign iteslf, along with many prominent "unbiased" media outlets, continue to point fingers at the Bush administration, trying to get the focus off of Sandy Berger.
The author of the original article has not said (and will not say) where the story came from. But there are some clues, some circumstantial evidence, that could point the way. And ALL of that evidence points in exactly one direction--at Sandy Berger and his advisers.
To begin with is the article itself, which tells the story almost exclusively from the mouth of Sandy Berger's attorney, Lanny Breuer. If the article was original investigative journalism, or had been leaked by a hostile GOP source, it would almost certainly contain something more damning than Berger's own "inadvertent mistake" mea culpa. It does not. In fact, it notes that the House Intelligence Committee had not yet been informed of the breach. That's one.
The reasoning that the news was leaked by Republicans to draw attention away from the 9/11 Commission report falls flat. The 9/11 report is actually very positive for the Bush administration, debunking almost all the spectacular claims made by the Frothing Left about Bush perfidy. The White House has had "vetting" copies of the report for weeks, plus the benefit of inside information from Republican Committee members, and knew this. Why would they want to cloud over it? Similarly, the proper timing for leaking this item in order to cloud the DNC convention would be during, or immediately after, the convention, not before it. In fact, the single most effective time to leak this news for GOP'ers would be right at the end, or shortly after, the GOP convention or in the last few weeks before the election. The timing of the news, which was bound to come out anyway, seems positioned to help (or at least do the minimum amount of damage to) Democrats, not Republicans. That's two.
Then we have the detail that Berger added Joe Lockhart to his damage control team in January. As Clinton White House press secretary, it was the team of Lockhart and Lannie Davis that perfected the technique of selective timing of bad news releases to minimize political damage. In the press they found many willing accomplices who would publish immediately and ask few questions, as long as they got the scoop. As Davis himself said in this article explaining the details of the technique, charmingly entitled "Damage Control 101--How to get the bad news out quickly - and quietly," their favorite "go-to" guy for releases was AP's John Solomon, and they used him more than any other reporter.
When Davis was questioned yesterday about whether he had anything to do with the leaking of the Berger story, he dodged, bobbed, weaved, and evaded answering. But going back to the original release, the one composed almost entirely of Berger's own lawyer-approved version, we can't help but note that the author was none other than John Solomon of the AP. And that's three.
None of which you will find in the august pages of the Washington Post or the New York Times, or hear from Dan Rather, all of whom continue to insist that a tale of a Democrat stealing national Security materials and pre-emptively timing the release of the story is a somehow a Republican scandal.
April 21, 2004
Supporting the Troops
.
Much has been made about Spirit Of America's efforts to help out the American troops in Iraq in various ways. It's all over the blogosphere, and if you haven't seen a mention you should chastise the blog sites. I6t's not a pro-war or anti-war thing, it's just about letting our friends, relatives, and fellow citizens servng overseas know that we haven't forgotten them.
They're a fine organization, but if they aren't your cup of tea, there's also Books For Soldiers, which helps you send not just books but basic supplies to our troops. Things such as baby wipes, chapstick, socks, etc. that are in very short supply in The Sandbox. Good folks.
And there's also Soldier's Angels, which has an Adopt-A-Soldier program that fosters correspondence and support for deployed soldiers.
It's not much to ask--a few paperbacks, maybe some hard candy or a DVD, some "neccessaries." And it does a world of good. So pay 'em a visit, any of 'em, and do something to help out our men and women in uniform.
Much has been made about Spirit Of America's efforts to help out the American troops in Iraq in various ways. It's all over the blogosphere, and if you haven't seen a mention you should chastise the blog sites. I6t's not a pro-war or anti-war thing, it's just about letting our friends, relatives, and fellow citizens servng overseas know that we haven't forgotten them.
They're a fine organization, but if they aren't your cup of tea, there's also Books For Soldiers, which helps you send not just books but basic supplies to our troops. Things such as baby wipes, chapstick, socks, etc. that are in very short supply in The Sandbox. Good folks.
And there's also Soldier's Angels, which has an Adopt-A-Soldier program that fosters correspondence and support for deployed soldiers.
It's not much to ask--a few paperbacks, maybe some hard candy or a DVD, some "neccessaries." And it does a world of good. So pay 'em a visit, any of 'em, and do something to help out our men and women in uniform.
Selling Kerry
In the Washington Post today, an article on the insiders of the Kerry campaign and their plan to sell Kerry to the public as a "centrist." Says the Post...
Old-School Team To Sell Kerry as Modern Centrist
What's wrong with this picture?
Other than the obvious, that Kerry isn't a centrist but an unreconstructed Massachussetts liberal?
As he prepares for the most ambitious and defining phase of his presidential candidacy, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) is relying on image-makers schooled in traditional Kennedy liberalism to sell himself anew to voters as a 21st-century centrist Democrat, a muscular hawk on national defense and deficits.
Old-School Team To Sell Kerry as Modern Centrist
What's wrong with this picture?
Other than the obvious, that Kerry isn't a centrist but an unreconstructed Massachussetts liberal?
January 30, 2004
Double Shot
.
Not dead yet, just been blogging elsewhere and up to my ears in the daily routine of being a daddy and self-employed to boot. My current project is voter database parsing for maximizing campaign fund usage (why waste campaign funds on non-voting voters?) although I'm not saying for whom for contract reasons. To be truthful, as long as they pay me in advance, I'm willing to work for anyone that doesn't fall in my "better dead than elected" list. After all, while I could stand to lose a few pounds the kids gotta eat. But payment in advance is mandatory. I've been in this game too long to believe anyone's campaign promises, especially monetary ones. Being a paid political worker is somewhat like being a criminal defense attorney--you should ALWAYS get your fee in advance, or at least enough to cover your expenses, 'cause if your client loses you're not going to get one thin dime save by sheer luck.
Today, a few notes on the countries that opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq and another non-gratuitous slap at the Bush administration's wholesale handover of taxpayer money to their favorite lobby, the drug companies.
This story at ABC News on the recent revelation that Iraq used oil moneys from the "oil for food" program to bribe foreign officials isn't really "new" news, just confirmation of what many of us pointed out last year. Namely, that some nations and officials therein profited handsomely from the Iraqi "oil for food" program and didn't want the apple-cart upset, as they wanted to continue getting wealthier on a personal basis from Saddam's regime. That both the French and Russian governments are thoroughly and relentlessly corrupt comes as no surprise to many of us, who are quite aware of how the European "Good Ol' Boy" network functions and France's desire to take over the EU, but may shed some light on last year's Security Council debates for those who still believe those wonderful Europeans and the U.N. are pure of heart and beyond reproach....
What I find amusing is the country noticeably missing from the (admittedly partial) list published by ABC, namely Germany. It's gotta hurt to find out you got suckered into lining the pockets of top dogs in France, Russia, and even the Vatican without getting anything in return, not even a lousy T-shirt! And if you still think France's opposition was innocently ideological, check out this lovely little development concerning our erstwhile ally, and their undying commitment to World Peace! Yep, those peace-loving, democracy-hugging, dictatorship-hating French....
In other news, the New York Times published this list of random facts about the recent Medicare Drug bill on the op/ed page. I haven't had the time or energy or resources to check on their facts, but if verifiable it certainly sheds some light on the state of crony capitalism in Washington under the Republicans, and fits with what I have been saying all along about the GOP and their relationship with the medical/drug establishments under Senator Frist and the Bush admin. Not that I think a Democrat administration would do any better--I believe they would merely shift the blatant ripoff & reward of public funds to different constituencies...so sue for me being cynical. It's an attitude I've earned through experience.
Have fun, folks. The election season is here, and the circus is coming to your town soon.....
Not dead yet, just been blogging elsewhere and up to my ears in the daily routine of being a daddy and self-employed to boot. My current project is voter database parsing for maximizing campaign fund usage (why waste campaign funds on non-voting voters?) although I'm not saying for whom for contract reasons. To be truthful, as long as they pay me in advance, I'm willing to work for anyone that doesn't fall in my "better dead than elected" list. After all, while I could stand to lose a few pounds the kids gotta eat. But payment in advance is mandatory. I've been in this game too long to believe anyone's campaign promises, especially monetary ones. Being a paid political worker is somewhat like being a criminal defense attorney--you should ALWAYS get your fee in advance, or at least enough to cover your expenses, 'cause if your client loses you're not going to get one thin dime save by sheer luck.
Today, a few notes on the countries that opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq and another non-gratuitous slap at the Bush administration's wholesale handover of taxpayer money to their favorite lobby, the drug companies.
This story at ABC News on the recent revelation that Iraq used oil moneys from the "oil for food" program to bribe foreign officials isn't really "new" news, just confirmation of what many of us pointed out last year. Namely, that some nations and officials therein profited handsomely from the Iraqi "oil for food" program and didn't want the apple-cart upset, as they wanted to continue getting wealthier on a personal basis from Saddam's regime. That both the French and Russian governments are thoroughly and relentlessly corrupt comes as no surprise to many of us, who are quite aware of how the European "Good Ol' Boy" network functions and France's desire to take over the EU, but may shed some light on last year's Security Council debates for those who still believe those wonderful Europeans and the U.N. are pure of heart and beyond reproach....
What I find amusing is the country noticeably missing from the (admittedly partial) list published by ABC, namely Germany. It's gotta hurt to find out you got suckered into lining the pockets of top dogs in France, Russia, and even the Vatican without getting anything in return, not even a lousy T-shirt! And if you still think France's opposition was innocently ideological, check out this lovely little development concerning our erstwhile ally, and their undying commitment to World Peace! Yep, those peace-loving, democracy-hugging, dictatorship-hating French....
In other news, the New York Times published this list of random facts about the recent Medicare Drug bill on the op/ed page. I haven't had the time or energy or resources to check on their facts, but if verifiable it certainly sheds some light on the state of crony capitalism in Washington under the Republicans, and fits with what I have been saying all along about the GOP and their relationship with the medical/drug establishments under Senator Frist and the Bush admin. Not that I think a Democrat administration would do any better--I believe they would merely shift the blatant ripoff & reward of public funds to different constituencies...so sue for me being cynical. It's an attitude I've earned through experience.
Have fun, folks. The election season is here, and the circus is coming to your town soon.....
January 11, 2004
Si, we have more Hispanics!
.
Some folks view the recent Bush push on illegal-to-legal immigration as a cynical campaign move to capture Hispanic voters, and no old pol in his right mind would argue the point. The Hispanic bloc is one of the big plums on the electoral tree, and both sides are eager to shake it loose. During the Clinton administration, it seemed the only way to get deported as an Hispanic illegal alien was if Castro demanded your return, and the Dems actively worked to sign up illegals to vote (and still do--witness the combined effect of the "Motor Voter" law and the recent Dem push to get driver's license rights for illegals) while not enforcing the borders.
The Dem assumption (a correct one) is that illegals, especially new illegals, are more likely to vote Democrat. The Republican assumption is that the considerably larger legal and established Hispanic population can be won over to the GOP camp, also a view with some validity, and that loosening the laws to allow more guest worker visas for Hispanics will give their efforts a boost.
BUT...as always, there are other considerations lurking beyond the obvious, and a consideration of the demographics involved is revealing. Not the electoral demographics, but the statistics for birth rates. So, if you're one of those folks who simply can't abide the thought of neighbors that don't look just like you, now is the time to quit reading this and go hide under your covers.
It requires a birth rate (per woman) of slightly over 2.00 live births per lifetime to simply maintain population levels. (It must be slightly over 2.00 to cover deaths before parenthood in the childbearing age population). Our current rate is right at 2.06 births, which translates to an annual birth rate of 14.7 per 1000 population. This breaks down roughly as follows: White non-Hispanic 12.2; Black, non-Hispanic 17.9; Asian/Pacific Islander 16.7; and Hispanic 24.4. Percentages of total population, respectively, are 73.9, 12.1, 3.4, and 10.5. (I'm leaving out the "other" category right now to keep from bogging down in lists, but it's miniscule for our purposes).
Unless you've been living in a cave for the last couple of decades, you know that we have a demographic bulge of Baby Boomers heading into their retirement years, with the associated problem of a stretched Social Security system, too many people collecting as compared to currently paying in. These boomers are overwhelmingly white, non-Hispanic. The only cures for too many people collecting are to either [1] cut benefits, [2] raise taxes, [3] get more people paying into the system, or [4] some combination of these.
Since WNH's are, as a group, not even sustaining their population numbers through replacement births, it's pretty obvious that the only way to accomplish option 3 in whole or part is to either boost birth rates or working-age immigration or both. And the highest birth rates and immigration rates are among Hispanics. In short order Hispanics will outnumber blacks as a group. And another fact of immigration is that new immigrants are more likely to work their butts off for low wages, and to more rapidly advance through the socioeconomic strata than established resident groups, boosting the economy more in the process.
The trend of a growing Hispanic population percentage will happen regardless of our immigration laws, as already-settled legal Hispanics in the U.S. population are reproducing at faster rates than any other population group, and at twice the rate of WNH's. Like it or not, we WILL become an increasingly Hispanic nation. (Committed bigots should consider moving to Norway...or Idaho.) What both parties are trying to do is to speed up that process a bit to ameliorate the SS problem, while capturing as much of that segment of the electorate as possible.
Not that they'll ever admit it.
Some folks view the recent Bush push on illegal-to-legal immigration as a cynical campaign move to capture Hispanic voters, and no old pol in his right mind would argue the point. The Hispanic bloc is one of the big plums on the electoral tree, and both sides are eager to shake it loose. During the Clinton administration, it seemed the only way to get deported as an Hispanic illegal alien was if Castro demanded your return, and the Dems actively worked to sign up illegals to vote (and still do--witness the combined effect of the "Motor Voter" law and the recent Dem push to get driver's license rights for illegals) while not enforcing the borders.
The Dem assumption (a correct one) is that illegals, especially new illegals, are more likely to vote Democrat. The Republican assumption is that the considerably larger legal and established Hispanic population can be won over to the GOP camp, also a view with some validity, and that loosening the laws to allow more guest worker visas for Hispanics will give their efforts a boost.
BUT...as always, there are other considerations lurking beyond the obvious, and a consideration of the demographics involved is revealing. Not the electoral demographics, but the statistics for birth rates. So, if you're one of those folks who simply can't abide the thought of neighbors that don't look just like you, now is the time to quit reading this and go hide under your covers.
It requires a birth rate (per woman) of slightly over 2.00 live births per lifetime to simply maintain population levels. (It must be slightly over 2.00 to cover deaths before parenthood in the childbearing age population). Our current rate is right at 2.06 births, which translates to an annual birth rate of 14.7 per 1000 population. This breaks down roughly as follows: White non-Hispanic 12.2; Black, non-Hispanic 17.9; Asian/Pacific Islander 16.7; and Hispanic 24.4. Percentages of total population, respectively, are 73.9, 12.1, 3.4, and 10.5. (I'm leaving out the "other" category right now to keep from bogging down in lists, but it's miniscule for our purposes).
Unless you've been living in a cave for the last couple of decades, you know that we have a demographic bulge of Baby Boomers heading into their retirement years, with the associated problem of a stretched Social Security system, too many people collecting as compared to currently paying in. These boomers are overwhelmingly white, non-Hispanic. The only cures for too many people collecting are to either [1] cut benefits, [2] raise taxes, [3] get more people paying into the system, or [4] some combination of these.
Since WNH's are, as a group, not even sustaining their population numbers through replacement births, it's pretty obvious that the only way to accomplish option 3 in whole or part is to either boost birth rates or working-age immigration or both. And the highest birth rates and immigration rates are among Hispanics. In short order Hispanics will outnumber blacks as a group. And another fact of immigration is that new immigrants are more likely to work their butts off for low wages, and to more rapidly advance through the socioeconomic strata than established resident groups, boosting the economy more in the process.
The trend of a growing Hispanic population percentage will happen regardless of our immigration laws, as already-settled legal Hispanics in the U.S. population are reproducing at faster rates than any other population group, and at twice the rate of WNH's. Like it or not, we WILL become an increasingly Hispanic nation. (Committed bigots should consider moving to Norway...or Idaho.) What both parties are trying to do is to speed up that process a bit to ameliorate the SS problem, while capturing as much of that segment of the electorate as possible.
Not that they'll ever admit it.
December 31, 2003
Naw, Bush had Nothing to Do With Libya Coming Clean....
I mentioned this elsewhere about ten days ago, but couldn't provide a reference for what should be obvious reasons--the news was not yet "public" and the person who provided it sure wasn't going to tag their name on it. So when folks wrote and called me a liar, I had to bite my tongue and take my lumps, not being Matt Drudge or anyone resembling him.
The accusation was that Libya's decision to come clean on their WMD programs was NOT a response to the Iraq invasion, or to any U.S. enforcement of WMD restrictions. When I said otherwise and cited this incident, I was castigated for making things up. Some folks just can't concede that the Bush strategy in the Middle East has had some positive results. So now that it's public knowledge, here's what really provided the final impetus for Qadaffi's sudden change of heart, and brought him to the table.
U.S. Blocked Centrifuge Parts for Libya
The accusation was that Libya's decision to come clean on their WMD programs was NOT a response to the Iraq invasion, or to any U.S. enforcement of WMD restrictions. When I said otherwise and cited this incident, I was castigated for making things up. Some folks just can't concede that the Bush strategy in the Middle East has had some positive results. So now that it's public knowledge, here's what really provided the final impetus for Qadaffi's sudden change of heart, and brought him to the table.
U.S. Blocked Centrifuge Parts for Libya
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
