Wednesday, September 01, 2004

Ohio Official Quits Bush Campaign

An Ohio Official Quits Campaign
By THE NEW YORK TIMES

Published: August 31, 2004


CINCINNATI, Aug. 30 -The chairman of President Bush's campaign in Southwest Ohio resigned on Monday, days after acknowledging a three-year affair with a woman in his office.

The chairman, Michael Allen, who is the Hamilton County prosecutor, also scrapped plans to attend the Republican National Convention as a delegate, partly to address sexual harassment accusations by the woman, Rebecca Collins, an assistant county prosecutor.

The Republican Party has named no replacement.

In a federal lawsuit filed on Thursday, Ms. Collins contended that Mr. Allen had used his position to demand sexual favors from 1999 until this year. The county Board of Commissioners, which Ms. Collins also sued, began an investigation on Friday.

Read More...

Crowning Prince George

NY Times
September 1, 2004

Crowning Prince George
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

ASHLAND, Ore. — The most common literary allusion to President Bush is Shakespeare's Prince Hal, the hard-drinking, wild-living young man who sobers up, reforms and emerges as the great English warrior King Henry V.

So, as the Republicans once again crown Mr. Bush as their nominee, I decided to seek lessons from an expert on King Henry who is also one of the shrewdest analysts of current American politics and international affairs. That's right: Shakespeare. I went to Ashland for my annual pilgrimage to the Oregon Shakespeare Festival, then started thinking about what Shakespeare might say if he were speaking at the Republican convention this week.

The paramount lesson in Shakespeare's plays is that the world is full of nuances and uncertainties, and that leaders self-destruct when they are too rigid, too sure of themselves or - Mr. President, lend me your ears - too intoxicated by moral clarity.

You see Shakespeare's passion for nuance in the way he portrays Henry V himself (you also see his prurience, for "Henry V" is Shakespeare's most obscene play, laced with X-rated double-entendres that make it an attractive introduction to the Bard for teenagers).

Shakespeare admires Henry, who, like Mr. Bush, is strong, decisive and funny to be around, as well as a victor in overseas battles that help soothe doubts about his legitimacy. Thus for several hundred years, the play "Henry V" was regarded as a celebration of Henry's invasions of France, and for that reason George Bernard Shaw and other liberal critics recoiled from it.

Yet beginning in the 20th century, critics began to see another subtext in "Henry V": an unblinking examination of the brutality and inevitable excesses of war, even depicting the Abu Ghraib scandal of the 15th century: Henry's order to murder French prisoners at Agincourt. Shakespeare's play can be seen as scorning the empty-headed jingoism that inflicts so much suffering as the ruler wraps himself in the flag. As Shakespeare writes in "Henry V" about wars of choice:

"But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make when all those legs and arms and heads chopped off in a battle shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such and such a place,' some swearing, some crying for a surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left. I am afeared there are few die well that die in a battle."

A related lesson for Mr. Bush, if he has time to read Shakespeare, is the inevitability of intelligence failures. In just about every play, characters put their faith in information that turns out to be catastrophically untrue. Lear believes his elder daughters; Romeo believes that Juliet is dead; Othello believes Iago's lies.

Shakespeare begins "Henry IV, Part 2," with the character of Rumor (who could today be played by Ahmad Chalabi), and he shows how kings get in trouble by relying on partial truths or flattery spun by sycophants like Goneril Tenet and Regan Wolfowitz.

"All these figures in Shakespeare suffer from hubris, and that's what W. is suffering from," says Kenneth Albers, a veteran Shakespearean actor who is playing Lear in Ashland.

Indeed, the only person who seems to provide Shakespeare's kings with sound advice is the court fool, who cannot be punished for saying unpalatable truths because jesting is his job. I urge Mr. Bush to appoint a White House fool.

Shakespeare is warning us against rash actions on the basis of flawed intelligence. Hamlet is sometimes seen as an indictment of indecision, but his "to be or not to be" soliloquy is a careful examination of the pros and cons of immediate action - a measured approach that Mr. Bush might have emulated before the Iraq war.

Instead, Mr. Bush emulates Coriolanus, a well-meaning Roman general and aristocrat whose war against barbarians leads to an early victory but who then proves so inflexible and intemperate that tragedy befalls him and his people.

Unless Mr. Bush learns to see nuance and act less rashly, he will be the Coriolanus of our age: a strong and decisive leader, imbued with great talent and initially celebrated for his leadership in a crisis, who ultimately fails himself and his nation because of his rigidity, superficiality and arrogance.

Read More...

Tuesday, August 31, 2004

Beneath Contempt

AirAmericaRadio
August 31, 2004
The Mike Mallloy Show

Kerry passed the word at the Democratic Convention that there were to be no personal attacks on George W. Bush. And the Democrats responded by keeping the focus on Bush's miserable record as an unelected president. Contrast that attitude with the attacks last night against John Kerry by adulterer and home-wrecker Rudolph Giuliani. And now, this: Convention-goers were handed bandages with purple hearts on them Monday night by a GOP delegate in a swipe at Democratic nominee John Kerry. The bandages were handed out by Morton Blackwell, a longtime GOP activist from Virginia, with the message: "It was just a self-inflicted scratch, but you see I got a Purple Heart for it." These people - Republicans - are beneath contempt. How much longer will normal Americans put up with this Republican destruction of our institutions, our military, our social contract, our self-respect and our standing in the world?

Read More...

CEOS SHIP OUT JOBS, RAKE IN DOUGH

CEOS SHIP OUT JOBS, RAKE IN DOUGH: According to a study on
executive compensation being released today, "Chief executives of U.S.
companies that outsourced the greatest number of jobs reaped bigger pay
and benefits last year
(http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109394087872605573,00.html?mod=home_whats_news_us)
." The U.S. Institute for Policy Studies and the non-partisan United
for a Fair Economy found in their study of executive salaries that CEOs
of the leading outsourcing companies earned $10.4 million last year, 28
percent more than the $8.1 million average CEO compensation. Paychecks
of CEOs
(http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=9da08647-bf1f-4bd5-b5ec-d03d085383b5)
at 50 U.S. firms outsourcing the most service jobs jumped by an average
of 46 percent, compared to just a 9 percent average raise among CEOs at
the 365 big companies overall. The study calculated that the "U.S.
minimum wage would be $15.76 an hour, instead of the current $5.15 an hour
if workers' wages had gone up as much as CEO pay has since 1990." Check
out American Progress's graphic illustration
(http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=139507) of
our "upside-down economy."

Read More...

THE SCIENCE OF SAFETY SLAMMED

From progressreport.org

THE SCIENCE OF SAFETY SLAMMED: The Bush administration has
leveled yet another blow to sound science. The latest attack revolves
around the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH),
a branch of the Centers for Disease Control which is responsible for
conducting research on workplace illnesses, injuries and deaths. NIOSH,
reports the Washington Post, has "long nurtured a reputation for
independence, rigor and scientific credibility, according to both labor and
business interests." That's all about to change. The Bush administration
is reorganizing the CDC to downgrade the branch, in effect removing
NIOSH's independence and threatening its ability to compile scientific
data outside of party politics. The plan has "drawn protests from
virtually every occupational health and safety organization in the country."
Four former NIOSH directors -- from both Republican and Democratic
administrations -- expressed their serious opposition to the move in a
letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson: "To downgrade
NIOSH and blur its mission by combining key functions with other CDC
programs will erode its independence and visibility and weaken the
scientific contribution that has long benefited American workers and
employers."

Read More...

Bush 'Olympics' Ads Could Cost N.Y. in 2012

From progressreport.org

Bush Ads Could Cost N.Y. in 2012

The Bush campaign's use of the Olympics
(http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/8/27/13464/1274) in advertisements
for the president may have cost New York City, now hosting the
Republican convention, a shot at hosting the Summer Olympics in 2012. The Bush
ad (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/08/20/politics1843EDT0683.DTL)
, touting the inclusion of "two more free nations," Afghanistan and
Iraq, in this year's Olympics, has reportedly outraged Olympic officials
and prejudiced them against the Big Apple. An International Olympic
Committee (IOC) official quoted in the German Newspaper Der Spiegel
(http://www.spiegel.de/) said, "The chances of New York City to host
the games were already not very good. Now they have dropped to near
zero." Last week after Iraq's soccer team advanced to the quarterfinals,
Iraqi midfielder Salih Sadir voiced his own feelings on the ads: "Iraq as
a team does not want Mr. Bush to use us for the presidential campaign,"
Sadir told Sports Illustrated. " He can find another way to advertise
himself (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0819-05.htm) ." Olympic
gold medalist Carl Lewis has also spoken out
(http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1293251,00.html)
against the ads, saying, "Of course, we've invaded Iraq and are in
there and are using it for political gain. It bewilders me, and I
understand why the Iraqi players are offended."


Read More...

WALL STREET THANKS GOP FOR LAX OVERSIGHT

From progressreport.org

WALL STREET THANKS GOP FOR LAX OVERSIGHT: The Washington Post reports
the convention "is being bankrolled and feted to an extraordinary degree
by the financial services behemoths
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45286-2004Aug29.html)
...Hardly a meal or cocktail hour will pass that won't find a securities
firm or a venture capitalist hosting members of Congress, key committee
staffers, Republican Party officials who control the investment of
state pension funds." President Bush now lists the financial services
industry among his top contributors
(http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/indus.asp?id=N00008072&cycle=2004)
. It is all payback for the administration's willingness to water down
serious corporate reform in the wake of the Enron scandal, and its
strong support of anti-consumer bankruptcy legislation
(http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0313-02.htm) that gives even
more power to credit card companies. However, at least one of the
industry's key GOP point men may be in hot water over this kind of aggressive
fundraising. Rep. Michael Oxley (R-OH), chairman of the House Financial
Services Committee, "was the guest of honor at 19 of 45 events" and is
now under scrutiny by the FBI
(http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/news/stories/20040831/localnews/1148885.html)
for election law violations.

Read More...

ENERGY INDUSTRY THANKS GOP FOR ENERGY TAX BREAKS

From progressreport.org

ENERGY INDUSTRY THANKS GOP FOR ENERGY TAX BREAKS: The energy industry
has a major presence at the convention. As AP reports, "the dozens of
special-interest parties include a trapshooting tournament and 'Wild
West' bash sponsored by the American Gas Association
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4457305,00.html)
(AGA)." The NYT notes AGA "estimates that the nine affairs it is
involved in this week and the six it held at the Democratic convention in
Boston last month cost $700,000." Meanwhile, "the American Petroleum
Institute
(http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/31/politics/campaign/31money.html) and oil industry companies are honoring Sen. Pete V. Domenici
(R-NM), chairman of the Energy Committee." It is all part of the energy
industry's broader strategy to reward the Republican Party for its support
for more energy industry tax breaks
(http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,525039117,00.html) and weaker
environmental regulations. As the Dallas Morning News reports, "over the
last four years, the electric power industry has contributed heavily
(http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0830-05.htm) to Mr. Bush and
benefited from business-friendly policies that environmentalists say
have weakened air quality while saving companies billions of dollars."

Read More...

Governator sells out to Drug Companies and other Corporations

From progressreport.org

ARNOLD TRIP PAID FOR BY DRUG INDUSTRY LOOKING FOR A VETO: Corporations
are ponying up about $350,000 to finance Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's
(R) trip to the convention, including a lavish party at Planet Hollywood
(taxpayers will be footing the bill for his security). Many of the
contributions come from large pharmaceutical companies
(http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/08/26/MNG088EKHA1.DTL)
like Pfizer who are actively lobbying the governor to veto four bills
passed
(http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/9449496.htm) by
the state legislature "designed to help Californians buy cheaper
prescription drugs from Canada."

Read More...

Questions For a Wartime President

Washington Post

Questions For a Wartime President

By David Ignatius
Tuesday, August 31, 2004; Page A21

In the military gym in Baghdad's Green Zone, where U.S. troops relax during their free time, there were three posters behind the front desk last month. One was Time magazine's "Person of the Year," showing the proud faces of three American soldiers; the second was an iconic photograph of Muhammad Ali looming over a defeated opponent; the third, and the largest, was a photograph of the twin towers of the World Trade Center.

In the dining hall of the Republican Palace, where the soldiers eat, a painted image of the twin towers forms the background of a large mural. The emblems of the four military services are displayed around the towers and, to reinforce the link between Sept. 11 and Iraq, the mural includes the emblems of the New York police and fire departments. Below the towers are the words, "Thank God for the Coalition Forces and Freedom Fighters at Home and Abroad."

I suspect that if you polled U.S. soldiers in Iraq, this is what they would say they were fighting for: to avenge Sept. 11 and defeat the terrorists who were responsible for it. The characterization of Iraq as a battleground in the war against terrorism has been repeated frequently by President Bush -- so often, in fact, that it has assumed a life and logic of its own.

Most of the soldiers who lift weights and eat breakfast in the shadow of Sept. 11 wouldn't question statements by the president and vice president about prewar links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Yet the Sept. 11 commission, after a careful review, concluded last month that it could find no evidence to support those claims. But nobody has told the soldiers.

The Republican convention this week in New York will reinforce the nation's bond with the events of Sept. 11. Three years after that terrible day, we are surrounded by reminders of the war against Islamic extremism -- in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in our airports, on our streets. Drive to Washington these days and you'll be greeted by huge electronic messages on the interstates ominously warning drivers: "Report Suspicious Behavior."

Bush, who has defined himself through his role as a "wartime president," has a special responsibility this week to explain how that war is going -- and what strategy he will pursue if he wins a second term. Bush's rival, John Kerry, owes the country the same clarity.

America's dilemma in Iraq now, so obvious that people rarely state it, is that a war meant to contain terrorism has had the effect of creating more of it. Most of the new terrorism is in Iraq itself, which was to be a platform in combating terrorism but has instead become a magnet for it.

The Iraqi cauldron was dramatically captured in an article Sunday in the New York Times about the Taliban-like Sunni fundamentalists who now control western Iraq. When decent Iraqis try to work with the Americans to fight these insurgents, they can meet the fate of the local commander of the Iraqi National Guard, who had his head sawed off.

The administration is sensibly seeking Iraqi solutions, which, unfortunately, don't provide crisp answers. As is so often the case in the Arab world, there is never a final resolution -- only the postponement of a decision to a later day. The three-week battle of Najaf is the latest example. This looked to be a decisive showdown between the insurgent militia of Moqtada Sadr and the U.S.-backed interim government. But just as U.S. and Iraqi forces were near a decisive victory last week that would have powerfully reinforced the interim government, an Iraqi solution emerged. Shiite Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani brokered a deal that avoids clear winners or losers.

Facing such reversals in Iraq, what does the Bush administration plan to do in a second term? Will the United States double its bets in Iraq and fight a bloody new war to pacify the country, or will it tolerate more murky but pragmatic Iraqi solutions? Will it expand the war against Islamic militants by threatening Iran and Syria, or will it seek to enlist those nations as allies in maintaining regional stability? Will it accept a broad (and sometimes anti-American) coalition for change in Iraq and the Arab world -- broad enough to include even a Moqtada Sadr -- or will it hunker down with a narrower group of allies?

The truth is that we don't know the Bush administration's plans. We see the twin towers looming in the background, as a powerful symbol of unity and resolve. But to what end? This week Bush should level with the nation about what's ahead. That's an obligation, surely, for a wartime president.

Read More...

Press keeping Swift Boat Lies in the news

If, as the accusation goes, the media is Liberal-biased, then why would it keep bringing up the Swift Boat Liar ads and not clearly stating that the truth is out, the ads are pure fiction, and move on?

Here's one reporter's observations:

Ryan Lizza -- The New Republic:

"Never in a campaign has a more disreputable group of people, whose accusations have been repeatedly contradicted by official records and reliable eyewitness accounts, had their claims taken so seriously. John Kerry's accounts of his military service are supported by U.S. Navy documents, his crewmates, and -- in the case of the engagement for which Kerry won the Silver Star -- the only other living officer who witnessed the event...

"But, as much as the press bears responsibility for the last few weeks of wall-to-wall Swiftee coverage, many Democrats, who have been tearing their hair out as they have watched this story unfold like a slow-motion car wreck, aren't just angry at the media. They are also blaming the Kerry campaign for allowing the accusations to metastasize into a clear threat to a Democratic victory."

Before we got to New York, there was some chatter about whether the Swift boat controversy would fade as the media became preoccupied with the convention. The answer is a resounding no, and not just because the swifties have launched another anti-Kerry ad. The correspondents just keep sticking microphones in Republicans' faces, including Rudy and McCain, and saying, "So, what do you think of the swift boat ads?"

Read More...

Greenspan Flip Flops

From progressreport.org

Greenspan's False Choice

Last Friday, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan repeated his call
to slash Social Security benefits
(http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2004/20040827/default.htm)
and raise the retirement age on America's seniors. He also proposed
reigning in Medicare benefits. Greenspan claims such action must be taken
immediately to avoid unmanageable budget deficits. But he presented a
false choice between raising payroll taxes on workers and reducing
benefits. What Greenspan didn't mention is his support for extending
President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy indefinitely
(http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040226/ZNYT01/402260363)
-- at a cost of $1.5 trillion over 10 years. This, despite evidence in
the president's own budget analysis
(http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0203/021203bb.htm) that his tax cuts
are largely responsible for projected federal budget deficits. According
to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, the impact of the
president's tax cuts on the deficits is three times
(http://www.cbpp.org/3-22-04socsec-fact.htm) the impact of the
projected Social Security shortfall.

THE GREENSPAN TAX CUT FLIP-FLOP: Greenspan said in February that we
shouldn't roll back tax cuts because doing so would " pose significant
risks to...the revenue base
(http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/testimony/2004/20040225/default.htm)
" by slowing economic growth. But Greenspan advocated those tax cuts in
January 2001 because he believed they were necessary to reduce federal
revenues. The Washington Post reported on 1/27/01 that Greenspan
"justified his support of tax cuts by focusing on a problem that may not even
emerge until the end of a possible second Bush term -- the government
being forced to buy private assets because it had paid off all the
national debt and still had buckets of cash in return."

THE GREENSPAN BAIT-AND-SWITCH: In 1983, as chairman of the bipartisan
Social Security commission, Greenspan said that the way to ensure that
Social Security remains on sound financial footing in the future is to
make baby boomers pay their benefits in advance. That is why, to this
day, people pay more in Social Security taxes than is paid to
beneficiaries (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/newsevents/cite_ss_promise.cfm) --
50 percent more in 2004. But, in large part to make up the shortfall
caused by the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, this money (more than $1.8
trillion) has been used to finance other aspects of government. In other
words, Social Security has been transformed from a retirement program
to a regressive income redistribution program. Lower- and middle-class
workers are not paying for their retirement benefits in advance, they
are paying for tax cuts for those making more than $300,000. For more,
read this American Progress column by Harry J. Holzer
(http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=35306) .

SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT IN CRISIS: According to a recent report by the
Congressional Budget Office, over the next 75 years, the Social Security
shortfall is projected to be 1 percent of all taxable income. Even at
current levels, Social Security will be able to pay full benefits until
2052 (http://www.cbpp.org/6-14-04bud.htm) .

Read More...

George Bush Sr. Smears John Kerry's War record; makes snide remark about Michael Moore

NY Times
Ex-President Bush Calls Charges of Swift Boat Group Compelling
By JAMES BENNET

Published: August 31, 2004


Former President George Bush fanned doubts yesterday about Senator John Kerry's service in Vietnam, sustaining a decades-old debate that has dominated the presidential campaign in the last few weeks.

In an interview with CNN, Mr. Bush did not directly challenge Mr. Kerry's record but rather, with the subtlety of a seasoned pro, parried questions in a way to gently bat the controversy aloft.

Pressed about advertisements by a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Mr. Bush called "rather compelling" the claims of some veterans who have attacked Mr. Kerry's service, and he noted that others had accused these veterans of lying. "I have great confidence in Bob Dole," he added. "I don't think he'd be out there just smearing."

Former President Bush said Mr. Kerry "served honorably," but added of the veterans attacking him, "I don't know enough about them to say they're all liars."

Mr. Bush said that President Bush had been "victimized" by independent political groups - like the Swift boat veterans - running attack advertisements against him. He cited the liberal group MoveOn.Org and also mentioned "this sloppy Michael Moore," the filmmaker.

"For months before the president started campaigning, he was attacked by all kinds of people," his father said.

The former president said that in his last campaign, in 1992, he was "very careful" not to attack his opponent, Bill Clinton, for avoiding service in Vietnam.

But at his own nominating convention that year, he drew a comparison between his service as a naval aviator in World War II and the record of Mr. Clinton, then governor of Arkansas. "Well, what about the leader of the Arkansas National Guard, the man who hopes to be commander in chief?" Mr. Bush asked in his speech accepting the nomination. "Well, while I bit the bullet, he bit his nails."

(It would appear that the Sr. Bush wants it both ways -- since his son was AWOL from the National Guard!)

Read More...

Bush Flip-Flops on War on Terror

NY Times
August 31, 2004

President Bush tried today to stop the political fallout over his comments last weekend that the war on terror might not be winnable. Indeed, "we will win" that war, Mr. Bush told the national convention of the American Legion in Nashville.

The president's remarks today contrasted with a statement he had made in an interview with Matt Lauer of the NBC News program "Today" shown on Monday. When Mr. Lauer asked him about the war on terrorism, Mr. Bush replied, "I don't think you can win it."

Read More...

More Ad Lies by Bush-Cheney

From factcheck.org

The Bush-Cheney campaign released a television ad August 23 accusing Kerry of casting "98 votes for tax increases." The number is an improvement on Bush's earlier claim that Kerry cast 350 votes for "higher taxes," which we described as inflated. But even the new, reduced total is padded.

Of the 98 votes for "tax increases," 43 were cast on budget measures that only set targets and don't actually legislate tax increases. Often, several votes are counted regarding a single tax bill.

The ad also strives to blame Kerry for raising taxes on the "middle class" and says "There's what Kerry says and then there's what Kerry does." But a close look shows the votes cited in this ad are in fact fairly consistent with Kerry's promise only to raise taxes on those making over $200,000 a year.


Read More...

A No-Win Situation

NY Times
August 31, 2004

A No-Win Situation
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Everyone wants to go to Baghdad; real men want to go to Tehran." That was the attitude in Washington two years ago, when Ahmad Chalabi was assuring everyone that Iraqis would greet us with flowers. More recently, some of us had a different slogan: "Everyone worries about Najaf; people who are really paying attention worry about Ramadi."

Ever since the uprising in April, the Iraqi town of Falluja has in effect been a small, nasty Islamic republic. But what about the rest of the Sunni triangle?

Last month a Knight-Ridder report suggested that U.S. forces were effectively ceding many urban areas to insurgents. Last Sunday The Times confirmed that while the world's attention was focused on Najaf, western Iraq fell firmly under rebel control. Representatives of the U.S.-installed government have been intimidated, assassinated or executed.

Other towns, like Samarra, have also fallen to insurgents. Attacks on oil pipelines are proliferating. And we're still playing whack-a-mole with Moktada al-Sadr: his Mahdi Army has left Najaf, but remains in control of Sadr City, with its two million people. The Christian Science Monitor reports that "interviews in Baghdad suggest that Sadr is walking away from the standoff with a widening base and supporters who are more militant than before."

For a long time, anyone suggesting analogies with Vietnam was ridiculed. But Iraq optimists have, by my count, already declared victory three times. First there was "Mission Accomplished" - followed by an escalating insurgency. Then there was the capture of Saddam - followed by April's bloody uprising. Finally there was the furtive transfer of formal sovereignty to Ayad Allawi, with implausible claims that this showed progress - a fantasy exploded by the guns of August.

Now, serious security analysts have begun to admit that the goal of a democratic, pro-American Iraq has receded out of reach. Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies - no peacenik - writes that "there is little prospect for peace and stability in Iraq before late 2005, if then."

Mr. Cordesman still thinks (or thought a few weeks ago) that the odds of success in Iraq are "at least even," but by success he means the creation of a government that "is almost certain to be more inclusive of Ba'ath, hard-line religious, and divisive ethnic/sectarian movements than the West would like." And just in case, he urges the U.S. to prepare "a contingency plan for failure."

Fred Kaplan of Slate is even more pessimistic. "This is a terribly grim thing to say," he wrote recently, "but there might be no solution to the problem of Iraq" - no way to produce "a stable, secure, let alone democratic regime. And there's no way we can just pull out without plunging the country, the region, and possibly beyond into still deeper disaster." Deeper disaster? Yes: people who worried about Ramadi are now worrying about Pakistan.

So what's the answer? Here's one thought: much of U.S. policy in Iraq - delaying elections, trying to come up with a formula that blocks simple majority rule, trying to install first Mr. Chalabi, then Mr. Allawi, as strongman - can be seen as a persistent effort to avoid giving Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani his natural dominant role. But recent events in Najaf have demonstrated both the cleric's awesome influence and the limits of American power. Isn't it time to realize that we could do a lot worse than Mr. Sistani, and give him pretty much whatever he wants?

Here's another thought. President Bush says that the troubles in Iraq are the result of unanticipated "catastrophic success." But that catastrophe was predicted by many experts. Mr. Cordesman says their warnings were ignored because we have "the weakest and most ineffective National Security Council in post-war American history," giving control to "a small group of neoconservative ideologues" who "shaped a war without any realistic understanding or plans for shaping a peace."

Yesterday Mr. Bush, who took a "winning the war on terror" bus tour just a few months ago, conceded that "I don't think you can win" the war on terror. But he hasn't changed the national security adviser, nor has he dismissed even one of the ideologues who got us into this no-win situation. Rather than concede that he made mistakes, he's sticking with people who will, if they get the chance, lead us into two, three, many quagmires.

Read More...

Republican Convention: Boring and Bizarre

August 31, 2004

The Republican Convention began last night in New York City with renditions from West Side Story, a show from the 1960's about the division between whites and hispanics -- and ended with a rendition by a now deceased Democrat, Frank Sinatra, singing New York, New York.

In between, there were a number of boring speeches and as expected, Kerry bashing, since the Bush administration has nothing positive to run on. The best the Republican Party could do was bring up memories of September 11, 2001, in a vain attempt to link George W. Bush to those events, and an even more bizarre continued insistence that there is a link between the attack on September 11 and Saddam Hussein.

During the first few speeches there was an animated elephant on the screen behind them. It may not have appeared this way in the hall, but on television it looked like the trunk of the elephant was going up into the rear ends of the speakers, then coming back out -- kind of like a metaphor of shovelling crap in, and pulling crap out -- an apt metaphor for what the Republicans have been doing and continued to do this evening.

The two main speakers were John McCain and Rudy Giulliani. Both clearly are trying to position themselves as the Republican candidate for President in 2008. Although the press continues to be in love with McCain, McCain further embarrassed himself by continuing to support the man who besmirched his Viet Nam war record and his family; the man who has since besmirched the Viet Nam war record of two other war heroes -- Max Cleland and John Kerry. Either McCain thinks this is the only way he can convince the extreme right wing portion of the Republican Party to support him, or else they have something on him. McCain also took a pot shot at filmmaker Michael Moore, who was in the hall. McCain made totally inaccurate statements about the film "Farenheit 911" and got his only real ovation from his comments. Later, in interviews, he was forced to admit that his statements were based on clips he had seen of the movie. He had not actually seen the movie. McCain has squandered whatever respect he once had.

Rudy Giulliani, without the events of September 11, would have gone down in history as a mayor who cleaned up crime but was otherwise rather divisive and alienated various minorities. On September 11 and following, Giulliani proved himself capable and in charge in a crisis. He was the true political hero of September 11. George Bush was a wimp by comparison, and Governor George Pataki doesn't even register on the scale. It was Giulliani's handling of September 11 and it's aftermath that will help him toward becoming the 2008 Republican candidate for President. His was the only speech that was not boring. True, he too spent parts of his speech bashing Kerry and parts of his speech evoking the memories of September 11. But he is the only politician who can lay some claim to the handling of events of September 11, along with the various uniformed and non-uniformed heroes of that day. Sadly for him, however, he tried to give George Bush credit for quickly coming to the aid of New York City and providing all of the requested funding. For those with short memories, the Democratic Senators from New York City had to fight to get much of the promised money to actually find its way to New York City.

So from the divisive West Side Story to the deceased Democrat Frank Sinatra, with little substance in-between, the Republican Convention has so far been very boring and bizarre.

Read More...

Monday, August 30, 2004

Smaller Protests on First Day of GOP Convention

Smaller Protests on First Day of GOP Convention

Aug 30, 2004 2:44 pm US/Eastern

(1010 WINS) (NEW YORK) A day after massive street demonstrations, smaller groups of protesters turned Monday to health care, civil rights and economics -- areas where they say President Bush and the Republicans convening in Madison Square Garden have failed the country.

At midday Monday, several thousand people from groups advocating better housing, AIDS funding, homeless services and a medley of other causes gathered at Manhattan's Union Square and quickly filled up two blocks before beginning their march.

In contrast with Sunday's huge demonstration, the mood seemed lighter and the crowd more diverse -- and filled with recent immigrants. But the sentiment was similar.

"We're trying to tell the RNC that they're not welcome in New York because they're not prioritizing the needs of poor and working people," said Steve Williams, 25, an AIDS and welfare activist from San Francisco.

Another group, the Poor People's Economic Human Rights Campaign, planned a march later Monday from U.N. headquarters to Madison Square Garden, where it said it would issue a citizens' arrest warrant for George W. Bush for "crimes against humanity."

Also Monday, the National Lawyers Guild asserted that lawyers were being denied access to arrested protesters, who were experiencing long delays in processing.

Guild member Yetta Kurland said reports of mistreatment of protesters included a complaint that an eight-weeks-pregnant woman had not been given food or drink. City Councilman Charles Barron said legislation was needed to keep the mayor and police in check.

"This is an outrage," he said.

Police spokesman Paul J. Browne defended the actions of his department, saying officers "have been restrained and professional throughout."

"The single largest factor in delaying the release of arrested demonstrators is their refusal to identify themselves," Browne said in a statement.

About 10,000 police officers have been deployed to Madison Square Garden, subways and other convention-related events. An 18-square-block area around the Garden is off-limits to most vehicles.

On Monday morning, scattered protesters took aim at Republican visitors.

Protesters in oversize Bush masks and wild costumes harassed convention-goers as they left their hotels. "Corporate orgy in Iraq," they chanted, a reference to accusations that firms friendly to the White House are making money on reconstruction contracts there.

Outside the Plaza Hotel, just south of Central Park, protesters in pink wigs stood at the door with plastic cups of champagne, toasting "to tax cuts and the rich" as the conventioneers walked out.

Most of those confronted paid little attention, though one paused to snap a photograph as they filed onto buses waiting to take them to Madison Square Garden.

The group that organized Sunday's enormous demonstration, United for Peace and Justice, found its headquarters a target of protest on Monday -- by pro-Bush demonstrators from a group called ProtestWarrior. About 15 members, chanting "Four more years!" and "USA! USA!", targeted the anti-Bush group.

"They like protests so much. They're about to get a taste of their own medicine," said ProtestWarrior co-founder Alan Lipton of Austin, Texas.

Sunday's demonstration, which filled the steamy streets around Madison Square Garden for more than six hours, was the largest convention-related protest in U.S. history.

The New York Police Department stated Monday that it had estimated Sunday's crowd at 120,000; organizers said it was more than 500,000.

Read More...

Upstaging Before the Show in True New York Fashion

NYTimes.com

Upstaging Before the Show in True New York Fashion
By TODD S. PURDUM

Published: August 30, 2004


On a few dozen blocks of the same slender island, two worlds collided yesterday: the Republican convention's calculated claims to patriotism and the presidency met elaborately planned and heavily Democratic street protests that turned those same arguments back at President Bush - in ways that might help, or hurt, both sides.

The demonstrations were New York City's biggest in decades, and the most emphatic at any national political convention since Democrats and demonstrators turned against each other in fury over Vietnam in Chicago in 1968. But the first day was overwhelmingly peaceful, and the demonstrators doused a good bit of Mr. Bush's intended message with television images of dissent.

"New York certainly is an exciting city," Brad Freeman, a delegate from Los Angeles and one of Mr. Bush's old friends and longtime fund-raisers, said in one of the milder understatements since Peter Minuit bought Manhattan for the Dutch. "We'll have to wait until Friday to see what kind of a city it is for a Republican convention."

This was not the reception the Republicans had planned. They chose New York to evoke the moment of national unity that rallied Americans to Mr. Bush after the Sept. 11 attacks, only to find protesters claiming Mr. Bush had forfeited that goodwill by attacking Iraq. The marchers carried placards calling Mr. Bush "the next Milosevic" and demanding, "What would Jesus bomb?"

The Republicans stuck to their script in the face of the flak, hoping that if they can make it here - for at least four days - they can make it anywhere. Vice President Dick Cheney arrived at Ellis Island, opposite the gaping hole in the Manhattan skyline, and praised Mr. Bush as "a man calm in a crisis, comfortable with responsibility and determined to do everything necessary to protect our people."

And some of the delegates suggested that the protests would backfire to Mr. Bush's benefit, by painting Senator John Kerry - whose sister, Peggy, joined some of the weekend's events - as captive to demonstrators outside the mainstream.

"I left God's country," said Leon Mosley of Waterloo, Iowa, co-chairman of his state party. "They could use a bunch of people from Iowa to come here to show New Yorkers what life is all about, what being patriotic is all about, and what country is all about. I'm as confident about Bush being re-elected as I am that eggs are going to be in New York tomorrow morning.''

But some veteran conventiongoers suggested that the Republicans would be unwise to count their chickens just yet. In their own outspoken way, the protesters were making precisely the same point as Mr. Mosley, with children in strollers, grandparents on canes, all accepting the withering Sunday heat - and the overwhelming security presence intended to keep the march past Madison Square Garden orderly.

"I've been going to Republican conventions since 1972, and I've never seen a convention with as many protesters in the streets," said David Gergen, who has worked for several Republican presidents, and Bill Clinton. "The irony is that was a convention held here because of echoes of 9/11, but it opens with echoes of Chicago and the Vietnam war.

"The protests are anti-Bush, with heavy antiwar overtones, but this is Chicago without the fisticuffs, without the fight, without the bloodshed - so far," Mr. Gergen added. "To interpret this politically is hard, but my gut is that large, peaceful protests are not what the Republicans want. The protesters are stealing the story for the first day and drowning out the Republican message. If there's violence, that could all change."

To be sure, a seething anger pulsed throughout the protesting crowds. T-shirts and signs branded Mr. Bush a warmonger, a liar or a criminal, and there were fly-swatters with an image of his face. Two protesters, Jim Higgins and Kathy Roberts, dressed in suits made of duct tape to spoof Mr. Bush's handling of national security.

"We're occupying Iraq, but we're using duct tape here at home," Mr. Higgins said.

Moira Weidenborner, an English teacher and native New Yorker, sat on the corner of 14th Street and Seventh Avenue before the march began, straw hat in hand, in a shirt that said: "Justice, No War." She said the people she had met on the streets were "a very broad spectrum."

"There's all this attention on the radicals, which makes me upset," Ms. Weidenborner said. "Look around you today: It is middle class, it is working class, it is just people who want to speak their mind."

But Jason Glodt, executive director of the South Dakota Republican Party, said he thought the protesters did "reflect the base of the Democratic Party," and added: "I hope that all Americans are taking a close look at those protesters and what they represent. I don't think they represent American values.

"It's not their freedom of speech that we disagree with," Mr. Glodt said, "it's the content of what they're saying. It really only motivates us even more to go home and work harder at the grass-roots level and make sure people are going out and voting."

A certain clash of cultures is inevitable when so much of red-state America crams into so few square miles of the blue-state Big Apple. The White House was so concerned that the Republicans be gracious guests that it issued a stern warning to administration officials attending the convention not to misbehave at cocktail parties and turn down gifts worth more than $20, The Chicago Tribune reported.

For its part, the city's host committee plastered the Garden with posters reminding delegates that New York has 18,000 restaurants, 662 miles of subway track, 150 museums and 1,700 parks - in short, that it's still a helluva town. And the contrasts were by no means all hostile.

On the empty floor of the Garden Sunday afternoon, Senator George Allen of Virginia, a stalwart of his party's conservative wing, gamely practiced his convention speech, competing genially with a troupe of convention performers who burst into songs from Broadway shows, including "Tonight" from "West Side Story," a collaboration by four gay men, New Yorkers - and Americans - all.

Read More...

Sunday, August 29, 2004

Marchers Denounce Bush as They Pass G.O.P. Convention Hall

NY Times
August 29, 2004
Marchers Denounce Bush as They Pass G.O.P. Convention Hall
By CHRISTINE HAUSER

On bicycles, on foot, and some with their children in tow, hundreds of thousands of people moved through areas of Manhattan today in rallies or mass demonstrations, carrying messages against war and the Bush administration.

In the largest demonstration ever at a political convention, people swarmed through the midtown area of Manhattan in a march organized by United for Peace and Justice, passing by Madison Square Garden, where this week's Republican National Convention starts on Monday. At the height of the march, it took more than an hour to move one block.

Groups of bicyclists were detained by police officers on scooters in other parts of the city.

The police cordoned off an area along Seventh Avenue near the Garden when a papier-mâché likeness of a green dragon went up in flames. The fire was quickly extinguished. A protester was arrested on arson charges and a police officer suffered third-degree burns on his hand while making the arrest, the police said.

Another officer was hospitalized after being hit in the head with a thrown object, the police said.

By 4:30 p.m., at least 134 arrests had been made, including more than 50 on charges of disorderly conduct for blocking traffic near 37th Street and Seventh Avenue on Manhattan's West Side, the police said.

Witnesses said a group of cyclists was arrested at Park Avenue South between 27th and 26th Streets. The police handcuffed the cyclists, photographed them and searched their bags, which they then placed in clear plastic sacks. Those who were detained called out that they had been riding lawfully when pulled over.

Much of the activity was focused on the Garden, where President Bush will accept his party's nomination this week. But even as the demonstrators were marching, Republican delegates were enjoying other aspects of the city, including theaters and restaurants.

As delegates lined up on West 44th Street, waiting to be admitted to the Majestic Theater for a matinee performance of "Phantom of the Opera," a couple of dozen picketers chanted "Get out of New York!"

Some delegates responded, "Four more years!"

The protesters retorted, "Four more months!"

When a drummer and a man in an elephant costume — "Elephants Against Republicans" — filed by, Flora Rohrs, a delegate from Colorado, burst into song. "This is my country," she sang, with bits of "God Bless America" thrown in.

"What is going on here is we are going to get George Bush re-elected," she said, adding that the day's demonstrations did not faze her.

Outside Madison Square Garden, about 100 people from a group called Young Koreans United stood banging drums for about 20 minutes chanting that it is time for Bush to go.

Imbo Sim, 40, said he was from Los Angeles and that most of the group were from out of town. "We're against Bush's war policy," he said. "We're against any escalation of tension with North Korea."

A group of older women calling themselves the Raging Grannies from Rochester, N.Y., sang to the tune of the "Battle Hymn of the Republic":

"No more lies from Dick and Georgie, we deplore their wartime orgy."

On 41st Street and Sixth Avenue, six other bicyclists were arrested for disorderly conduct, obstructing traffic and parading without a permit.

One man, Kevin O'Connell, a 37-year-old graphic designer, was among those arrested. He said there were "all these small scooters, about 12 of them, with officers in civilian clothes."

"They blocked off the road and caught us," he said.

Mr. O'Connell said he had stepped onto the sidewalk from the street to try to make sure that people were getting through and "was knocked off his bike by officers" and sprayed with tear gas.

Authorities braced for protests by hundreds of thousands of people, including the largest rally, that planned by United for Peace and Justice, which had expected about 250,000 people to take part.

The huge demonstration wound its way north through steamy streets just around noon, when temperatures climbed to about 88 degrees Fahrenheit, starting in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan. The route took them past Madison Square Garden before turning south again to finish in Union Square.

Among the marchers were war veterans, parents with their children, and the elderly, as well as familiar faces, like the Rev. Jesse Jackson and the filmmaker Michael Moore. Many marchers commuted into the city.

"The march is going great," said Faith Strongheart, a 31-year-old film production coordinator, who drove in from her home in New Jersey to attend the rally.

As she spoke, she struggled to be heard over the chants of a raucous crowd. "There are tons of people, the energy is really high," she said. "There are people with homemade signs. The main message is to get Bush out of office."

She said the heat was beating down on the marchers but "people are very peaceful, everybody is singing, the cops are being very cooperative."

Uniformed police patrols were thick on the ground in the midtown area and other parts of Manhattan and along the planned protest routes near Madison Square Garden. Officers strode through the tunnels of New York City's elaborate subway network, watchful of passers-by.

Even before the convention started, as of Saturday night more than 300 people had been arrested on charges related to the event, according to the police.

A large group of bicyclists on Friday were among those held. The police said 264 individuals were arrested on charges of obstructing governmental administration, unlawful assembly and disorderly conduct at various locations throughout Manhattan.

Thousands of protesters gathered today in Union Square Park on the edge of the city's Greenwich Village neighborhood, holding up placards opposing the policies of President Bush.

Paintings showed scenes depicting Mr. Bush in a war crimes setting. One old woman in a wheelchair held up a placard saying, "I'm 98 and I'm outraged."

One organizer of the protest shouted through a megaphone to the crowd that the police were "closing down" a table with pamphlets and booklets espousing the anti-Bush views.

"Save a Tree — Plant a Bush Back in Texas," read one placard.

"Bush — You're Fired!" read another, using a motto that has infused popular culture borrowed from the reality television show "The Apprentice," set in New York City.

Streets around the convention center were sealed off. After the march, thousands of demonstrators gathered in Central Park, despite court decisions last week that denied some groups, including United for Peace and Justice, permission to hold rallies.

Earlier in the day, police vehicles and officers on patrol circulated among the joggers, bicyclists and dog-walkers. Helicopters thudded overhead in the Upper West Side neighborhood. But by late afternoon, thousands of protesters, many still carrying placards, had converged on the Great Lawn. Some sat on the ground, their signs at their sides, others milled around as the police watched and answered questions for those who needed directions.

Mari Elena Granger, 57, a self-employed New Yorker, carried a sign that said, "Bush lies. Who dies. Bring the troops home now."

Asked whether most of the people in the park had come from the march organized by United for Peace and Justice, she said: "I am assuming most of them are, particularly because they told us we couldn't go. It was a very poor excuse."

The police have been training on mock demonstrations for the convention, which starts on Monday and continues through Sept. 2.

On Saturday, a small circle of demonstrators used Central Park's Great Lawn for a protest, lying in the grass covered by plastic garbage bags.

"Come join us!!" they shouted to people strolling around the oval of grass. Bemused couples with babies lying on picnic blankets looked on but did not budge. One man, throwing a Frisbee with a friend nearby, shouted, "Shut up!"

"If they get out of control we're going to shut it down," a park security guard said, standing in the shade nearby with her arms folded.

Randal C. Archibold, Carla Baranauckas, Natalie Layzell, Jennifer Medina, Colin Moynihan and Marc Santora contributed reporting for this article.

Read More...

Friday, August 27, 2004

Media ignores another Bush flip-flop: Bush was for 527s -- before he was against them

From mediamatters.org

Media ignores another Bush flip-flop: Bush was for 527s -- before he was against them

Conspicuously absent from most major newspapers' coverage of President George W. Bush's recent condemnation of political advertising by 527 groups -- the practice of which Bush deemed to be "bad for the system" on August 23 -- is Bush's dramatic flip-flop on the issue. On the March 5, 2000, edition of CBS's Face the Nation, Bush said of the independent groups that were running ads attacking his Republican primary opponent, Senator John McCain (R-AZ): "[T]hat's what freedom of speech is all about. ... People have the right to run ads. They have the right to do what they want to do, under the -- under the First Amendment in America."

From the March 5, 2000, edition of CBS's Face the Nation:

BUSH: [T]here are people spending ads that say nice things about me. There are people spending money on ads that say ugly things about me.

PANELIST GLORIA BORGER: Should ...

BUSH: That's part of the American -- let me finish. That's part of the American process. There have been ads, independent expenditures, that are saying bad things about me. I don't particularly care when they do, but that's what freedom of speech is all about. And this allegation somehow that I'm involved with this is just totally ridiculous. It is uncalled for.

[...]

BORGER: [D]o you think you should stop these ads?

BUSH: You know, let me -- let me say something to you. People have the right to run ads. They have the right to do what they want to do, under the -- under the First Amendment in America.

Read More...

Republican Party is mounting a campaign to keep African Americans and other minority voters away from the polls this November

washingtonpost.com
Groups Say GOP Moves to Stifle Vote

By Jo Becker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 26, 2004; Page A05

The NAACP and other civil rights leaders yesterday charged that recent events suggest the Republican Party is mounting a campaign to keep African Americans and other minority voters away from the polls this November.

In a new report, the NAACP and People for the American Way cite incidents from Florida to Detroit. NAACP Chairman Julian Bond said efforts at intimidation and suppression, once a tool of Democrats in the Jim Crow South, "have increasingly become the province of the Republican Party" as it seeks to counter the overwhelming advantage Democrats enjoy among black voters.

Republican National Committee spokeswoman Christine Iverson said that the two nonpartisan groups are attempting to spin unrelated events into a conspiracy and that their motivation is to help Democrat John F. Kerry defeat President Bush.

RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie wrote a letter last month to Democratic National Committee Chairman Terence R. McAuliffe offering to send bipartisan teams to precincts to ensure fair play, Iverson said. The offer was rejected. Republicans want every eligible vote to count, she said, and "if Democrats are serious about this, they will join us."

DNC spokesman Tony Welch said the GOP's silence on recent events in Florida shows that the offer "isn't worth the paper it's printed on." There, the GOP secretary of state was forced to abandon an effort to remove felons from the state's voting rolls after newspapers discovered that the "purge" list erroneously would have disenfranchised thousands of qualified voters, many of them African Americans. Additionally, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has asked the Justice Department to investigate allegations that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement intimidated black voters in Orlando to scare them away from the polls in November.

Democrats and Republicans have long feuded over whether efforts to protect against ballot fraud constitute voter intimidation. But the debate has taken on more urgency in the wake of the deadlocked 2000 presidential election.

Studies suggest that as many as 4 million to 6 million voters were disenfranchised in 2000, either because registration problems prevented qualified voters from casting ballots or because of errors caused by faulty, outdated technology. In Florida, the Civil Rights Commission found that black voters were 10 times as likely as whites to have their ballots rejected, a trend also found in other parts of the country.

To prevent against a repeat, more than 60 nonprofit groups have banded together to form a "Voter Protection Coalition." The group is planning to have 25,000 volunteers -- including 5,000 lawyers -- staff Election Day hotlines, videotape polls and go to court if necessary. In the meantime, the coalition has been collecting anecdotes that form the basis of yesterday's report.

Among the incidents cited: A Republican state representative in Michigan told the Detroit Free Press that the GOP will have "a tough time" if "we do not suppress the Detroit vote." Detroit is 83 percent black.

In Jefferson County, Ky., the local GOP plans to send poll watchers to Democratic, predominantly black precincts to challenge voters' eligibility. A similar, 2002 plan provoked cries of voter intimidation after a recruitment flier became public. The flier asked for volunteers to protect Ernie Fletcher's gubernatorial campaign against potential fraud by "the black militant division of the AFL-CIO" and the NAACP.

In South Dakota, where Native Americans are a key constituency for Democrats, some said they were turned away from the polls during a special election this summer because they did not have photo-identification The secretary of state has blamed the problems on well-intentioned poll workers who did not understand a new law passed by the GOP-controlled legislature.

In many cases cited it is unclear who is behind the incidents. In Maryland's 2002 gubernatorial election, anonymous fliers were distributed in black neighborhoods in Baltimore gave voters the wrong date for Election Day and told them to be sure to pay parking tickets, overdue rent and outstanding warrants.

"We are reminding voters, election officials, and the media about the kinds of dirty tricks that can be expected," Bond said.

Read More...

New Pew Study Results

According to a new poll by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, the number one issue for Bush supporters is terrorism, the number one issue for Kerry supporters is health care, and the number one issue for undecided swing voters is the economy.



The full study can be found here:
http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=51

Read More...

Where Is The Shame?

The New York Times
August 27, 2004

Where Is The Shame?
By BOB HERBERT

Max Cleland, minus the three limbs he lost in Vietnam, showed up in his wheelchair outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Tex., on Wednesday to suggest that the president take the simple and decent step of condemning the slime that is being spread by Bush supporters against the war record of John Kerry.

He didn't get very far. The president was busy vacationing and had neither the time nor the inclination to meet with Mr. Cleland, a former U.S. senator who was himself the target of vicious, unconscionable attacks by the G.O.P. slime machine when he ran for re-election in Georgia in 2002.

Later, at a press conference under the hot Crawford sun, Mr. Cleland told reporters: "The question is, where is George Bush's honor? Where is his shame?"

Mr. Cleland reminded reporters of the scurrilous attacks by Bush forces against Senator John McCain in the Republican presidential primary in 2000 and said: "Keep in mind, this president has gone after three Vietnam veterans in four years. That's got to stop."

In what is surely the most important election of the last half-century, we seem trapped in the politics of the madhouse. What is incredible is that these attacks on men who served not just honorably, but heroically, are coming from a hawkish party that is controlled by an astonishing number of men who sprinted as far from the front lines as they could when they were of fighting age and their country was at war.

Among them:

Mr. Bush himself, the nation's commander in chief and the biggest hawk of all. He revels in the accouterments of combat. The story was somewhat different when he was 22 years old and eligible for combat himself. He managed to get into the cushy confines of the Texas Air National Guard at the height of the Vietnam War in 1968 - a year in which more than a half-million American troops were in the war zone and more than 14,000 were killed.

The story gets murky after that. We know the future president breezed off at some point to work on a political campaign in Alabama, skipped a required flight physical in 1972 and was suspended from flying. He supported the war in Vietnam but was never in any danger of being sent there.

Vice President Dick Cheney, another fierce administration hawk. Mr. Cheney asked for and received five deferments when he was eligible for the draft. He told senators at a confirmation hearing in 1989, "I had other priorities in the 60's than military service." Many draft-age Americans had similar priorities - getting an education, getting married and starting a family.

Attorney General John Ashcroft. He is reported to have said, "I would have served, if asked." But with the war raging in Vietnam, he received six student deferments and an "occupational deferment" based on the essential nature of a civilian job at Southwest Missouri State University - teaching business law to undergraduates.

Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary and a fanatical hawk on Iraq. He was not fanatical about Vietnam and escaped the draft with student deferments.

There are many others.

I would like to see at least some of these men, in keeping with their positions as leaders of a great nation, stand up and say it is wrong - just wrong - to try and reap a cheap political gain by defacing the sacrifices of individuals like John Kerry, John McCain and Max Cleland, who put themselves in mortal danger in the service of their country.

It's one thing to decline to serve. It's quite another to throw mud at those who did serve - or to remain silent as allies hurl the mud.

I've interviewed several soldiers and marines who have suffered grave wounds in Iraq, including the loss of limbs. A permanent place of honor should be reserved for them in the pantheon of American heroes. The idea that someone some years from now may trash their service for political gain is beyond disgusting.

George W. Bush ought to call off his dogs. The one thing we ought to be able to do in this hyperpoliticized era is rally in a bipartisan way behind those who have been willing to fight our wars.

The privileged classes no longer feel an obligation to put their lives - or their children's lives - on the line in defense of the nation. The very least they could do is insist that those who have put themselves in harm's way be treated with respect.

Read More...

Greenspan Urges Pension Benefit Cuts

washingtonpost.com
From: Greenspan Urges Pension Benefit Cuts

By Martin Crutsinger
AP Economics Writer
Friday, August 27, 2004

JACKSON, Wyo. -- Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said Friday that the country will face "abrupt and painful" choices if Congress does not move quickly to trim the Social Security and Medicare benefits that have been promised to the baby boom generation.

Returning to a politically explosive issue that he has addressed a number of times this year, Greenspan said that it was wrong for the government to hold out the promise of more retirement benefits than it is capable of providing.

He said this issue was particularly critical given the impending retirement of 77 million baby boomers born in the two decades after World War II.

"As a nation, we owe it to our retirees to promise only the benefits that can be delivered," Greenspan said in opening remarks to a two-day conference sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City on the challenges posed by aging populations.

"If we have promised more than our economy has the ability to deliver, as I fear we may have, we must recalibrate our public programs so that pending retirees have time to adjust through other channels," Greenspan said. "If we delay, the adjustments could be abrupt and painful."

Greenspan, as he has done previously, suggested that possible changes would be raising the retirement age to receive full Social Security benefits, which currently is gradually increasing from 65 to 67.

Read More...

America's Failing Health

NY Times
August 27, 2004

America's Failing Health
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Working Americans have two great concerns: the growing difficulty of getting health insurance, and the continuing difficulty they have in finding jobs. These concerns may have a common cause: soaring insurance premiums.

In most advanced countries, the government provides everyone with health insurance. In America, however, the government offers insurance only if you're elderly (Medicare) or poor (Medicaid). Otherwise, you're expected to get private health insurance, usually through your job. But insurance premiums are exploding, and the system of employment-linked insurance is falling apart.

Some employers have dropped their health plans. Others have maintained benefits for current workers, but are finding ways to avoid paying benefits to new hires - for example, by using temporary workers. And some businesses, while continuing to provide health benefits, are refusing to hire more workers.

In other words, rising health care costs aren't just causing a rapid rise in the ranks of the uninsured (confirmed by yesterday's Census Bureau report); they're also, because of their link to employment, a major reason why this economic recovery has generated fewer jobs than any previous economic expansion.

Clearly, health care reform is an urgent social and economic issue. But who has the right answer?

The 2004 Economic Report of the President told us what George Bush's economists think, though we're unlikely to hear anything as blunt at next week's convention. According to the report, health costs are too high because people have too much insurance and purchase too much medical care. What we need, then, are policies, like tax-advantaged health savings accounts tied to plans with high deductibles, that induce people to pay more of their medical expenses out of pocket. (Cynics would say that this is just a rationale for yet another tax shelter for the wealthy, but the economists who wrote the report are probably sincere.)

John Kerry's economic advisers have a very different analysis: they believe that health costs are too high because private insurance companies have excessive overhead, mainly because they are trying to avoid covering high-risk patients. What we need, according to this view, is for the government to assume more of the risk, for example by picking up catastrophic health costs, thereby reducing the incentive for socially wasteful spending, and making employment-based insurance easier to get.

A smart economist can come up with theoretical justifications for either argument. The evidence suggests, however, that the Kerry position is much closer to the truth.

The fact is that the mainly private U.S. health care system spends far more than the mainly public health care systems of other advanced countries, but gets worse results. In 2001, we spent $4,887 on health care per capita, compared with $2,792 in Canada and $2,561 in France. Yet the U.S. does worse than either country by any measure of health care success you care to name - life expectancy, infant mortality, whatever. (At its best, U.S. health care is the best in the world. But the ranks of Americans who can't afford the best, and may have no insurance at all, are large and growing.)

And the U.S. system does have very high overhead: private insurers and H.M.O.'s spend much more on administrative expenses, as opposed to actual medical treatment, than public agencies at home or abroad.

Does this mean that the American way is wrong, and that we should switch to a Canadian-style single-payer system? Well, yes. Put it this way: in Canada, respectable business executives are ardent defenders of "socialized medicine." Two years ago the Conference Board of Canada - a who's who of the nation's corporate elite - issued a report urging fellow Canadians to bear in mind not just the "symbolic value" of universal health care, but its "economic contribution to the competitiveness of Canadian businesses."

My health-economist friends say that it's unrealistic to call for a single-payer system here: the interest groups are too powerful, and the antigovernment propaganda of the right has become too well established in public opinion. All that we can hope for right now is a modest step in the right direction, like the one Mr. Kerry is proposing. I bow to their political wisdom. But let's not ignore the growing evidence that our dysfunctional medical system is bad not just for our health, but for our economy.

Read More...

Army's Report Faults General in Prison Abuse

NY Times
August 27, 2004
ABU GHRAIB SCANDAL
Army's Report Faults General in Prison Abuse
By DOUGLAS JEHL and ERIC SCHMITT

WASHINGTON, Aug. 26 - Classified parts of the report by three Army generals on the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison say Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the former top commander in Iraq, approved the use in Iraq of some severe interrogation practices intended to be limited to captives held in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and Afghanistan.

Moreover, the report contends, by issuing and revising the rules for interrogations in Iraq three times in 30 days, General Sanchez and his legal staff sowed such confusion that interrogators acted in ways that violated the Geneva Conventions, which they understood poorly anyway.

Military officials and others in the Bush administration have repeatedly said the Geneva Conventions applied to all prisoners in Iraq, even though members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban held in Afghanistan and Guantánamo did not, in their estimation, fall under the conventions.

But classified passages of the Army report say the procedures approved by General Sanchez on Sept. 14, 2003, and the revisions made when the Central Command found fault with the initial policy, exceeded the Geneva guidelines as well as standard Army doctrines.

General Sanchez and his aides have previously described the series of orders he issued, although not in as much detail as the latest report, which was released Wednesday with a few classified sections omitted. They have described his order of Oct. 12 as rescinding his order of Sept. 14.

But the Army's latest review instead finds that the later order "confused doctrine and policy even further,'' a classified part of the report says. It says the memorandum, while not authorizing abuse, effectively opened the way at Abu Ghraib last fall for interrogation techniques that Pentagon investigators have characterized as abusive, in dozens of cases involving dozens of soldiers at the prison in Iraq.

The techniques approved by General Sanchez exceeded those advocated in a standard Army field manual that provided the basic guidelines for interrogation procedures. But they were among those previously approved by the Pentagon for use in Afghanistan and Cuba, and were recommended to General Sanchez and his staff in the summer of 2003 in memorandums sent by a team headed by Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, a commander at Guantánamo who had been sent to Iraq by senior Pentagon officials, and by a military intelligence unit that had served in Afghanistan and was taking charge of interrogations at Abu Ghraib.

The report says the abusive techniques not sufficiently prohibited by General Sanchez included isolation and the use of dogs in interrogation. It says military police and military intelligence soldiers who used those practices believed they had been authorized by senior commanders.

"At Abu Ghraib, isolation conditions sometimes included being kept naked in very hot or very cold, small rooms, and/or completely darkened rooms, clearly in violation of the Geneva Conventions,'' a classified part of the report said.

The passages involving General Sanchez's orders were among several deleted from the version of the report by Maj. Gen. George R. Fay that was made public by the Pentagon on Wednesday.

Classified parts of the 171-page report were provided to The New York Times by a senior Defense Department official who said fuller disclosure of the findings would help public understanding of the causes of the prisoner abuse scandal.

Army officials said Thursday that some sections of the report had been marked secret because they referred to policy memorandums that were still classified.

But the report's discussion of the September and October orders, while critical of General Sanchez and his staff, do not disclose many new details of the orders and do not appear to contain sensitive material about interrogations or other intelligence-gathering methods.

They do show in much clearer detail than ever before how interrogation practices from Afghanistan and Guantánamo were brought to Abu Ghraib, and how poorly the nuances of what was acceptable in Iraq were understood by military intelligence officials in Iraq.

The classified sections of the Fay report reinforce criticisms made in another report, by the independent panel headed by James R. Schlesinger, the former defense secretary.

That panel argued that General Sanchez's actions effectively amounted to an unauthorized suspension of the Geneva Conventions in Iraq by categorizing prisoners there as unlawful combatants.

The Schlesinger panel described that reasoning as "understandable,'' but said General Sanchez and his staff should have recognized that they were "lacking specific authorization to operate beyond the confines of the Geneva Convention.''

In an interview on Thursday with reporters and editors of The Times, Gen. Paul J. Kern, the senior officer who supervised General Fay's work, said the Fay inquiry had not addressed whether General Sanchez was authorized to designate detainees in Iraq as unlawful combatants, as the administration has treated prisoners in Afghanistan.

A secret passage in the report, though, says that with General Sanchez's first order, on Sept. 14, national policies and those of his command "collided, introducing ambiguities and inconsistencies in policy and practice,'' adding, "Policies and practices developed and approved for use on Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees who were not afforded the protection of the Geneva Conventions now applied to detainees who did fall under the Geneva Conventions' protections." It goes on to cite several further problems with the order.

Asked whether General Sanchez's actions opened the door to use of interrogation techniques from Afghanistan, General Kern said, "He didn't close the door, and he should have."

Together, the Schlesinger and Fay reports spell out the sharpest criticism of missteps by American commanders in Iraq involving what they described as a crucial question of making clear to soldiers what was permitted and what was not in interrogation of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

General Sanchez and his deputies have always maintained that the only approaches they authorized for use in Iraq were consistent with the Geneva Conventions, which spell out rules for the treatment of prisoners of war and other combatants. They have said the directive issued by General Sanchez in October had made it clear that the use of dogs and isolation could be used in interrogations only with the general's approval.

"Interrogators at Abu Ghraib used both dogs and isolation as interrogation practices," a classified part of the report said. "The manner in which they were used on some occasions clearly violated the Geneva Conventions."

The classified section of the Fay report also sheds new light on the role played by a secretive Special Operations Forces/Central Intelligence Agency task force that operated in Iraq and Afghanistan as a source of interrogation procedures that were put into effect at Abu Ghraib. It says that a July 15, 2003, "Battlefield Interrogation Team and Facility Policy,'' drafted by use by Joint Task Force 121, which was given the task of locating former government members in Iraq, was adopted "almost verbatim'' by the 519th Military Intelligence Battalion, which played a leading role in interrogations at Abu Ghraib.

That task force policy endorsed the use of stress positions during harsh interrogation procedures, the use of dogs, yelling, loud music, light control, isolation and other procedures used previously in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Those measures were initially authorized by General Sanchez for use in Iraq in his September memorandum, then revoked in the policy he issued a month later, but not in a way understood by interrogators at Abu Ghraib to have banned those practices, the classified version of the Fay report said.

Among those who believed, incorrectly, that the use of dogs in interrogations could be approved without General Sanchez's approval was Col. Thomas M. Pappas, the commander of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, the report said.

"Dogs as an interrogation tool should have been specifically excluded,'' a classified section of the report said. It criticized General Sanchez for not having fully considered "the implications for interrogation policy,'' and said the manner in which interrogators at Abu Ghraib used both dogs and isolations as interrogation practices "on some occasions clearly violated the Geneva Conventions.''

The role played by members of the 519th Military Intelligence Battalion, from Fort Bragg, N.C., some of whom were identified as having taken part in the abuses, is given particular attention in the classified parts of the report.

Members of the unit had earlier served in Afghanistan, where some were implicated in the deaths of two detainees that are still under investigation, and the report says commanders should have heeded more carefully the danger that members of the unit might again be involved in abusive behavior.

The unit had worked closely with Special Operations Forces in Afghanistan, and "at same point'' it "came to possess the JTF-121 interrogation policy'' used by the joint Special Operations/C.I.A. teams, the classified section of the report says.

Read More...

Bush Admits 'Miscalculations' On War On Iraq

In a half-hour interview with The New York Times on August 26, George W. Bush acknowledged for the first time that he made a "miscalculation of what the conditions would be" in postwar Iraq.

Read More...

Thursday, August 26, 2004

Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush


Wall Street Journal
August 23, 2004

Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush

By JIM RASSMANN

I came to know Lt. John Kerry during the spring of 1969. He and his swift boat crew assisted in inserting our Special Forces team and our Chinese Nung soldiers into operational sites in the Cau Mau Peninsula of South Vietnam. I worked with him on many operations and saw firsthand his leadership, courage and decision-making ability under fire.

On March 13, 1969, John Kerry’s courage and leadership saved my life.

While returning from a SEA LORDS operation along the Bay Hap River, a mine detonated under another swift boat. Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river, and a second explosion followed moments later. The second blast blew me off John’s swift boat, PCF-94, throwing me into the river. Fearing that the other boats would run me over, I swam to the bottom of the river and stayed there as long as I could hold my breath.

When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire, I repeatedly swam under water as long as I could hold my breath, attempting to make it to the north bank of the river. I thought I would die right there. The odds were against me avoiding the incoming fire and, even if I made it out of the river, I thought I’d be captured and executed. Kerry must have seen me in the water and directed his driver, Del Sandusky, to turn the boat around. Kerry’s boat ran up to me in the water, bow on, and I was able to climb up a cargo net to the lip of the deck. But, because I was nearly upside down, I couldn’t make it over the edge of the deck. This left me hanging out in the open, a perfect target. John, already wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat, came out onto the bow, exposing himself to the fire directed at us from the jungle, and pulled me aboard.

For his actions that day, I recommended John for the Silver Star, our country’s third highest award for bravery under fire. I learned only this past January that the Navy awarded John the Bronze Star with Combat V for his valor. The citation for this award, signed by the Commander of U.S. Naval Forces, Vietnam, Vice Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, read, "Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry’s calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service." To this day I am grateful to John Kerry for saving my life. And to this day I still believe that he deserved the Silver Star for his courage.

It has been many years since I served in Vietnam. I returned home, got married, and spent many years as a deputy sheriff for Los Angeles County. I retired in 1989 as a lieutenant. It has been a long time since I left Vietnam, but I think often of the men who did not come home with us.

I am neither a politician nor an organizer. I am a retired police officer with a passion for orchids. Until January of this year, the only public presentations I made were about my orchid hobby. But in this presidential election, I had to speak out; I had to tell the American people about John Kerry, about his wisdom and courage, about his vision and leadership. I would trust John Kerry with my life, and I would entrust John Kerry with the well-being of our country.

Nobody asked me to join John’s campaign. Why would they? I am a Republican, and for more than 30 years I have largely voted for Republicans. I volunteered for his campaign because I have seen John Kerry in the worst of conditions. I know his character. I’ve witnessed his bravery and leadership under fire. And I truly know he will be a great commander in chief.

Now, 35 years after the fact, some Republican-financed Swift Boat Veterans for Bush are suddenly lying about John Kerry’s service in Vietnam; they are calling him a traitor because he spoke out against the Nixon administration’s failed policies in Vietnam. Some of these Republican-sponsored veterans are the same ones who spoke out against John at the behest of the Nixon administration in 1971. But this time their attacks are more vicious, their lies cut deep and are directed not just at John Kerry, but at me and each of his crewmates as well. This hate-filled ad asserts that I was not under fire; it questions my words and Navy records. This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency, people who don’t understand the bond of those who serve in combat.

As John McCain noted, the television ad aired by these veterans is "dishonest and dishonorable." Sen. McCain called on President Bush to condemn the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush ad. Regrettably, the president has ignored Sen. McCain’s advice.

Does this strategy of attacking combat Vietnam veterans sound familiar? In 2000, a similar Republican smear campaign was launched against Sen. McCain. In fact, the very same communications group, Spaeth Communications, that placed ads against John McCain in 2000 is involved in these vicious attacks against John Kerry. Texas Republican donors with close ties to George W. Bush and Karl Rove crafted this "dishonest and dishonorable" ad. Their new charges are false; their stories are fabricated, made up by people who did not serve with Kerry in Vietnam. They insult and defame all of us who served in Vietnam.

But when the noise and fog of their distortions and lies have cleared, a man who volunteered to serve his country, a man who showed up for duty when his country called, a man to whom the United States Navy awarded a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts, will stand tall and proud. Ultimately, the American people will judge these Swift Boat Veterans for Bush and their accusations. Americans are tired of smear campaigns against those who volunteered to wear the uniform. Swift Boat Veterans for Bush should hang their heads in shame.

Mr. Rassmann, a retired lieutenant with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, served with the U.S. Army 5th Special Forces Group in Vietnam 1968-69.

Read More...

Dirty Tricks, Patrician Style

cbsnews.com
Dirty Tricks, Patrician Style
WASHINGTON, August 26, 2004
Dick Meyer

If you had any thought that the first presidential campaign after 9/11 would be especially sober and responsible, give it up.

There are a million angles to the saga of John Kerry and his swift boat enemies and none of them reveal anything virtuous about politics. But one element that is missing from this story is surprise.

Any student of Bush family campaigns could have seen the swift boat shiv shining a mile away. This old family has traditions – horseshoes, fishing, bad syntax and having the help do the dirty work in campaigns as well as the kitchen. And they are very good at getting jobs done without leaving fingerprints, without compromising their patrician image and their alleged character.

Even the audaciousness of this year’s episode is not surprising. Who would have believed that George Bush, with all the trouble over his National Guard service, could get John Kerry in hot water for his combat duty and medals in Vietnam? Well, anyone who saw what George Bush did to former POW John McCain in the 2000 primaries, which was even more outrageous.

The ancestral origin of Bush family gut fighting came in George H. W. Bush’s 1988 campaign against Michael Dukakis in the form of the infamous Willie Horton ad. (Historical footnote: Horton actually went by William, not Willie, and is referred as William in all legal documents; the ad makers thought Willie sounded scarier and blacker.)

That ad was produced by an outfit allegedly independent of the official campaign. It wasn’t aired on TV much but got most of its play in the press. Papa Bush and his official staff maintained they knew nothing about such déclassé skullduggery. There was nothing blatantly untrue about the ad, but it was hugely misleading and subtly racist.

The ad also attacked Dukakis right where he was supposed to be strongest. If the Duke had a strength (a big if), it was as a highly competent government CEO who led the Massachusetts Miracle. The ad gave an emotional snapshot of a guy whose incompetence let a killer out of jail so he could commit assault and rape. It worked.

The mantle passed to Bush the Younger in 1994 when he ran for governor of Texas against Ann Richards. She was a salty, strong, unmarried woman. And guess what? A whispering campaign got rolling in East Texas that she was gay and so were some of her staffers. Then one of the Bush campaign's local chairmen told a reporter that Richards' appointment of "avowed homosexuals" might become a campaign issue. In the twisted way the press legitimizes talking about questionable issues, that remark made the whole deal fair game.

In 2000, McCain had George W. on the ropes and South Carolina was the do-or-die state. Flyers appeared from thin air alleging that McCain had a black child (he and his wife had adopted a Bangladeshi daughter from an orphanage there). Other fliers said McCain was the "fag candidate." Rumors swirled that McCain’s time in a North Vietnamese prison camp had left him unstable and downright crazy - again, hitting at the opponent's greatest strength. Other rumors were that his wife was a drug addict. Nice stuff, and none of it had Bush’s inky fingerprints on it.

At an event with Bush, a vet from some fringe group accused McCain of abandoning veterans. That really set McCain off and he demanded an apology from Bush. Bush simply said that he believed McCain "served our country nobly." That’s what he says about Kerry now. Above the fray, clean hands, patrician.

Soon after that, a mysterious group dumped $2 million into ads in more liberal New York attacking McCain’s environmental record and boosting Bush's. Eventually, it turned out the ads were bankrolled by a big Bush donor named Sam Wyly. No Bush fingerprints there either.

You get the picture. The big question is why John Kerry didn't.

When the swift boaters launched their dark craft did he think it would just vanish? That would be like Bill Clinton thinking the Monica Lewinsky story would disappear. Kerry responded indecisively and weakly.

Kerry and his campaign are not innocents in all this. Independent 527 groups opposed to Bush have pumped far more cash into the race than the anti-Kerry groups and they, too, have made irresponsible assertions. And though two Bush campaign officials have now quit because of their ties to the swift boaters, Kerry's operation has all the same kind of ties to the anti-Bush groups.

What Kerry and the Democrats do not have is an explicitly ideological cable network, a dedicated publishing house and a pantheon of sympathetic, wildly popular talk radio shows that essentially function as 527 groups.

The non-Fox networks and major newspapers covered the Kerry charges just as they did the charges about Bush’s National Guard service – they tried to dig out the truth. The Democrats have plenty of rich donors, 527 groups, Air America and, for the sake of argument, reporters infected by liberal bias. They wish they had the media propaganda apparatus the Republicans have, but they don’t.

It is also said that Kerry brought this on himself by making his Vietnam service part of his campaign. But that’s absurd. What was he supposed to do, ignore it? He did volunteer, he did command a boat, he was shot at and did get the medals.

The claims that Kerry lied about his record have been as debunked as any historical claim about a distant combat action can be. And just because someone talks about something in their past in a campaign doesn't mean that it's okay for other people to lie about it.

Kerry's anti-war activities when he got back home will always attract fierce opposition, even loathing, whether or not there are scurrilous 527s beating up on him. And the mixed portrait of him as a war hero and anti-war hero will always ring false for many who see him as a compulsive flip-flopper and have-it-both-ways guy.

But despite Kerry’s own Brahmin lineage, patrician bearing and vast wealth, he's a poor relation when it comes to hiring help to do the dirty work.

Dick Meyer, a veteran political and investigative producer for CBS News, is the Editorial Director of CBSNews.com, based in Washington.

Read More...

Ranks of Poverty, Uninsured Rose in 2003

Ranks of Poverty, Uninsured Rose in 2003
More Americans Were in Poverty and Without Health Insurance in 2003, Census Bureau Reports

The Associated Press


WASHINGTON Aug. 26, 2004 — The number of Americans living in poverty increased by 1.3 million last year, while the ranks of the uninsured swelled by 1.4 million, the Census Bureau reported Thursday.

It was the third straight annual increase for both categories. While not unexpected, it was a double dose of bad economic news during a tight re-election campaign for President Bush.

Approximately 35.8 million people lived below the poverty line in 2003, or about 12.5 percent of the population, according to the bureau. That was up from 34.5 million, or 12.1 percent in 2002.

The rise was more dramatic for children. There were 12.9 million living in poverty last year, or 17.6 percent of the under-18 population. That was an increase of about 800,000 from 2002, when 16.7 percent of all children were in poverty.

The Census Bureau's definition of poverty varies by the size of the household. For instance, the threshold for a family of four was $18,810, while for two people it was $12,015.

Nearly 45 million people lacked health insurance, or 15.6 percent of the population. That was up from 43.5 million in 2002, or 15.2 percent, but was a smaller increase than in the two previous years.

Meanwhile, the median household income, when adjusted for inflation, remained basically flat last year at $43,318. Whites, blacks and Asians saw no noticeable change, but income fell 2.6 percent for Hispanics to $32,997. Whites had the highest income at $47,777.

Even before release of the data, some Democrats claimed the Bush administration was trying to play down bad news by releasing the reports about a month earlier than usual. They normally are released separately in late September one report on poverty and income, the other on insurance.

Putting out the numbers at the same time and not so close to Election Day "invite charges of spinning the data for political purposes," said Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y.

Census Director Louis Kincannon a Bush appointee denied politics played any role in moving up the release date. The move, announced earlier this year, was done to coordinate the numbers with the release of other data.

"There has been no influence or pressure from the (Bush) campaign," Kincannon said Wednesday.

Official national poverty estimates, as well as most government data on income and health insurance, come from the bureau's Current Population Survey.

This year the bureau is simultaneously releasing data from the broader American Community Survey, which also includes income and poverty numbers but cannot be statistically compared with the other survey.

The figures were sure to generate attention regardless of when they were released since they typically serve as a report card of sorts for an administration's socio-economic policies.

Partisan debate figures to be more heated now, when the economy and health care are big issues in the tight presidential election race between Bush and Democratic challenger John Kerry.

Since job growth was slow until the second half of 2003 and wages were relatively stagnant, it was likely the report would show an increase in the number of people in poverty, said Sheldon Danzinger, co-director of the National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan.

William O'Hare, a researcher with the Annie E. Casey Foundation, a private children's advocacy group, expected increases in the number of kids in poverty and without health insurance. He called the changes in the way data is being released "bothersome."

"It makes me wonder whether this statistical agency is being politicized in some way," said O'Hare, who has studied the poverty and health insurance data for over two decades.

Read More...