Wednesday, October 13, 2004

Pushing to Be Counted in Fla.

washingtonpost.com
Pushing to Be Counted in Fla.
Groups Say That Blacks May Not Be Heard at Polls

By Jo Becker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 13, 2004; Page A01

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- Nearly a dozen African American ministers and civil rights leaders walked into the Duval County election office here, television cameras in tow, with a list of questions: How come there were not more early voting sites closer to black neighborhoods? How come so many blacks were not being allowed to redo incomplete voter registrations? Who was deciding all this?

Standing across the office counter under a banner that read "Partners in Democracy" was the man who made those decisions, election chief Dick Carlberg. Visibly angry, the Republican explained why he decided the way he had: "We call it the law."

Black leaders said the scene at the supervisor's office last week was reminiscent of a blocked schoolhouse door at the height of desegregation. They charge that GOP officials are deliberately using the law to keep black people off the rolls and hinder them from voting.

Four years ago, ballots cast from black neighborhoods throughout Florida were four times as likely to go uncounted as those from white neighborhoods. Nowhere was the disparity more apparent than in Duval County, where 42 percent of 27,000 ballots thrown out came from four heavily Democratic black precincts.

Despite attempts by Florida officials to prevent a repeat of the controversy that dogged the last presidential election, black leaders said they are concerned that this year new registrations are being rejected for technical errors and that limited accessibility to early polling places could lead to more disputes, roiling Florida and the nation long after Election Day.

Florida, with 27 electoral votes, is again a hotly contested battleground. Democratic organizations, black churches and civil rights groups have embarked on an aggressive get-out-the-vote effort in minority neighborhoods in Duval County and elsewhere in the state.

From the 2000 election to August 2004, nearly 200,000 black voters were added to the rolls in Florida, a 21 percent increase in large part because of registration drives by groups including America Coming Together. Registration by white voters increased almost 6 percent.

Black people overwhelmingly vote Democratic, and Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) has made turning out that vote a key part of his Florida strategy. He and his running mate, Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), have made three campaign trips to Jacksonville alone.

But black leaders said they are worried that the campaigning will not matter if black voters are disenfranchised.

In Duval County, 31,155 black voters had been added to the rolls by the end of last week. That is more than the total number of ballots nullified here four years ago, in a race that George W. Bush won by 537 votes.

But hundreds more could show up at the polls only to find they cannot vote. The office has flagged 1,448 registrations as incomplete, and as of last week had yet to process 11,500 more.

A Washington Post analysis found nearly three times the number of flagged Democratic registrations as Republican. Broken down by race, no group had more flagged registrations than blacks.

This, in a heavily GOP county where records show that the number of blacks added to the rolls since 2000 approximately equals the number of non-Hispanic whites.

Some registrations were missing critical information, such as a signature. Others had different problems, with some people listing post office boxes instead of street addresses or putting street addresses on the wrong line.

Secretary of State Glenda E. Hood, a Republican appointed by Gov. Jeb Bush, the president's brother, recently ruled that for registrations to be deemed complete, new voters must not only sign an oath attesting to their citizenship, but also check a box that states the same. Unlike many counties, which have chosen to ignore the directive, Duval County chose to enforce it.

Carlberg, who is acting election chief because his superior is ill, told the ministers that the office did the best it could to contact applicants who submitted incomplete forms, but the law says that "if they aren't complete now, they're not going into the system."

Carlberg's office, as well as Hood's, said the real blame belongs with the Democratic-leaning groups that targeted minority voters and then turned in sloppy and incomplete registrations. The disproportionate number of black Democratic registrations flagged, said Carlberg spokeswoman Erin Moody, is a function of "who those groups are targeting."

But during the 10-minute confrontation at Carlberg's office last week, the ministers argued that the election official had stalled in processing new registrations until it was too late to fix them by the Oct. 4 cutoff. "You kept them in a box in a cage," charged Edward Exson of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

The 2000 election sent a record number of black people to the polls in Florida. But these new, inexperienced voters were more likely than their white counterparts to live in areas with outdated, error-prone machinery that did not give voters a chance to correct problems.

In Duval County, the situation was compounded by the election office putting out instructions reminding people to "vote all pages," which led to thousands of invalidated "overvotes" because the list of presidential candidates was spread over two pages.

Since then, the outdated machinery has been replaced, but suspicions linger.

"The big question is: Will our vote count?" Deborah Hargrove, 53, told Susan Hunter, a canvasser for America Coming Together who knocked on her door last week. "Who's to know if they are just going to throw it away in the garbage can?"

But as Hunter handed out fliers to voters such as Hargrove detailing their rights, she also encountered a fierce determination. Many of the retirees in this neighborhood remember when blacks were attacked by white men armed with axes and bats after they tried in 1960 to sit at Jacksonville's whites-only lunch counters in what became known as Ax Handle Saturday.

"I'm gonna vote as long as I live," Sally Brown, 73, vowed when Hunter knocked on her door. "They're not going to make me stop."

One of the major changes enacted since 2000 is aimed at making voting easier by requiring local election officials to allow voters to cast ballots up to 15 days before the election. The law does not specify how many early voting sites there must be.

The ministers who went to Carlberg's office last week had plans to bus their congregations to those sites after Sunday services this month as a way to help those juggling jobs or without a car.

Orange County, which has approximately the same number of registered voters as Duval, has opted to open nine early voting locations. Duval will have one, even though Jacksonville is geographically the largest U.S. city, covering 840 square miles. It will be at Carlberg's office, miles from most of the majority black precincts. The same is true in Volusia County, where the GOP supervisor has angered black ministers there by refusing to open the site on Sundays.

Carlberg would not detail his reasoning with the ministers when they gathered at his office last week.

Afterward, the Rev. James Sampson, president of the Baptist Ministerial Conference in Duval, declared that "the spirit of George Wallace" is "alive and well."

Carlberg noted that the black leaders arrived unannounced with a contingent of reporters and refused his invitation to meet privately. "It should have been conducted in a nonmedia environment," he said in an interview. "Someplace where we could sit down and discuss the issues in a gentlemanly, civilized fashion."

In a follow-up letter to the ministers, Carlberg said that additional sites cannot be added this close to the election. The office does not have time to train staff or install equipment, he said.

But in Volusia County, which has been sued in federal court over the same issue by the NAACP, spokeswoman Deanie Lowe said the election office is looking into adding three sites.

Others complain that while election officials here have been slow to process new registrations and are doing little when it comes to early voting, they have been quick to send out letters informing felons that they have lost their right to vote.

Florida is one of seven states, including Virginia, that bar felons from voting if they fail to appeal. Studies show that the laws disproportionately disenfranchise black men.

Earlier this year, Hood's office developed a list to help supervisors purge felons from the rolls. A similar 2000 list disenfranchised eligible voters, and media organizations sued to make this year's list public. Local newspapers found that it included the names of 2,000 felons whose rights had been restored, many of them black, and did not identify ineligible Hispanics, who lean Republican.

Hood's office was forced to abandon the list, leaving each county to decide how to purge felons from the voting rolls. Carlberg's office purges an average of 140 felons a month.

Michael D. Frederick, 38, showed Hunter the letter he received from Carlberg's office after a felony battery conviction, along with his tattered voter registration card.

"They couldn't wait to send this to me," he said. "I voted every election -- city council, schools, didn't matter. I'm undereducated, and I'm black, but now this, this is my third strike. I kept it as a reminder that they finally took my voice away."

Staff writer Dan Keating in Washington contributed to this report.

Read More...

NRA to Spend $20M to Reelect Bush

washingtonpost.com
NRA to Spend $20M to Reelect Bush

By Sharon Theimer
The Associated Press
Wednesday, October 13, 2004; 12:33 PM

The National Rifle Association endorsed President Bush for reelection on Wednesday, promising millions of dollars for ads, phone banks and other get-out-the-vote efforts.

"The Supreme Court is going to be crucial to the future of the Second Amendment, and President Bush will appoint justices that respect the Bill of Rights," NRA chief executive Wayne LaPierre told The Associated Press in a phone interview before announcing the endorsement at a news conference in Duluth, Minn.

Bush also supports legislation to protect the firearms industry from lawsuits and opposes centralizing files on gun owners, LaPierre said, calling the difference between Bush and Democrat John Kerry on guns "day and night."

LaPierre also planned news conferences in Flint, Mich.; Youngstown, Ohio, and Pittsburgh.

The gun-rights group's political action committee has already spent roughly $1 million on TV and other advertising opposing Kerry.

The NRA plans to spend about $20 million in all, focused on 10 to 15 targeted states, with efforts including radio, television and newspaper ads, phone banks, door-to-door voter contacts, up to 10 million pieces of direct mail and election messages in magazines that go to the group's 4 million members.

Kerry says he has been a hunter from childhood and a gun owner who supports the Second Amendment. But he has voted in favor of gun control and has supported extending a now-expired ban on assault-style weapons and requiring background checks at gun shows. He opposes granting gun makers immunity from civil lawsuits.

Kerry's campaign has derided the NRA's leaders as tools of the Republican Party and said they are out of touch with their membership.

Kerry has been endorsed by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. The gun-control group said Wednesday that it is joining with the Million Mom March to air a TV ad criticizing Bush's failure to press for renewal of the assault-weapons ban. The ad will air in Philadelphia, Cleveland and Miami over the next week, with an initial buy of $100,000, spokesman Peter Hamm said.

Read More...

Bush's Health Care Ads Not Accurate

washingtonpost.com
Bush's Health Care Ads Not Accurate
Campaign Offers Little Backing for Claims

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 13, 2004; Page A08

President Bush charged in a pair of television ads yesterday that John F. Kerry's health care plan would lead to "rationing," "less access," "fewer choices" and "long waits." But his campaign acknowledged that these were references to the existing Medicaid program, whose eligibility would be expanded under the Massachusetts senator's proposal.

The ads also charge, as Bush has on the campaign trail, that his challenger's plan is "a big government takeover." But there is no takeover -- the Kerry plan builds on the existing system of private health insurance, primarily through tax credits and incentives.

Fact sheets provided by the Bush campaign offered little evidence for these and other accusations beyond excerpts from such conservative forums as the Wall Street Journal editorial page and the Weekly Standard.

One ad says the Kerry plan "includes the IRS, Treasury Department, and several massive new government agencies." The other says that "Washington bureaucrats, not your doctor, make final decisions on your health."

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), a former heart surgeon made available by the Bush campaign, said federal officials would inevitably be involved with treatments costing more than $30,000 because the federal government would reimburse up to 75 percent of those high-cost cases. As a doctor, "I would not be dealing with the patient," he said. But in a speech in July, Frist proposed a catastrophic reinsurance program similar to Kerry's.

Frist said the Kerry plan "aggravates" what he views as rationing and other problems in Medicaid by adding an estimated 22 million beneficiaries to the 40 million already on the rolls. By this standard, the administration is presiding over health care rationing, as well.

Kerry senior adviser Tad Devine called the ads "utterly false and completely dishonest." Kerry health adviser Chris Jennings said most of the newly covered people would enroll not in Medicaid but in the state Children's Health Insurance Program, whose age limits would be expanded. In all cases, he said, enrollment would be voluntary, as would decisions by businesses and insurance firms to participate in the catastrophic program. No government agencies would be created, Jennings said.

The ads say Kerry's proposal would cost $1.5 trillion, based on a 10-year estimate by the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute. Kerry puts the price tag at $653 billion but counts on about $300 billion in projected savings that may not materialize.

Kerry responded hours later with his own health care ad, saying that "for the last four years, one man has stood between America and lower-cost prescription drugs: George Bush." Kerry says in the ad that he will fight to legalize drug imports from Canada and to allow Medicare to make bulk purchases. Critics have raised safety questions about imported drugs and say large-scale Medicare buying could effectively amount to price controls.

Health care is not the only battlefield. In an ad released Sunday, the president cites Kerry's comments to the New York Times Magazine: "We have to get back to the place where terrorists are a nuisance like gambling and prostitution . . . we're never going to end them." The commercial says: "Terrorism . . . a nuisance? . . . How can Kerry protect us when he doesn't understand the threat?"

But Kerry did not call terrorism a nuisance. He said "it's something that you continue to fight" and that his goal is to reduce it to a nuisance level.

The ad also quotes Kerry as saying that "defeating terrorism was really more about law enforcement and intelligence than a strong military operation." While Kerry has used that formulation, he said in a January debate that the war "will continue" to be military in nature "for a long time. And we will need the best-trained and the most well-equipped and the most capable military."

Kerry has responded to other Bush attacks with a spot that says: "Here's the truth about taxes. After nearly four years under George Bush, the middle class is paying the bigger share of America's tax burden, and the wealthiest are paying less. It's wrong."

A Congressional Budget Office study found that while the richest Americans have seen their part of the tax burden drop since 2001, the share of tax payments by those earning $50,000 to $75,000 increased. But in saying that "we need to cut taxes on the middle class, not raise them," the Kerry ad ignores that Bush has cut taxes for middle-class families -- by 9.3 percent, for example, for those averaging $50,000 in income. Kerry's "cut" would simply extend the Bush reductions, although he would add new breaks for health care and college.

Staff writer Ceci Connolly contributed to this report.

Read More...

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

ACTION ALERT: Stop the Right-Wing Smears Against John Kerry

Stop the Right-Wing Smears Against John Kerry

The Sinclair Broadcasting Group, a conservative broadcasting company that runs television stations in dozens of major television markets nationwide, has ordered its stations to preempt other programming and air an anti-Kerry program days before Election Day. Sign our petition demanding that Sinclair take their negative smears off the air.

Sign a petition at http://www.democrats.org/action/200410120001.html or cut and paste the following into an email, and send the email:

TO:
comments@sbgi.net
investor@sbgi.net

CC:
Michael.Powell@fcc.gov
Kathleen.Abernathy@fcc.gov
Michael.Copps@fcc.gov
KJMWEB@fcc.gov
Jonathan.Adelstein@fcc.gov
lelliott@fec.gov
pbonsall@fec.gov
bkimberling@fec.gov
LMCCANNA@GMA-CPA.COM


To: Sinclair Broadcasting Group:

Your decision to force your television stations to air untrue attacks about John Kerry is a gross abuse of your role as media owners — and constitutes an illegal contribution to the Bush-Cheney 04 campaign.

I demand that you pull your plans to air this smear against John Kerry. The partisan politics of your executives have no place in the newsrooms of your television stations.

Read More...

Pro-Bush Puffery on Economy, Medicare

From factcheck.org

Pro-Bush Puffery on Economy, Medicare

New ad claims Bush inherited an economy "already in recession" and that
41 million seniors "now have access to lower cost prescriptions." Wrong
on both counts.

Summary

The ad by the pro-Bush group Progress for America Voter Fund claims the
economy was already in a recession when Bush took office, but the
National Bureau of Economic Research (which dates business cycles) says the
recession actually began in March 2001, after Bush took office in
January.

The facts also get stretched when the ad claims "41 million seniors now
have access to lower cost prescriptions (emphasis added)." Bush's new
prescription drug benefit will cover seniors on Medicare for an extra
premium of about $35 a month, but not until 2006. Even the currently
available drug discount cards have been used much less than expected.
Current enrollment is less than 5 million.

Read More...

Checking the Facts, in Advance of the final debate

The New York Times
October 12, 2004

Checking the Facts, in Advance
By PAUL KRUGMAN

It's not hard to predict what President Bush, who sounds increasingly desperate, will say tomorrow. Here are eight lies or distortions you'll hear, and the truth about each:

Jobs

Mr. Bush will talk about the 1.7 million jobs created since the summer of 2003, and will say that the economy is "strong and getting stronger." That's like boasting about getting a D on your final exam, when you flunked the midterm and needed at least a C to pass the course.

Mr. Bush is the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a decline in payroll employment. That's worse than it sounds because the economy needs around 1.6 million new jobs each year just to keep up with population growth. The past year's job gains, while better news than earlier job losses, barely met this requirement, and they did little to close the huge gap between the number of jobs the country needs and the number actually available.

Unemployment

Mr. Bush will boast about the decline in the unemployment rate from its June 2003 peak. But the employed fraction of the population didn't rise at all; unemployment declined only because some of those without jobs stopped actively looking for work, and therefore dropped out of the unemployment statistics. The labor force participation rate - the fraction of the population either working or actively looking for work - has fallen sharply under Mr. Bush; if it had stayed at its January 2001 level, the official unemployment rate would be 7.4 percent.

The deficit

Mr. Bush will claim that the recession and 9/11 caused record budget deficits. Congressional Budget Office estimates show that tax cuts caused about two-thirds of the 2004 deficit.

The tax cuts

Mr. Bush will claim that Senator John Kerry opposed "middle class" tax cuts. But budget office numbers show that most of Mr. Bush's tax cuts went to the best-off 10 percent of families, and more than a third went to the top 1 percent, whose average income is more than $1 million.

The Kerry tax plan

Mr. Bush will claim, once again, that Mr. Kerry plans to raise taxes on many small businesses. In fact, only a tiny percentage would be affected. Moreover, as Mr. Kerry correctly pointed out last week, the administration's definition of a small-business owner is so broad that in 2001 it included Mr. Bush, who does indeed have a stake in a timber company - a business he's so little involved with that he apparently forgot about it.

Fiscal responsibility

Mr. Bush will claim that Mr. Kerry proposes $2 trillion in new spending. That's a partisan number and is much higher than independent estimates. Meanwhile, as The Washington Post pointed out after the Republican convention, the administration's own numbers show that the cost of the agenda Mr. Bush laid out "is likely to be well in excess of $3 trillion" and "far eclipses that of the Kerry plan."

Spending

On Friday, Mr. Bush claimed that he had increased nondefense discretionary spending by only 1 percent per year. The actual number is 8 percent, even after adjusting for inflation. Mr. Bush seems to have confused his budget promises - which he keeps on breaking - with reality.

Health care

Mr. Bush will claim that Mr. Kerry wants to take medical decisions away from individuals. The Kerry plan would expand Medicaid (which works like Medicare), ensuring that children, in particular, have health insurance. It would protect everyone against catastrophic medical expenses, a particular help to the chronically ill. It would do nothing to restrict patients' choices.

By singling out Mr. Bush's lies and misrepresentations, am I saying that Mr. Kerry isn't equally at fault? Yes.

Mr. Kerry sometimes uses verbal shorthand that offers nitpickers things to complain about. He talks of 1.6 million lost jobs; that's the private-sector loss, partly offset by increased government employment. But the job record is indeed awful. He talks of the $200 billion cost of the Iraq war; actual spending is only $120 billion so far. But nobody doubts that the war will cost at least another $80 billion. The point is that Mr. Kerry can, at most, be accused of using loose language; the thrust of his statements is correct.

Mr. Bush's statements, on the other hand, are fundamentally dishonest. He is insisting that black is white, and that failure is success. Journalists who play it safe by spending equal time exposing his lies and parsing Mr. Kerry's choice of words are betraying their readers.

Read More...

Monday, October 11, 2004

The expected October Surprise

Possibilities include:

SINCLAIR BROADCASTING forcing its affiliates to broadcast an Anti-Kerry film (see article on this blog) preempting other programming.

Other mass efforts to put lies and distortions out a day or two before the election that cannot be refuted in time.

The raising of the terrorist alert in the days leading up to the election, to scare Kerry voters into not voting.

The sudden capture of Osama Bin Laden





Read More...

Webs of Illusion

The New York Times
October 11, 2004

Webs of Illusion
By BOB HERBERT

It's understood that incumbents campaigning for re-election will spotlight the good news and downplay the bad. The problem for President Bush, with the election just three weeks away, is that the bad news keeps cascading in and there is very little good news to tout.

So the president and his chief supporters have resorted to the odd tactic of claiming that the bad news is good.

The double talk reached a fever pitch last week after the release of two devastating reports - the comprehensive report by Charles Duelfer, the chief U.S. weapons inspector, which destroyed any remaining doubts that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction; and the Labor Department's dismal employment report for September, which heightened concerns about the strength of the economic recovery and left Mr. Bush with the dubious distinction of being the first president since Herbert Hoover to stand for re-election with fewer people working than at the beginning of his term.

Mr. Bush turned the findings of the Duelfer report upside down and inside out, telling crowds at campaign rallies that it proved Saddam Hussein had been "a gathering threat." It didn't matter that the report, ordered by the president himself, showed just the opposite. The truth would not have been helpful to the president. So with a brazenness and sleight of hand usually associated with three-card-monte players, he pulled a fast one on his cheering listeners.

Vice President Cheney had an equally peculiar response to the report, which said Iraq had destroyed its illicit weapons stockpiles in the early 1990's. Referring to the president's decision to launch the war, Mr. Cheney said, "To delay, defer, wait wasn't an option."

The September jobs report, released on the same day as Mr. Bush's second debate with Senator John Kerry, was deeply disappointing to the White House. Just 96,000 jobs were created, not even enough to keep up with the monthly expansion of the working-age population.

The somber findings forced the president's spin machine into overdrive. Reality, once again, was shoved aside. The administration's upbeat public response to the Labor Department report was described in The Times as follows: "The White House hailed it as evidence of continued employment expansion, saying that it validated Mr. Bush's strategy of pursuing tax cuts to support a recovery from the 2001 economic downturn."

In the president's parallel universe, things are always fine.

Mr. Bush sold his tax cuts as a mighty force for job creation. They weren't. The Times article that reported the sunny White House response to the disappointing job creation figures also said: "In September, an estimated 62.3 percent of the working-age population was employed, two full percentage points below the level at the beginning of the recession in March 2001. That difference represents over 4.5 million people without work."

Hyperbole is part of every politician's portfolio. But on the most serious matters facing the country, Mr. Bush's administration has often gone beyond hyperbole to deliberate misrepresentations that undermine the very idea of an informed electorate. If unpleasant realities are not acknowledged by the officials occupying the highest offices in the land, there is no chance that the full resources of the government and the people will be marshaled to meet those challenges.

The president continues to behave as if he's in denial about the war. Iraq remains a tragic mess and the electorate needs to know that.

In yesterday's Week in Review section, The Times's Dexter Filkins wrote movingly from Baghdad about the reporters trying to cover the war. There's been a relentless expansion, he said, of areas that reporters dare not venture into because they are too dangerous. Most European reporters have left the country, and there are far fewer Americans than just a few months ago.

Forty-six reporters have been killed and Mr. Filkins himself has been attacked by a mob, shot at and detained by the Mahdi Army.

If Mr. Bush has a plan to clean up the mess in Iraq, he should say so. If he has a strategy - besides more tax cuts - to bolster employment in the U.S., he should tell us. If he's in touch with the real world in which these and other very serious problems exist, he might consider letting us know.

Spinning gets old after a while. A president who spends too much time spinning webs of illusion can find himself trapped in them.

Read More...

Voting Our Conscience, Not Our Religion

The New York Times
October 11, 2004

Voting Our Conscience, Not Our Religion
By MARK W. ROCHE

South Bend, Ind. — For more than a century, from the wave of immigrants in the 19th century to the election of the first Catholic president in 1960, American Catholics overwhelmingly identified with the Democratic Party. In the past few decades, however, that allegiance has largely faded. Now Catholics are prototypical "swing voters": in 2000, they split almost evenly between Al Gore and George W. Bush, and recent polls show Mr. Bush ahead of Senator John Kerry, himself a Catholic, among white Catholics.

There are compelling reasons - cultural, socioeconomic and political - for this shift. But if Catholic voters honestly examine the issues of consequence in this election, they may find themselves returning to their Democratic roots in 2004.

The parties appeal to Catholics in different ways. The Republican Party opposes abortion and the destruction of embryos for stem-cell research, both positions in accord with Catholic doctrine. Also, Republican support of various faith-based initiatives, including school vouchers, tends to resonate with Catholic voters.

Members of the Democratic Party, meanwhile, are more likely to criticize the handling of the war in Iraq, to oppose capital punishment and to support universal heath care, environmental stewardship, a just welfare state and more equitable taxes. These stances are also in harmony with Catholic teachings, even if they may be less popular among individual Catholics.

When values come into conflict, it is useful to develop principles that help place those values in a hierarchy. One reasonable principle is that issues of life and death are more important than other issues. This seems to be the strategy of some Catholic and church leaders, who directly or indirectly support the Republican Party because of its unambiguous critique of abortion. Indeed, many Catholics seem to think that if they are truly religious, they must cast their ballots for Republicans.

This position has two problems. First, abortion is not the only life-and-death issue in this election. While the Republicans line up with the Catholic stance on abortion and stem-cell research, the Democrats are closer to the Catholic position on the death penalty, universal health care and environmental protection.

More important, given the most distinctive issue of the current election, Catholics who support President Bush must reckon with the Catholic doctrine of "just war." This doctrine stipulates that a war is just only if all possible alternative strategies have been pursued to their ultimate conclusion; the war is conducted in accordance with moral principles (for example, the avoidance of unnecessary civilian casualties and the treatment of prisoners with dignity); and the war leads to a more moral state of affairs than existed before it began. While Mr. Kerry, like many other Democrats, voted for the war, he has since objected to the way it was planned and waged.

Second, politics is the art of the possible. During the eight years of the Reagan presidency, the number of legal abortions increased by more than 5 percent; during the eight years of the Clinton presidency, the number dropped by 36 percent. The overall abortion rate (calculated as the number of abortions per 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44) was more or less stable during the Reagan years, but during the Clinton presidency it dropped by 11 percent.

There are many reasons for this shift. Yet surely the traditional Democratic concern with the social safety net makes it easier for pregnant women to make responsible decisions and for young life to flourish; among the most economically disadvantaged, abortion rates have always been and remain the highest. The world's lowest abortion rates are in Belgium and the Netherlands, where abortion is legal but where the welfare state is strong. Latin America, where almost all abortions are illegal, has one of the highest rates in the world.

None of this is to argue that abortion should be acceptable. History will judge our society's support of abortion in much the same way we view earlier generations' support of torture and slavery - it will be universally condemned. The moral condemnation of abortion, however, need not lead to the conclusion that criminal prosecution is the best way to limit the number of abortions. Those who view abortion as the most significant issue in this campaign may well want to supplement their abstract desire for moral rectitude with a more realistic focus on how best to ensure that fewer abortions take place.

In many ways, Catholic voters' growing political independence has led to a profusion of moral dilemmas: they often feel they must abandon one good for the sake of another. But while they may be dismayed at John Kerry's position on abortion and stem-cell research, they should be no less troubled by George W. Bush's stance on the death penalty, health care, the environment and just war. Given the recent history of higher rates of abortion with Republicans in the White House, along with the tradition of Democratic support of equitable taxes and greater integration into the world community, more Catholics may want to reaffirm their tradition of allegiance to the Democratic Party in 2004.

Mark W. Roche is dean of the College of Arts and Letters at the University of Notre Dame.

Read More...

Sinclair Broadcasting to force stations to air Anti-Kerry Film before election

UnfilteredRadio.com 10/11/04

Talking Point:

Just in case you were buried under a rock and missed the Swift Boat phenomena, Republican media moguls are making sure that every single swing voter sees at least one Vietnam veteran trashing John Kerry’s war record.

Two weeks before the election, Sinclair Broadcasting Group, the owner of the largest chain of television stations in the nations, has order sixty-two stations to air a documentary that accuses Kerry of betraying American prisoners during the Vietnam War.

The film, “Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Hear,” will preempt primetime programming in a number of swing states, including Ohio, Florida, Iowa and Wisconsin.

As predicted, Sinclair’s executives have contributed mightily to the Cheney campaign since 2000 and the filmmaker, Carlton Sherwood, is a former Bush administration official.

Let your voice be heard, especially if you live in a swing state -email Sinclair Broadcasting. Write to:

David D. Smith
President and Chief Executive Officer
E-mail: dsmith@sbgi.net

Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.
10706 Beaver Dam Road
Hunt Valley, Maryland 21030
410-568-1500 (Main Telephone)
410-568-1533 (Main Fax)

DISCUSSION POINTS (from MediaMatters.org):

SINCLAIR REFUSES TO AIR NIGHTLINE SPECIAL: On April 30th, ABC's "Nightline" will pay tribute to U.S. troops killed in Iraq by airing a 40 minute special – the names of the fallen will be read by anchor Ted Koppel as their photographs appear on screen. But Sinclair Broadcast Group – the country's largest owner of TV stations – will not allow its ABC affiliates to air the show. In a statement, Sinclair claims the special "appears to be motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq." While Sinclair claims it is pre-empting Nightline because it is an attempt to "influence public opinion," the record shows that Sinclair media has repeatedly leveraged its control over the airwaves to manipulate public opinion in favor of President Bush's right-wing agenda.

SINCLAIR REQUIRES JOURNALISTS TO READ PRO-BUSH STATEMENTS: In September 2001, Sinclair Broadcasting required its affiliates to air messages "conveying full support" for the Bush administration. At a Baltimore affiliate, WBFF "officials required news and sports anchors, even a weather forecaster, to read the messages, "which included statements such as "[the station] wants you to know that we stand 100% behind our President." Several WBFF staffers objected on the grounds that reading the statements would "erode their reputations as objective journalists" because it made them appear to be "endorsing specific government actions."

SINCLAIR REFUSES TO AIR AD HIGHLIGHTING 2003 BUSH ERROR: In July 2003, Sinclair Broadcasting refused to allow WMSN TV – its FOX affiliate in Madison, WI – to air a DNC advertisement that featured a clip of President Bush making the false claim "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" in his 2003 State of the Union Address. Three other Madison stations, including ABC, NBC and CBS, readily agreed to air the ad. The Madison CBS affiliate, WISC, said the advertisement was "no worse than any other political ad."

SINCLAIR PRODUCES CENTRALIZED RIGHT-WING CONTENT FOR 'LOCAL STATIONS': In a controversial business practice, Sinclair Broadcasting has fired much of the staff for the local affiliates it owns, instead producing content for its local stations from a central facility outside Baltimore which it then airs on "local" news broadcasts. The centralized content features nightly commentary by Sinclair corporate communications chief Mark Hyman. Hyman regularly refers to the French as "cheese-eating surrender monkeys," the so-called liberal media as the "hate-America crowd," and progressives as "the lonely left" On one recent commentary, Hyman called members of Congress who voted against a recent resolution affirming the righteousness of the Iraq war "unpatriotic politicians who hate our military." (Read more from American Progress about the problems of media consolidation at americanprogress.org .)

SINCLAIR AIRS FAKE NEWS BROADCASTS PRODUCED BY BUSH ADMINISTRATION: In March, it was discovered that the Bush Administration was producing "television news stories, written and paid for by the government, which have the appearance of legitimate news segments delivered by independent reporters," and distributing them to local newscasts as a way of promoting administration policies – including its ill-conceived Medicare prescription drug law. On the broadcasts, a public relations professional named Karen Ryan pretended to be a reporter. Among the stations which aired the administration propaganda as news: WPGH in Pittsburgh "the Sinclair Broadcasting station that fired much of its news staff in favor of feeds from a centralized newsroom in Baltimore."

SINCLAIR EXECUTIVES MAJOR BUSH CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS: Sinclair executives have contributed more than $16,500 to President Bush since 2000. This year, Sinclair CEO David Smith gave President Bush the maximum $2000 contribution. Before soft money contributions became illegal, Sinclair Broadcasting gave more than $130,000 to the president's political allies but no money to his opponents.

Read More...

Partisan Arguing and Fine Print Seen as Hindering Medicare Law

The New York Times
October 11, 2004

THE ISSUES
Partisan Arguing and Fine Print Seen as Hindering Medicare Law
By ROBERT PEAR and ROBIN TONER

WASHINGTON, Oct. 10 - When he signed it into law, President Bush hailed the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 as "the greatest advance in health care coverage for America's seniors since the founding of Medicare.'' The overhaul of the program, including the addition of prescription drug benefits, was seen as his biggest accomplishment in domestic policy and a major asset to his re-election campaign.

But over the last 10 months, the Bush administration's efforts to carry out the first phase of that law, providing drug discount cards to the elderly, have been plagued with difficulties. Many health policy experts say that even greater problems loom as the government turns to the more ambitious task of providing a full-fledged drug benefit to 41 million elderly and disabled people in 2006.

Administration officials and their allies say they are making good progress in getting a huge new program off the ground, arguing that the early stages of any undertaking this big are bound to have their difficulties. Mr. Bush, defending the program in Friday night's debate, noted that he had managed to deliver the drug benefit legislation when the Democrats - including Senator John Kerry, his Democratic challenger - could not.

"I've been in Washington, D.C., for three and a half years and led the Congress to reform Medicare so our seniors have got a modern health care system,'' Mr. Bush said. "That's what leadership is all about. ''

But the new Medicare program has two broad problems so far, some experts and advocates say. Its emphasis on private market forces and consumer choice, they say, has made it too complicated for many elderly beneficiaries. And from the beginning, when the legislation was muscled through the House by Republican leaders, the program has been at the center of a poisonous partisan debate that shows no sign of easing. The Medicare issue is expected to be a major part of Wednesday's final presidential debate, which will focus on domestic policy.

The struggle has been intensified in both parties by lingering bitterness over the cost estimates used to justify the law's passage. Weeks after it was passed, the White House cost estimate shot up by one-third, to $534 billion over 10 years. Compounding the problem, a government investigation later found that the top Medicare official, Thomas A. Scully, had intentionally withheld data from Congress indicating the higher costs.

Frustrated Republicans say that Democrats are largely responsible for negative views of the law, which they say have hampered efforts to carry it out. Surveys this year have shown that the legislation is unpopular and a source of deep confusion among many elderly people.

"Week after week, month after month, we have attack after attack,'' Senator Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican who is chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said last week. Republicans say that the drumbeat of Democratic criticism is scaring the elderly away from a benefit that could be immensely helpful, and that they expect will cover almost 50 percent of drug costs for the average beneficiary and 95 percent for low-income people in 2006.

Democrats counter that they are simply speaking out against a bad law, a giveaway to the big drug companies that was pushed through Congress on the basis of faulty cost estimates and arm-twisting so intense that it drew the scrutiny of the House ethics committee.

Mr. Kerry has called the law a "bill of goods'' that Mr. Bush is trying to sell to the American people while giving "a bag of goodies to his special interest friends.''

Democratic Congressional candidates are also hitting the issue hard. Geoffrey Garin, a Democratic pollster, said that "virtually every Democrat is running on the fact that this bill prohibits the government from negotiating with drug companies for lower prices.'' Conservatives opposed any direct role for the government in delivering the new drug benefit. As a result, the benefit will be managed by private companies, which are expected to negotiate substantial discounts.

Mr. Garin said that "Democrats are raising the Medicare bill against Republicans more often than Republicans are raising it as an accomplishment - by a factor of at least five to one.''

Republican strategists say their candidates are still better off than if their party - which controls the House, the Senate and the White House - had failed to produce the long-promised benefit.

David H. Winston, president of the Winston Group, a Republican polling firm, said: "The new Medicare law has given us a level of credibility to engage in the debate on health care in a fuller way than we've been able to do in previous election cycles. It's a relatively complicated law, and people are still forming their opinions of it.''

But some Republicans, and even a few Democrats, wonder how it is possible to give away a half-trillion dollars of prescription drugs and health care without getting much political credit.

In his standard stump speech, Mr. Bush devotes only two or three brief sentences to Medicare, leaving some Republicans to suggest that the White House has done a poor job of selling the new drug benefit. The president, they say, should consistently point out that under the law, 12 million low-income people will be able to get their drugs for no more than $5 a prescription.

But the start-up problems in the new Medicare program transcend the politics of a bitter campaign season.

Dr. Mark B. McClellan, administrator of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said the government had learned important lessons. "We have a much more experienced staff, and we learned how to get beneficiaries the information they need quickly and effectively,'' Dr. McClellan said.

AARP, the influential lobby for older Americans, which endorsed the Medicare law, said in publicly filed comments that one of the valuable lessons of the last 10 months was that "confusion naturally occurs when a new program or product is offered'' to the elderly.

Barbara H. Monty, director of the local Office on Aging in Knoxville, Tenn., said that "people are expressing a great deal of confusion and some frustration'' about the drug discount cards. "It seems to be complicated and difficult for them to decide how to proceed and what card is best,'' Ms. Monty said. "People know they can get information from a toll-free telephone number and on the Web, but when they do that, they are still left with questions.''

When the drug benefit begins in 2006, Ms. Monty said, "it's going to be even more complicated for people to figure out what to do.''

The cards, intended as a bridge to the drug benefit, offer savings of 20 percent or more. But many people have apparently found it difficult to choose among dozens of cards offering different discounts on different drugs.

Advocates for the elderly worry that beneficiaries will be even more confused when they try to compare private plans in 2006. Those plans can cover different drugs, with different co-payments, and each insurer can establish its own network of pharmacies.

Thomas M. Snedden, director of the state pharmaceutical assistance program for the elderly in Pennsylvania, said, "The experience of the last 10 months ought to give pause to anybody trying to bring up the benefit in 2006.'' Mr. Snedden, who has run the Pennsylvania program for 20 years under governors of both parties, added, "It's really important to keep things simple and not confuse people with too much choice.''

The Bush administration predicted that 7.3 million Medicare beneficiaries would sign up for drug discount cards this year. So far 4.5 million are enrolled, and more than half of them received cards automatically, without filing applications, because they are in health maintenance organizations.

The administration predicted that 4.7 million low-income people would get a credit of $600 a year to go with their discount cards in 2004 and 2005. So far 1.3 million people have qualified for such assistance, Dr. McClellan said.

Medicare officials predict that 41 million beneficiaries, or 95 percent of those eligible, will receive government-subsidized drug coverage in 2006. But the response to the law so far raises doubts about that estimate.

"I hope that the recent disappointing experience with the Medicare drug discount card does not portend seniors' response to the new drug benefit in 2006,'' said Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, who helped write the new law. "Montana seniors have reacted very coolly to the drug card.''

The nation's elderly could pay dearly if they delay signing up for the new drug benefit, as they have with the discount card. The drug benefit is voluntary, but the law imposes financial penalties, in the form of higher premiums, on people who postpone enrollment.

"The stakes are pretty high,'' said Patricia H. Neuman, director of Medicare policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. "Seniors are very much unaware of what's coming their way.''

Medicare officials trying diligently to carry out the law must cope with the rough legacy left by its passage.

The House ethics committee recently scolded Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the Republican leader, for offering a political favor to a Michigan lawmaker in an effort to win his support in an agonizing three-hour roll-call vote last November. The lawmaker, Nick Smith, a fiscally conservative Republican, said at the time that he feared the Medicare bill would "saddle our kids with a huge debt.''

The continuing partisan war over the new law contrasts with the situation when Medicare was created in 1965. Doctors who had opposed creation of the program worked with the government to carry it out.

"In a short time, the opposition, which had included the American Medical Association and many insurance companies, came together with us to make the law work,'' said Robert M. Ball, who, as commissioner of Social Security, was in charge of Medicare at the time. "It was a remarkable demonstration of American democracy.''

Democrats then had big majorities in the House and the Senate, compared with the Republicans' small margins today.

Read More...

Among Black Voters, a Fervor to Make Their Ballots Count

The New York Times
October 11, 2004


Among Black Voters, a Fervor to Make Their Ballots Count
By JIM DWYER

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. - Her bus was coming, but Charlotte Marshall had not yet finished talking about what mattered to her in the election. Social Security and health insurance, definitely. The Vietnam War, absolutely not. And she had still more to say.

The campaign for president has entered its final leg crackling with rare energy on the streets, in workplaces and in homes, perhaps with no greater vigor than among black Americans like Mrs. Marshall, who works for Stein Mart, a discount store.

It was nearly time for Mrs. Marshall to board, so she spoke quickly, definitively and passionately about the bleakness of Iraq. Finally, she turned to the voting process.

No matter whom she ends up choosing - maybe Senator John Kerry, said Mrs. Marshall, or perhaps President Bush, to untangle his Iraqi knot - she will work Election Day as a poll watcher. "What happened in 2000 got me into it," she said.

Like Mrs. Marshall, many African-Americans are speaking about the fundamental act of voting this year with rekindled fervor, throwing a high-wattage backlight behind the issues and personalities of the campaign. The disqualified ballots, excluded voters and contentious ending of the 2000 election - when black precincts in Florida had votes rejected at three times the rate of white precincts - have formed a galvanizing memory. "We feel betrayed," said Rod Owens, 22, a student at Florida A&M University in Tallahassee. "We're looking for revenge."

Mr. Owens, active in a young Democrats group on his campus, put the matter more bluntly than most, but the determination to vote and make it count appears to cross boundaries of age, class and geography. African-Americans, for four decades the most reliable reservoir of Democratic support in presidential elections, now are also part of a torrent of new voter registrations in swing states like Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio, and elsewhere.

[Aware of how essential black voters' turnout is for his campaign, Mr. Kerry attended services yesterday at two black churches in Florida. With the Revs. Jesse L. Jackson and Al Sharpton at his side, he told worshipers at his second stop, a Baptist church in Miami, that he had a team of lawyers, led by African-Americans, poised to respond to any charges of disenfranchisement. "We have an unfinished march in this nation," he said, invoking the civil rights struggle.]

Here in Jacksonville, as the Oct. 4 registration deadline approached, new voters in black neighborhoods were signing up at a pace two-thirds faster than in 2000. In Philadelphia, election officials report the greatest surge of registrations in 21 years, resulting in more than 70,000 new voters added to the rolls since April, with growth heaviest in African-American sections. In Ohio, new registrations in Democratic strongholds, many of them African-American areas, have increased 250 percent over 2000.

In interviews here in north Florida, in southwest Philadelphia and elsewhere, at bus stops, on porches, in sleek law offices, some two dozen African-American voters spoke about the broad band of issues that define their personal stakes in this campaign: the war in Iraq and what it means to a son or grandson in the military; the economy and how it shapes a bricklayer's week; the tax code and its effect on an independent businessman's prospects; and the seats of aging Supreme Court justices, watched warily by a generation of business executives, many of whom began their climb to prosperity in a society freshly opened by the federal bench.

"I have a son with the military, in a combat-ready unit," Mrs. Marshall said. "I'm scared to death every day. I'm disappointed about the Bush program. I was all for it when he said we were going to fight terror. But they know for a fact where that 9/11 attack originated, and it wasn't Iraq. If they had concentrated all that effort in Afghanistan, maybe by now they would have him, that other fool" - meaning Osama bin Laden.

The voters interviewed - habitual Democrats, for the most part - spoke about John Kerry with polite reserve, as if he were a distant cousin, more rumor, so far, than actual family relation. "I guess he's all right, but he's no Bill Clinton, downright homey-like," said Eddie West, a maintenance worker with the Salvation Army in Jacksonville.

Black voter participation has been increasing in recent presidential elections, and 57 percent of eligible black voters turned out in 2000, according to the Census Bureau. In 2000, Mr. Bush received one vote from African-Americans for every nine cast for Al Gore, the lowest share for any Republican since 1964, according to exit polls.

Both Mr. Bush and the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Ed Gillespie, have pledged to do better, and Republican officials are emphasizing home ownership and business opportunities before black audiences.

While both parties maintain they hope for a heavy vote from African-Americans, Democrats say history shows that would be to their benefit.

"We will equal the 2000 turnout or do better," said Bill Lynch, a deputy campaign manager for Mr. Kerry. "The community is not going to vote for George Bush in any real numbers. But we've got to get them excited about John Kerry."

Over the last 15 years or so, a rising black middle class has dispersed from cities into integrated suburbs, creating a demand for political messages that reflect the diverse circumstances of African-Americans.

During a town hall meeting with Mr. Kerry in Jacksonville last month, Robert and Anna Lee sat impassively in the rear, offering mild applause, not rising to join ovations. Even so, both Lees said they had no reluctance about supporting Mr. Kerry, who is seen by some as stiff and distant.

"Would I want to go have coffee with him?" Mr. Lee said, shrugging. "That kind of thing doesn't bother me. I'm just not satisfied where I see us going on the international scene."

The Lees moved to Florida from Michigan after Mr. Lee retired from the Internal Revenue Service. Mrs. Lee said she was astounded by Florida's problems in the 2000 election. "It seemed to have affected our people more," she said.

When Mr. Kerry took questions, the Rev. James Sampson, a Baptist minister, spoke of what many in his community perceived to be a feeble effort in north Florida by Mr. Gore's camp in the recount of 2000. About 27,000 votes were disqualified in Duval County, many from black neighborhoods in Jacksonville.

"Will you fight till every vote in Florida is counted?" Mr. Sampson asked.

"I will fight," Mr. Kerry said, "until the last dog dies." The crowd roared.

At a private gathering on Sept. 20 in midtown Manhattan with a small group of black executives and lawyers, Mr. Kerry heard discussion of "race and poverty, minority businesses, health care," said Gordon J. Davis, a partner with the law firm of LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae who once served as parks commissioner in the Koch administration. "The message was, these issues are very important to us, but we want you to win. We can debate those after you win.''

Mr. Davis continued: "The next two, three, four appointments to the Supreme Court will be made by the next president. The people in that room had the benefits of growing up in the civil rights revolution."

In southwest Philadelphia, Terrance Carter and Thomas Robinson, replacing a brick wall in a backyard, took a break to chat about the campaign. Both men said they had turned to construction work after they lost jobs - Mr. Carter with food service for the Department of Veterans Affairs, and Mr. Robinson with a pharmaceutical packing company.

Mr. Carter scoffed at assertions that Mr. Bush's tax cuts had spurred the economy. "Bush is a spoiled rich boy," he declared. "It's all about a lack of jobs. I don't see no growth; I don't see nothing to be stimulated."

An Army veteran, Mr. Carter said he saw the invasion of Iraq as tantamount to "strong-arming people" and said he thought Mr. Kerry would be able to persuade the United Nations to take on a bigger role in Iraq.

"You don't hear about bin Laden at all any more," Mr. Carter said. "Couple more weeks, near to the election, you'll hear about threats."

Mr. Robinson nodded, and said: "You hear code orange. Or code red."

"Make it up as you go along," Mr. Carter said. "As long as Bush is in office, everybody's a threat."

At his home on Hazel Avenue in Philadelphia, Larry Moore, a purchasing consultant, said that he was concerned about Iraq, the environment, the Supreme Court and the tax code but that Mr. Kerry's plans seemed vague. "Now that we're in Iraq, can Kerry do anything to get us where we need to be faster?" Mr. Moore asked.

On taxes, he said: "I think the code needs to be more equitable. But people should not be penalized for working hard or because they end up doing well."

Across Hazel Avenue, June Fike, who is retired from the Campbell Soup Company, spoke about the unsettled affairs in Iraq.

"If you look at the war news, it's just -- " She paused, shaking her head, searching her mind for the words to match her distress. "I get heart trouble from it. I got a grandson, 22, he had a birthday last week. He is in the National Guard. They said it was for home security, so he signed up, but they changed it. Now they got him down in Fort Hood, getting ready to ship him out."

Leon Williams, a friend who was listening to Mrs. Fike, confessed to a soft spot for the president.

"I like Kerry, but Bush, he ain't no bad guy," Mr. Williams said. "He just got us in a jam."

"Jam?" said Mrs. Fike. "That's what you call it, a jam? We got in something looks like we can't get out of."

Kimberlyn Short, a voting canvasser from America Coming Together, a group aligned with the Democrats, approached Mrs. Fike and learned that both her 89-year-old mother and 94-year-old father would be voting this year. When Ms. Short asked if she would need help getting them to the polls, Mrs. Fike gave a firm no. "You look after some others who don't have anyone," Mrs. Fike said. "I don't care if it snows six feet high, we're getting out of here to vote."

Read More...

Sunday, October 10, 2004


Read More...

Bush was better, but so was Kerry

The Boston Globe
THOMAS OLIPHANT

Bush was better, but so was Kerry

By Thomas Oliphant | October 10, 2004

ST. LOUIS THIS TIME President Bush paced aimlessly instead of staying seated, scowling and glaring. Much more important -- and no doubt the result of several fascinating meetings of his hard-pressed image-makers -- this time President Bush decided to yell and show his anger with big-time decibel levels.

The problem is that it was the same old President Bush running for reelection on a shaky platform of war and stagnation when most politicians believe that peace and prosperity are more effective. Last night, instead of going on the offensive to blunt John Kerry's recent surge, the president apparently decided to simply be offensive, even going to the extreme of interrupting moderator Charles Gibson.

In Round One down in Florida, Bush lost the encounter with John Kerry decisively. In Round Two the president was much better, but so was Kerry. If Bush flopped in Florida, Kerry had Mojo in Missouri. By now the country is used to the fact that the senator can speak clearly and in short enough bursts to fall within time limits. He turns out to be not the cartoon character the Bush campaign created but an effective advocate for himself.

With only one more encounter remaining, the debates are taking on another, more important dimension than the simplistic focus on first impressions and style points so dominant in the commentary after the first debate. Now that Americans are getting used to Bush and Kerry on the same stage, it is beginning to matter just as much how people think about the candidates' positions on specific issues -- and not just Iraq and the economy, by the way.

Classic examples occurred last night on embryonic stem cell research and mandatory parental notification where abortions for minors are involved.

Bush was extremely effective in explaining why he has restricted federal aid to research using existing cell lines: in order not to encourage the destruction of more embryos. Kerry was equally effective in noting the absurdity of the fact that vast numbers of embryos are currently frozen in fertility clinics; they will either stay frozen under Bush's policy or they will be discarded. Each presented his views forcefully, but the country overwhelmingly agrees with Kerry.

Similarly, Bush gave a strong, if patently demagogic, statement in support of the principle that parents should be notified if an abortion is about to be performed on their teenaged daughter. Kerry gave a pointed reply: that he would never require a 16-year-old girl to tell the father who raped her that she was going to get an abortion. It is quite possible that many people will still agree with Bush on this.

The president needed to change the political equation last night. He didn't.

Read More...

Outsourcing Bush's heart

The Boston Globe
ELLEN GOODMAN

Outsourcing Bush's heart

By Ellen Goodman | October 10, 2004

HOW COULD I have forgotten that George W. was a compassionate conservative? He chose the moniker of a kinder, gentler Republican four years ago to distinguish himself from Newt Gingrich's crowd. Newt's idea of compassion was building a chain of orphanages. This year, W. is running as commander in chief instead. It's only in attacking Kerry that the president reminded us petulantly: "He's a tax-and-spend liberal, and I'm a compassionate conservative." He sounded as if he were in a slugfest for the title of nice guy.

Never mind. Bush never really eliminated compassion from his political corporation. He just outsourced it. To Laura.

In 2004, Bush Inc. has split. George does the conservative; Laura does the compassion. He's running the muscular campaign. She's running the woman's auxiliary, reassuring voters that the president's biggest muscle is his heart. Talk about "hard work."

At the convention, Laura spoke of quiet nights at the dinner table: "He's a loving man with a big heart. I've seen tears as he has hugged families who've lost loved ones." In TV ads, she provided credibility as her husband talked about anguished parents on 9/11.

Every day in her stump speech, Laura describes Afghanistan as a women's lib success story rather than a very shaky work in progress. When the Democrats promote embryonic stem cell research, she chides them with "compassionate" criticism for raising false hopes. When asked about the constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage, the first lady wished away conflict by declaring that the proposal "opens up the debate."

If he's the divider, she's the appointed uniter.

George and Laura have always been something of a Mars and Venus couple. The hell-raiser and the librarian. He was rough around the edges, she smoothed them. He drank too much, she made him stop. A TV split screen can catch George looking impatient and arrogant, but Laura retains the unshakable ability to look serene.

I never liked Tina Brown's description of Laura Bush as Stepford wife. Stepford closed down a long time ago, and Laura never lived there. When she got to the White House, a reporter asked whether she viewed her role as Eleanor or Hillary, Bess or Mamie. She said, "I view my role as first lady as Laura Bush." Hear, hear to that.

There were hints that she was a wink-and-nod moderate. When asked about Roe v. Wade in 2001, she said, "No, I don't think it should be overturned." When asked about the in-vitro fertilization treatments that end up with leftover embryos, she said "that sounds all right with me."

After 9/11, this woman won the well-deserved title of "comforter in chief." She was composed and stricken and engaged. In one memorable speech she talked about prewar "self-indulgence" and wartime "goodness throughout the land."

I wondered then if she would be propelled into a larger public role and become one of the great first ladies. But it wasn't until the campaign took off that the wife whose job approval ratings overwhelm those of her husband went into full motion.

Every candidate's wife has an impossible role. Of all the women who have tried it this year -- from Judy Steinberg Dean to Teresa Heinz Kerry -- the most traditional is the least controversial. Part of the wifely tradition is "humanizing" the candidate as if he couldn't do it himself. In that way, Laura has become the fabric softener for George's flight suit.

On Wednesday, Mrs. Bush told an audience of Fortune 500 women about a kindergarten student who was asked to describe the first lady's responsibilities. "A little girl named Shelby wrote that I help the president with his paperwork and then I help him clean his office and I take care of him when he's sick and put cold cloths on his head." They all laughed politely at the things kids say.

But I wonder about the librarian who doesn't defend libraries against the Patriot Act. What about the woman who wouldn't overturn Roe in an administration that would? How can a woman who clearly cares about schoolchildren act as if there is No Child Left Behind? And what did she feel when one New Jersey mother who lost a son in Iraq, Sue Niederer, tried to confront her and ended up in handcuffs?

Only four out of 10 Americans believe that George W. Bush has governed compassionately. The woman who doesn't influence policy is brought in to influence image.

But it takes more than a first lady to cook up compassion in this White House.

Read More...

Permanent Job Proves An Elusive Dream

washingtonpost.com

Permanent Job Proves An Elusive Dream

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 11, 2004; Page A01

CYNTHIANA, Ky.

Phillip Hicks had loaded his rusting pickup and was heading to work one afternoon last year when his tearful daughter called from a pay phone. She had been pulled over for speeding, she told her father, and worse, she was driving with a suspended license. The police had impounded her car and left her by the side of a dusty highway.

To most workers at the sprawling Toyota plant where Hicks works, the detour to pick up his daughter would be a headache, no doubt. To Hicks, 40, it was considerably more. He called his employer to say he would be late for the swing shift. But since Hicks is a temporary worker, his daughter's brush with the law became a permanent blemish on an already shaky employment record. Temps are allowed only three days off a year, and Hicks was coming up against that.

"They told me I had an attendance problem," he sighed wearily, his soft mountain accent revealing his roots in coal country to the east.

Hicks is among the ranks of what economists call the "contingent" workforce, the vast and growing pool of workers tenuously employed in jobs that once were stable enough to support a family. In a single generation, "contingent employment arrangements" have begun to transform the world of work, not only for temp workers, but also for those in traditional jobs who are competing with a tier of employees receiving lower pay and few, if any, benefits.

The rise of that workforce has become another factor undermining the type of middle-wage jobs, paying about the national average of $17 per hour and carrying health and retirement benefits, that have kept the nation's middle-class standard of living so widely available.

Hicks has spent four years as a temp worker building cars for Toyota Motor Corp., making manifolds and dashboards for Camrys, Avalons and Solaras sold all over the United States. He works alongside full-fledged Toyota employees who earn twice his salary, plus health and retirement benefits.

When Toyota announced it would be coming to Georgetown, Ky., in 1985, it promised to invest $800 million in the community and employ thousands, with thousands more jobs coming through its suppliers. By 1997, the plant exceeded all expectations, with 7,689 full-time workers, a payroll over $470 million, and a ripple effect creating more than 34,000 other jobs in the Bluegrass state.

But by 2000, Toyota was carefully controlling any additions to the workforce. When Hicks left his family in Knott County, Ky., to seek work at the plant 140 miles away, the only door left open was through a temporary agency, Manpower Inc. At $12.60 an hour, the job would not even let him afford the $199-a-week health insurance premium for his family of five. But Hicks said Manpower assured him that after a year -- two at the outside -- he would be on Toyota's payroll, earning $24.20 an hour, with health insurance, a dental plan, retirement benefits, incentive pay, the works.

"I could stand on my head for a year or two for a $20-an-hour job with benefits," he shrugged.

The increasing use of temps "is part of the diminished and inferior wages and fringe benefits you see in all the new jobs that are becoming available," said William B. Gould IV, a labor law professor at Stanford University and former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board.

The government does not have up-to-date figures for the size of the entire contingent workforce, which includes temps, independent contractors, on-call workers and contract company workers. In 2001, the Labor Department classified 16.2 million people -- as much as 12.1 percent of the labor force -- as contingent workers.

It does track one slice of that workforce: temporary workers. Since January 2002, the nation added 369,000 temp positions, about half of the private-sector jobs created during that stretch. Temporary jobs accounted for one-third of the 96,000 jobs added to the economy in September. In 1982, there were 417,000 workers classified as temporary help. Today, there are more than 2.5 million, according to Labor Department data.

That is about equal to the number of manufacturing jobs lost in the past decade. Barrie Peterson, associate director of Seton Hall University's Institute on Work in South Orange, N.J., said that as many as half of those lost manufacturing positions may have been converted to temporary employment.

The change can be abrupt. At A&E Service Co., a small auto-parts assembler in Chicago, employees were told on July 15 that the firm "will no longer hold general labor employees on its payroll. All general labor employees that choose to work at A&E Service Company, LLC must be employed by Elite Staffing effective immediately." On the announcement, workers were asked to check a box accepting or declining the new temporary employment, then sign and date the form.

Temps no longer fit the stereotype of the secretary filling in for a day or two. Jobs categorized as precision production, repair, craftsmanship, operations, fabrications and labor now account for 30.7 percent of all temp jobs, nudging out clerical and administrative support, which represent 29.5 percent of the temporary army.

Peterson calls it "the perma-temping shell game," part of a broader effort by employers to convert sectors of their workforce to temps.

Satisfaction with the arrangement varies. About 83 percent of independent contractors in the Labor Department survey said they were satisfied. By contrast, about 44 percent of temps and 52 percent of contingent workers said they were not satisfied.

The impact of the temp trend on the American middle class can hardly be overstated. As the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago noted in a paper last year, temporary workers "receive much lower wages than permanent workers, although they frequently perform the same tasks as permanent staff members." An analysis by Harvard University economist Lawrence F. Katz and Princeton University economist Alan B. Krueger found that states with the highest concentration of temps experienced the lowest wage growth of the 1990s.

Toyota executives say they use temporary workers as a buffer, to insulate their full-time staff from the ups and downs of consumer demand. Since it opened in 1988, through two recessions, the Georgetown plant has never laid off an employee, said Daniel Sieger, manager of media relations for Toyota Motor Manufacturing in North America.

Even without layoffs, however, the plant's full-time staff has declined by 706 positions from the 7,787 employees it had in 2000, according to Toyota. Over that time, the temp workforce dipped from 409 in 2000 to 301 in 2002, then rose to 425 late this summer.

Toyota managers say they will try to hire all of their long-term temporaries by the end of the year or in early 2005, after they see how many Toyota workers accept an early retirement package. Forty-seven temps were hired in late September. The management move came after The Washington Post spent a week in Kentucky examining the temporary employment issue at the Georgetown plant. Before September's hires, it had been two years since the plant hired a full-time "team member," Toyota managers said, a period during which the plant shed 240 full-time positions. Temporary employment during that time rose by 124.

"Certainly the long-term temporary issue is one that we regret," said Pete Gritton, the plant's vice president of administration and human relations. "We never intended to have those people in here for four years or whatever as temporary."

Temporary employment is an increasingly important issue for unions. The expansive labor contract reached between the United Auto Workers and Ford Motor Co. in September 2003 includes six pages of rules governing the use of temps. Under the agreement, Ford can bring on a temporary worker for a maximum of 89 days, after which the worker must be hired or dismissed. Most temps can only work two days a week, as well as "premium" days such as holidays.

Just 62 miles west of the Toyota plant, the UAW made a stand at Ford's Kentucky Truck Plant, refusing even to countenance 89-day temps.

"It's a big, big deal," said Mike Stewart, the UAW's building chairman at the plant in Louisville. "Any time you get this kind of [compensation] divide, it just means less people making less money who can't afford your product. We will always keep temps to a minimum."

The use of temporary workers appears to be most pervasive in plants owned by foreign companies, which tend to locate in states where laws make union organizing difficult, said Susan N. Houseman, a researcher at the independent W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research in Kalamazoo, Mich. One Japanese auto parts plant estimated that a 5 percentage point reduction in the share of temps in the workforce would increase total labor costs by $1 million over a year, an Upjohn study found.

At BMW's auto plant near Greenville, S.C., about 175 temporary workers supplement a production workforce of 3,500, keeping the assembly line churning out Z-4 roadsters and X-5 sport utility vehicles for the U.S. and global market through lunch hour and break times, said Robert M. Hitt, a spokesman for BMW Manufacturing.

At Faurecia S.A., a BMW supplier in nearby Fountain Inn, S.C., about a third of the workers making door panels, consoles and dashboards for the Z-4 are temps, said Campbell Manning of Palmetto Staffing Group Inc., the temporary employment agency that staffs the French auto parts supplier.

"They don't hire permanent," she said. "After 90 working days, they used to roll onto the payroll. Now they just keep them as long-term temps."

Palmetto Staffing charges Faurecia a flat $12-an-hour for each of its temps. If Faurecia hired its own permanent workers, expenses for workers compensation insurance, unemployment insurance and other demands would add $4 to $5 onto a $9-an-hour wage. Benefits would add more.

Even the temps cannot argue with the logic of hiring a lower-cost workforce. "I don't really blame Toyota," said Roy Biddle, who went to work at the Georgetown plant at the same time Phil Hicks did, nearly four years ago, with similar assurances that he would land a full-time job after a year. "The law's the law, and they're just doing what they can do under the law."

To temper expectations, Toyota last year implemented a new policy capping temporary employment at two years. After that period, workers must leave, but can reapply in six months. If hired again, a worker starts at the entry wage of $12.60 an hour, compared with more than $14 per hour if they have been there for a few years.

About 160 long-term temporaries, like Biddle and Hicks, were grandfathered in and allowed to stay indefinitely.

Nancy Johnson, director of the Center for Labor Education and Research at the University of Kentucky, said that because of the new policy, temps now cycle from one plant to another, working at Toyota, then at nearby E.D. Bullard Co., making fire helmets, then perhaps at an auto parts supplier before heading back to Toyota.

At the Kentucky State Cabinet for Health and Family Services' community office in Georgetown, social workers say more Toyota temps are applying for state aid to cover food costs and medical bills.

"It's the traditional Japanese model that people talked about in the '80s," Johnson said. "Toyota never lays people off, sure, but the temps are absorbing the financial swings of all these companies, and they're doing it at a price."

Rick Hesterberg, a plant spokesman, noted that $12 to $14 an hour in central Kentucky compares favorably to wages even for some permanent jobs. "These people still make good money," he said of the temps. "It's nothing to snuff your nose at, at least in this part of the country."

But many Toyota temps say their problems go beyond money. Indeed, life seems always on the edge of disaster, where even rewards -- the small gift bag of cookie cutters or the "Star Performer" T-shirts that are given out to temps -- seem more like petty humiliations. In February, a Toyota temp posted an anonymous "discussion" paper in the assembly-line men's rooms, pleading "the 'E' word, 'E' for exploitation."

"There are temps at [Toyota] who have been here for 3 years, some approaching 4 years, many waiting for the permanent job offer," the essay reads. Toyota "is exploiting their patience, their economic status, their work ethic, their work contribution, their reliability, their health, their safety."

Chris, a graduate of Western Kentucky University, once interned at Toyota during college, doing computer-aided design and drafting. He spoke on condition that his last name would not be used. Even with a degree and an internship on his résumé, he, too, was steered to Manpower as the only door into Toyota. But unlike the other temps, he figured his temporary stint would quickly lead not just to the factory floor, but to the white-collar suites.

Now, after four years, he frets that his wife wants a second child but he's not sure how they'll pay for the insurance.

"These people are making extreme sacrifices, working second shift, no benefits, low pay," fumed Matt Roberts, 31, a full-time Toyota worker since 1997. "It's a disgrace to the American dream. That's what it is."

For years, the United Auto Workers has tried to unionize the Toyota plant, to no avail. Recently, the use of temps has become a major issue. For full-time workers, the temps present a quandary. On the one hand, the full-time workers may see the temps as Toyota does, a buffer protecting their jobs. The more low-paid workers there are at the plant, the more profitable the company will be, and the less likely to resort to layoffs, suggested David Cole, director of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich. A union might threaten that buffer by demanding that temps be brought on full-time or dismissed.

"The temps may help keep the union out," Cole said. "It's in the selfish, vested interest of the full-time workers to keep more temps."

But some Toyota workers do not see it that way. Several full-time employees said the growing presence of temps at the plant is holding back their wage gains, while limiting their movement in the plant. Some employees say they have been stuck working nights because any open day-shift positions are quickly filled by temps.

"If you break down, they've got a new guy waiting at the door," said Roberts, who with his wife, another Toyota worker, clears a six-figure income. "You're creating a tug of war. There's no protection for either side."

In Georgetown, the divisions can show up in strange, some say demoralizing, ways.

Toyota is famous for the "kaizen" -- continuous improvement -- checks that it pays to workers who come up with suggestions that save money. Earlier this year, Hicks and Chris helped devise a change that cut two jobs from their small quadrant of the assembly line. The change meant more work for everyone, but it was more efficient. Toyota rewarded the idea by sending out $500 checks to every member of the team, every full-time member, that is.

The two temps who came up with the suggestion got nothing. Their group leader did feel bad. He gave each of them a $25 gift certificate to the Toyota company store.

Then a full-time worker slipped them both $50.

"You guys got us this money," Chris recalled him saying. "Sorry I can't give you more."

Read More...

Nuclear Fiction

The New York Times
October 10, 2004

Nuclear Fiction
By MAUREEN DOWD

When W. debated Al Gore, it was the Insufficient versus the Insufferable.

When W. debated John Kerry, it was the Obfuscating versus the Oscillating.

We face a choice now between a president who rolled us on Iraq and a senator who got rolled by the president on Iraq.

George Bush is not giving an inch on Iraq. He's toughing out the cascade of confirmation and criticism from his own people about the hyperpower hyperbole that led to an unnecessary war and an unruly occupation. His advisers say it's better for the president to appear out of touch than apologetic. He'd rather seem delusional than deluded.

He can't admit what the Duelfer report says, that Saddam was no threat to the U.S. or any other country. The mushroom cloud was a Fig Newton of Dick Cheney's feverish imagination. That would mean W. didn't fix his father's screw-up, but he screwed up his father's fix. A big Oedipal oops.

After Bush 41's Persian Gulf war, Saddam devolved into the Norma Desmond of vicious dictators, shrinking but pretending to still be big, writing romance novels, trying to order liposuction machines, teeth-whitening material and hair transplant equipment, soaking up American culture like his favorite song, Frank Sinatra's "Strangers in the Night,'' and his favorite book, Ernest Hemingway's "The Old Man and the Sea."

The president may not have gotten his money's worth with the report of Charles Duelfer, the chief U.S. weapons inspector. After all, in a vain retroactive attempt to justify his hokum about W.M.D., he had 1,200 people working for 15 months - stretching our scarce supply of Arab linguists - to produce 918 pages at a cost of about a billion dollars just to find out that Saddam would have liked to have had weapons if he could have, but he couldn't, so he didn't.

But at least for his billion, the president got some earnest Introduction to American Literature analysis of the Iraqi dictator and his taste for some Western culture, noting that Saddam felt a kinship with Hemingway's protagonist Santiago, the poor Cuban fisherman (even though the rich Saddam liked to grenade-fish - toss a grenade in the water and then send in scuba divers to fetch the dead fish).

"Saddam's affinity for Hemingway's story is understandable, given the former president's background, rise to power, conception of himself and Hemingway's use of a rustic setting similar to Tikrit to express timeless themes," the report stated. "In Hemingway's story, Santiago hooks a great marlin, which drags his boat out to sea. When the marlin finally dies, Santiago fights a losing battle to defend his prize from sharks, which reduce the great fish, by the time he returns to his village, to a skeleton. The story sheds light on Saddam's view of the world and his place in it. ... to Saddam even a hollow victory was by his reckoning a real one."

Even though his own report stated that U.N. sanctions had worked to defang Saddam, Mr. Bush decided to stand firm on nonsense, insisting in the debate Friday night that "sanctions were not working. The United Nations was not effective at removing Saddam Hussein."

When a questioner named Linda asked the president to give three bum decisions he had made in office, Mr. Bush took a pass. Lincoln could admit mistakes. J.F.K. could admit mistakes. But W. thinks admitting mistakes is for powder puffs. Of his decision to invade Iraq, he said: "Sometimes in this world you make unpopular decisions because you think they're right." Or you stick to them even after you know they're wrong.

The president's living in a dream world. He kept insisting that 75 percent of Al Qaeda has been "brought to justice," even though such a statistic is misleading, since counterterrorism experts say that the invasion of Iraq was a recruiting boon for Osama and that Al Qaeda has metastasized and spawned other terrorist groups.

Mr. Bush tried to pretend the devastating Duelfer report backed him up, noting after the report came out that Saddam "retained the knowledge, the materials, the means and the intent to produce weapons of mass destruction and could have passed this knowledge to our terrorist enemies."

W. should have followed his father's policy on hypotheticals. As Poppy Bush would say, when someone asked him to be speculative: "If a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump its tail on the ground."

Read More...

The Faith-Based Missile Shield

The New York Times
October 10, 2004

The Faith-Based Missile Shield

The Bush administration's exorbitantly wasteful missile defense system is about to be formally activated, just in time for its immediate bull's-eye: Election Day. Despite widespread technological doubts, President Bush promised in 2000 to have a missile shield in place this November. So, even though the $130 billion spent so far has yet to produce anything like a battle-ready system, the Pentagon plans to pronounce it active this month at a half dozen new missile silos on the West Coast.

This wisp of the old Star Wars fever dream is bedeviled by missing components and unproven premises. The Pentagon has suspended normal accountability standards in favor of what military proponents euphemistically term "evolutionary acquisition." This means spend and build now, and attempt credible tests when and if all the parts finally arrive. Even a Pentagon analysis called it a "case study" against rushing forward on faith.

Development delays have plagued the project's vital parts, from booster rockets to radar installations and satellite systems. Skimpy tests, which had to be interrupted two years ago, were ludicrously scripted. Dozens of retired generals and admirals urged the White House earlier this year to shelve the hollow start-up plan and spend the money more wisely on bolstering borders, ports and other inviting targets for low-tech terrorists.

"They'd still be testing at Kitty Hawk, for God's sake, if you wanted perfection," groused Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in precisely the take-it-or-leave-it tone that saps the project's credibility. There is no disputing the idea that North Korea or some other rogue nation might someday present a nuclear missile threat. But creating a real shield is far different from proclaiming a fantasy one.

Read More...

How to Rescue Education Reform

The New York Times
October 10, 2004

CAMPAIGN 2004: THE BIG ISSUES
How to Rescue Education Reform

Americans are generally stunned to learn that their schools perform poorly and have been losing ground when compared to those of industrialized nations abroad. This country once led the world in high school graduation rates, but it has dropped to 14th, well behind nations like France, Germany and Japan. We have tumbled even further when it comes to student achievement in reading, math and science. At a time when a college degree is the price of admission to the new economy, the college-going rate has flattened over all and appears to be dropping among the poor.

Most of the nations that are passing us by educationally have a national commitment to strong curriculums and intensive oversight of teacher training and educational progress. The United States employs a radically decentralized system under which the states do as they choose. The result is a wildly uneven system littered with educational dead zones.

Congress responded over the last 10 years with a series of laws that required the states to raise standards and student performance in exchange for the more than $50 billion in annual federal education money. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1994 set the reform in motion, but the states have largely ignored these laws, abetted by waivers from the Department of Education. Desperate for change, Congress responded to President Bush's call and passed the No Child Left Behind Act, which required the states to provide regular testing and highly qualified teachers. The goal is to wipe out the achievement gap between rich and poor children by the school year of 2013.

The states have adopted regular testing and have, to some degree, been pressured to focus on poor, minority and disabled children who were once shunted aside and even excluded from testing regimes. Test scores have begun to rise and the achievement gap has narrowed noticeably in several states. The administration deserves considerable credit for pushing the law through Congress.

But it undermined the measure when it saddled the states with new responsibilities and shortchanged them by $6 billion - or about 30 percent of what Congress approved. And the Department of Education has focused on divisive, politicized issues like school prayer while failing to provide state and local authorities with the oversight and technical help they need to get their accountability systems up and running and to comply fully with the law.

Parents and community leaders who had wanted the presidential candidates to steer a course out of this mess have been gravely disappointed. President Bush brags about No Child Left Behind, but characteristically refuses to acknowledge any problems. Senator John Kerry is critical about the way the law has been implemented - a crowd pleaser with the many teachers who take part in his town hall meetings. He promises better funding but could be more emphatic about compliance.

Meanwhile, the debate has burned on without them. The emerging consensus is that the Department of Education, the most politicized department in recent memory under Secretary Rod Paige, may be structurally incapable of providing the oversight and technical assistance needed for the most important school reform in a century to actually succeed.

Part of the problem is the lingering presumption that public schooling is largely "a local matter'' - even when states contravene the national interest by doing a horrendous job. Beyond that, however, the department lacks the resources to help the states create the complicated, data-driven systems they need to achieve true accountability. At bottom, the department seems unable or unwilling to point out shoddy education plans and plainly tainted data when it sees them.

This is borne out in a new report from the Government Accountability Office, excoriating the department's handling of the No Child Left Behind compliance process. The G.A.O. said the department had approved some state plans even when they were piecemeal and lacked such basic things as a method for calculating graduation rates. It said that as of last July, 23 states and the District of Columbia had not received full approval for their plans. The department's performance did not satisfy the requirements laid out in the law, despite administration claims that all was proceeding well.

As incredible as it sounds, the G.A.O. found that the Department of Education had failed to provide written, state-specific instructions that made it clear how states could win full approval of their plans. This laissez-faire approach has characterized Mr. Paige's operation from the start of the effort. The department has blithely accepted bogus graduation rates and unrealistic progress schedules, and simply rolled over for plans that depict teacher preparation as just fine - when the whole country knows that the teacher corps, especially in poor areas, is riddled with unqualified and inexperienced people. This is enough to sink the reform by itself.

Despite its difficulties, the No Child Left Behind Act is potentially the most important education reform since the nation embraced mandatory schooling. The Bush administration nearly capsized the law when it gave the cash-short states new educational burdens without providing the money it had promised. But the recent revelations about the Department of Education offered by the G.A.O. and other, nongovernment critics reveal an equally serious problem: The government agency in charge of the most important education reform in 100 years lacks the capacity, courage and leadership to do its job.

Congress can stand idly by and wait for the reform effort to collapse, or it can provide the states with the money it promised and build the capacity and authority that the Education Department needs to further reform. The clock is ticking and time is short.

Read More...

Bush's Pivotal Decision: I Haven't Made a Mistake

The New York Times
October 10, 2004

Bush's Pivotal Decision: I Haven't Made a Mistake
By DAVID E. SANGER

ST. LOUIS — Until sometime early in the summer, President Bush and his advisers sporadically wrestled with a fundamental choice: Was it smarter to go into the final months of the election campaign confessing to considerable error in decisions leading up to the invasion of Iraq, and in early calculations about how best to occupy the country? Or would the president - "not a man given to backward-looking introspection," as one close aide put it - be better off conceding only the smallest errors of judgment, and focusing the electorate on the hope of a bright future for Iraq and the whole Middle East?

Mr. Bush chose the second option. To choose otherwise, one of Mr. Bush's advisers said the other day, would be "to give John Kerry the opening he was waiting for."

But now, in the final 23 days of the campaign, that decision has come to look far riskier than it did in the flush of handing Iraq back to Iraqis. Win or lose, when the history of the 2004 Bush campaign is written, it may turn out that the bet about how to talk about the war will prove pivotal. Mr. Bush held his bet through the presidential debate Friday, declining a questioner's invitation to describe any mistake he had made.

The bet was a mix of political and military calculation, of Mr. Bush's own temperament, and of what proved to be an overly optimistic projection of what Iraq would look like in early October.

By Friday, aides at the White House were talking about the decision in the way Silicon Valley engineers talk about a piece of technology that didn't roll out as planned.

"It's been a really, really bad week," a senior White House official conceded after three successive days in which the news seemed to be eroding the sand under some of the president's justifications for the war, and his explanations of its aftermath.

It started with a concession by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who said at the Council on Foreign Relations that he was never convinced by the evidence that Saddam Hussein had deep ties to Al Qaeda.

That day, the former head of the coalition authority, L. Paul Bremer III, thinking he was speaking off the record, insisted that he had long thought that America needed more troops early in the occupation to prevent lawlessness. Outraged, White House officials denounced him in background conversations with reporters. And by week's end, Mr. Bremer was backing and filling.

"The press and critics of the war have seized on these remarks in an effort to undermine President Bush's Iraq policy," he wrote in a New York Times Op-Ed article. "This effort won't succeed."

But by the time Mr. Bremer's explanation appeared, Mr. Bush was dealing with a 918-page report of the C.I.A.'s top weapons inspector, Charles A. Duelfer, who had been chosen by the White House. His conclusion: that Saddam Hussein had no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and his capability to produce them, or wage war, had seriously weakened since 1991. Or, as Mr. Duelfer's predecessor as weapons inspector, David Kay, put it on NBC's "Today," Saddam Hussein "had a lot of intent; he didn't have capabilities. Intent without capabilities is not an imminent threat."

Yet Vice President Dick Cheney looked at the same report and came to the opposite conclusion. "To delay, defer, wait wasn't an option," he insisted Thursday. "The president did exactly the right thing."

In June, just before reluctantly appointing a commission to investigate what had gone wrong with the intelligence about Mr. Hussein's weaponry, Mr. Bush chose not to issue a mea culpa of his own. "We discussed it, but no one could quite figure out the words," a senior adviser said. "How do you do that, without seeming to undercut the troops who are out there every day? Do you say, 'if we had known he had no stockpiles, we wouldn't have invaded?' I don't think so, and it's not something that the president believes."

The closest Mr. Bush came to conceding having made any mistake was when he used the word "miscalculation" in an interview with The New York Times in late August. But even then, he said he was referring only to having misjudged the speed with which Iraqi forces would collapse, which he said allowed Mr. Hussein's sympathizers to melt into cities and towns and fight another day.

Back in June, it also looked as if the situation in Iraq would look better by autumn. The Iraqis would be racing toward elections, the calculation went, and the American military forces, in support of a new Iraqi force, would be coming up with plans to root out the insurgency. In fact, White House officials say, in the first days of July they were hoping to issue new orders to American troops that would eliminate all-American patrols on the streets, thus significantly reducing casualties and making it clear that Iraqis were providing their own security.

"It never happened," one senior official said, "because the Iraqis were not ready."

The American military may be getting ready for such measures now, but perhaps not in time for Election Day. Rather, American casualties have risen every month since early summer, a fact that softened the political ground for the new questions about how prepared Mr. Bush was for the realities of Iraq. And that ended up obscuring, at least for the moment, Mr. Bush's punch line that "Senator Kerry has a strategy for retreat, and I have a strategy for victory."

Mr. Bush's decision to hang tough has echoes of the strategy used by another president from Texas. In the 1968 campaign, Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey began edging back from the Johnson Administration's plan to admit no fault with its policy in Vietnam. He got an angry call from his boss, who threatened to "dry up every Democratic dollar from Maine to California."

"In retirement, Johnson insisted to friends that it was Humphrey's speech at Salt Lake City that lost him the election," said Michael Beschloss, the presidential historian, "because it conceded that the administration that Humphrey was a part of may have been wrong."

"There weren't many others who agreed with Johnson," Mr. Beschloss notes.

Now, the 2004 election may hinge on how many Americans agree with Mr. Bush's take on the history of the past two years.

Read More...