In the Oh, really? How very interesting files:
"In a filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday, the oil services company [Halliburton] said that the Justice Department expanded its investigation into Halliburton, that government probes have found that bribes may have been made in Nigeria and that A. Jack Stanley, a former senior executive, may have been involved. "
And you don't say?
"[T]he FBI expanded a probe into charges of contract irregularities by Halliburton in Iraq and Kuwait. Lawyers for a Pentagon official said the FBI requested an interview with her over her complaints that the Army gave a Halliburton unit preferential treatment when granting it a $7 billion contract to restore Iraq's oil fields. "
And more...
"The Justice Department's Public Integrity Section is examining whether Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, when he served in the Senate, violated criminal campaign funding laws or federal disclosure laws relating to the transfer of a mailing list to his campaign committee. "
Oh, I'm not done:
"Also proceeding is special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's probe into the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's employment to columnist Robert D. Novak. Novak said his sources were two senior administration officials."
(All quotes stolen straight from Dana Millbank's White House Notebook.)
11.09.2004
Did I just read this?
"African Americans continued to marginalize themselves, again voting nearly unanimously (88 percent) for the Democratic nominee."
Yes. Yes, I did. And I read it here.
(Alright, so it is George Will, but still--wow.)
"African Americans continued to marginalize themselves, again voting nearly unanimously (88 percent) for the Democratic nominee."
Yes. Yes, I did. And I read it here.
(Alright, so it is George Will, but still--wow.)
Apparently, the leaders of the left are experiencing "waves of angst."
This guy is, at least:
"'I think we have come to an ending point in a long transition that began in 1968,' said Donald L. Fowler, a former national chairman of the party. 'During that time, the old Roosevelt Democratic majority coalition has creaked and cracked away under various kinds of racial, religious, social and international forces, and this election was the end point in that transition. I think we live in a country that is majority Republican now.'"
I don't think this country is majority Republican. I think this country is really dominated by people who don't much care one way or the other, and really just want their own lives to be better. They'll vote for whoever they think will accomplish that for them, if they vote at all. Think about it: just barely 60 per cent of voters was a "record turn out." The way you do better than that is to engage all those people who don't give a shit about politics at all, and make them realize that it can, and will, effect their daily lives. I think we've started that monumental project, but it's going to take time. And all these freaked out lefties need to stop wringing their hands, and keep working.
This guy is, at least:
"'I think we have come to an ending point in a long transition that began in 1968,' said Donald L. Fowler, a former national chairman of the party. 'During that time, the old Roosevelt Democratic majority coalition has creaked and cracked away under various kinds of racial, religious, social and international forces, and this election was the end point in that transition. I think we live in a country that is majority Republican now.'"
I don't think this country is majority Republican. I think this country is really dominated by people who don't much care one way or the other, and really just want their own lives to be better. They'll vote for whoever they think will accomplish that for them, if they vote at all. Think about it: just barely 60 per cent of voters was a "record turn out." The way you do better than that is to engage all those people who don't give a shit about politics at all, and make them realize that it can, and will, effect their daily lives. I think we've started that monumental project, but it's going to take time. And all these freaked out lefties need to stop wringing their hands, and keep working.
I was hoping Kerry would keep himself visible and take on a stronger role in the Senate after this election, and it sounds like he's hoping to do so, too. Pete Wallsten writes about Kerry's future, and the future of the DNC, here. This is particularly refreshing, after all the "Kerry failed us" talk I'm getting so sick of hearing:
"'There's a tradition,' [Robert] Farmer said. 'Nixon ran and lost and then won, Reagan ran and lost, then won. In this case, you'll have to look at the field and say to yourself, 'Could another candidate have won states that John Kerry didn't win?' And my sense is that I don't think anybody could have done much better than John Kerry did.'"
"'There's a tradition,' [Robert] Farmer said. 'Nixon ran and lost and then won, Reagan ran and lost, then won. In this case, you'll have to look at the field and say to yourself, 'Could another candidate have won states that John Kerry didn't win?' And my sense is that I don't think anybody could have done much better than John Kerry did.'"
I have avoided saying anything thus far post-election, mostly because my rage and frustration were so blinding, nothing coherent or meaningful could come out. But here we are, a week later, and I think I'm finally calm enough to put my thoughts (of which there are too many) into some kind of intelligible form.
The only question I've been able to ask myself, like some kind of malfunctioning Stepford-robot, for the past week is, how did this happen? How is it at all possible that this man, rather than being impeached, was re-elected? What colossal failures, and on whose watch, occured to allow Bush & Co. another term in office?
And, of course, as everyone is asking (in more or less irritating and nauseating ways), where do we go from here? There has been much chattering about the "confusion" of the Democratic party, like we're all running around in circles, with dazed looks on our faces, bumping into walls and knocking each other over. The prevalent image of the Democratic party now is one of struggle and (very polite) infighting, as we bicker over what direction the party should take, and how we go about reclaiming the "red states." (Some people have other ideas about what to do with those red states--I don't think they're entirely wrong).
There are two huge thoughts that have been taking up most of my mental space, two things that we need to take a very close look at, and bring into a brighter spotlight nationally. (Well, there are certainly more than two, overall, but I'm starting small.) First, and foremost in my mind right now (blame Noam Chomsky) is the role of the media in our national politics.
Bob Herbert, in the New York Times yesterday, argued that "ignorance played at least as big a role in the election's outcome as values." I can't argue with that, and I've been saying it for months. Herbert points out all the completely untrue things that Bush supporters believed as they cast their ballots last week: that Iraq is definitively connected to Al Qaeda, that weapons of mass destruction certainly were found in Iraq, that Bush is not, in fact, a big, fat, evil lying man. (Er, alright, that last part wasn't actually in Herbert's column.) The American people have been hugely mislead, and many have not been set straight.
Of course we can blame Bush & Co. for that. They based their campaign on distortions and lies, and have made it a signature element of their administration to ignore facts they'd rather were not true. But there is something else we can blame, as well, and I was a bit perturbed that Herbert didn't mention it in his column.
The mainstream media have fallen down on the job. Their role as government watchdog is a freakin' joke. Of course, this is really nothing new, but I think perhaps their complicity with government has reached new heights (or would that be depths?) of ridiculousness. I could string together a very dirty laundry list of various media omissions, biases, propaganda-machine moments, and outright lies. It is a filthy and corrupted institution in need of serious surgery. That would be step one.
And major-topic-I'm-obsessing-over number two? What the hell are "morals" anymore, anyway? If Bush & Co. could win another term thanks to all those people who cited "moral issues" as their main concern in this election, the very idea of morality is seriously up for debate. And I think it damn well should be. I think it's time for the Democratic party, and the left generally, to pick up this ball and run with it. If the right wants morality to be a pillar of electoral strategy, that isn't a problem. Because if you look closely, beyond the rhetoric and the push-button "moral" issues that have been dominating this field for the past decade, if you start thinking about real morality, there's no question who stands up to criticism here. I'm sorry, but fig fat liars who send people to die in a war meant to benefit themselves and their business partners simply do not meet my criteria for morality.
There are many, many things I've been pondering for this past week. But they all tend to center around these two poles, gravitating back and making me realize the same things, over and over. And these are the things I will continue to talk about, and much more loudly than I have been. Because we cannot let this happen again. And I'll be damned if I let them run around freely with their "mandate."
The only question I've been able to ask myself, like some kind of malfunctioning Stepford-robot, for the past week is, how did this happen? How is it at all possible that this man, rather than being impeached, was re-elected? What colossal failures, and on whose watch, occured to allow Bush & Co. another term in office?
And, of course, as everyone is asking (in more or less irritating and nauseating ways), where do we go from here? There has been much chattering about the "confusion" of the Democratic party, like we're all running around in circles, with dazed looks on our faces, bumping into walls and knocking each other over. The prevalent image of the Democratic party now is one of struggle and (very polite) infighting, as we bicker over what direction the party should take, and how we go about reclaiming the "red states." (Some people have other ideas about what to do with those red states--I don't think they're entirely wrong).
There are two huge thoughts that have been taking up most of my mental space, two things that we need to take a very close look at, and bring into a brighter spotlight nationally. (Well, there are certainly more than two, overall, but I'm starting small.) First, and foremost in my mind right now (blame Noam Chomsky) is the role of the media in our national politics.
Bob Herbert, in the New York Times yesterday, argued that "ignorance played at least as big a role in the election's outcome as values." I can't argue with that, and I've been saying it for months. Herbert points out all the completely untrue things that Bush supporters believed as they cast their ballots last week: that Iraq is definitively connected to Al Qaeda, that weapons of mass destruction certainly were found in Iraq, that Bush is not, in fact, a big, fat, evil lying man. (Er, alright, that last part wasn't actually in Herbert's column.) The American people have been hugely mislead, and many have not been set straight.
Of course we can blame Bush & Co. for that. They based their campaign on distortions and lies, and have made it a signature element of their administration to ignore facts they'd rather were not true. But there is something else we can blame, as well, and I was a bit perturbed that Herbert didn't mention it in his column.
The mainstream media have fallen down on the job. Their role as government watchdog is a freakin' joke. Of course, this is really nothing new, but I think perhaps their complicity with government has reached new heights (or would that be depths?) of ridiculousness. I could string together a very dirty laundry list of various media omissions, biases, propaganda-machine moments, and outright lies. It is a filthy and corrupted institution in need of serious surgery. That would be step one.
And major-topic-I'm-obsessing-over number two? What the hell are "morals" anymore, anyway? If Bush & Co. could win another term thanks to all those people who cited "moral issues" as their main concern in this election, the very idea of morality is seriously up for debate. And I think it damn well should be. I think it's time for the Democratic party, and the left generally, to pick up this ball and run with it. If the right wants morality to be a pillar of electoral strategy, that isn't a problem. Because if you look closely, beyond the rhetoric and the push-button "moral" issues that have been dominating this field for the past decade, if you start thinking about real morality, there's no question who stands up to criticism here. I'm sorry, but fig fat liars who send people to die in a war meant to benefit themselves and their business partners simply do not meet my criteria for morality.
There are many, many things I've been pondering for this past week. But they all tend to center around these two poles, gravitating back and making me realize the same things, over and over. And these are the things I will continue to talk about, and much more loudly than I have been. Because we cannot let this happen again. And I'll be damned if I let them run around freely with their "mandate."
11.03.2004
10.28.2004
Wanna know what Bush has given his corporate backers? This Public Citizen report (available at the excellent misleader.org site) will tell you.
From Maureen Dowd:
"President Bush is like one of the blissfully ignorant teenagers in "Friday the 13th'' movies, spouting slogans like "Freedom is on the march'' while Freddy Krueger is in the closet, ready to claw his skin off."
We should be so lucky.
"President Bush is like one of the blissfully ignorant teenagers in "Friday the 13th'' movies, spouting slogans like "Freedom is on the march'' while Freddy Krueger is in the closet, ready to claw his skin off."
We should be so lucky.
I've never loved Tom Friedman, but I like this. Specifically, this:
"How do we begin to repair this jagged hole [the lack of a moderate center in politics]? There is no cure-all, but three big things would help. One is a different U.S. approach to the world. The Bush-Cheney team bears a big responsibility for this hole because it nakedly exploited 9/11 to push a far-right Republican agenda, domestically and globally, for which it had no mandate. When U.S. policy makes such a profound lurch to the right, when we start exporting fear instead of hope, the whole center of gravity of the world is affected. Countries reposition themselves in relation to us.
...When the world liked Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, America had more power in the world. When much of the world detests George Bush, America has less power. People do not want to be seen standing next to us. It doesn't mean we should run our foreign policy as a popularity contest, but it does mean that leading is not just about making decisions - it's also the ability to communicate, follow through and persuade."
Now that baseball is over, I can get back to obsessing about the election.
"How do we begin to repair this jagged hole [the lack of a moderate center in politics]? There is no cure-all, but three big things would help. One is a different U.S. approach to the world. The Bush-Cheney team bears a big responsibility for this hole because it nakedly exploited 9/11 to push a far-right Republican agenda, domestically and globally, for which it had no mandate. When U.S. policy makes such a profound lurch to the right, when we start exporting fear instead of hope, the whole center of gravity of the world is affected. Countries reposition themselves in relation to us.
...When the world liked Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, America had more power in the world. When much of the world detests George Bush, America has less power. People do not want to be seen standing next to us. It doesn't mean we should run our foreign policy as a popularity contest, but it does mean that leading is not just about making decisions - it's also the ability to communicate, follow through and persuade."
Now that baseball is over, I can get back to obsessing about the election.
10.07.2004
"The number of flipflops and missteps committed by the Bush administration in Iraq far exceeds anything John Kerry can be accused of. First we dissolved the Iraqi army, then we tried to reconstitute it. First we tried to eliminate the Baathists, then we turned to them for help. First we installed General Jay Garner to run the country, then we gave it to Paul Bremer and when the insurgency became intractable, we installed an Iraqi government. The man we chose was a protégé of the CIA with the reputation of a strong man - a far cry from democracy. First we attacked Falluja over the objections of the Marine commander on the ground, then pulled them out when the assault was half-way through, again over his objections. "Once you commit, you got to stay committed," he said publicly. More recently, we started bombing Falluja again. " - George Soros
(I think it's freakin' hilarious that Cheney inadvertently directed people to Soros's website during the debate.)
(I think it's freakin' hilarious that Cheney inadvertently directed people to Soros's website during the debate.)
Saying it does not make it so. The Bush administration can continue to claim it was necessary and right to go to Iraq, but they are liars. Bush says, "He retained the knowledge, the materials, the means and the intent to produce weapons of mass destruction." This is blatantly untrue. It is exactly the opposite of what Duelfer's reports said, which is that Iraq no longer had the knowledge, materials, means, or, really, intent to produce weapons of mass destruction.
Why can't I get away with that?
Why can't I get away with that?
What a surprise!
More in fundamental, ideological differences between me and the Bush administration:
Tax cuts for big businesses don't automatically equal new (well-paying) jobs. Sometimes they only equal bigger paychecks for CEOs. Capitalism isn't an inherently moral economic system. I don't think I really need to give proof of this. Making America a "good place to do business" doesn't necessarily make America a good place to work.
Wasn't the trickle-down theory already proved a failure?
More in fundamental, ideological differences between me and the Bush administration:
Tax cuts for big businesses don't automatically equal new (well-paying) jobs. Sometimes they only equal bigger paychecks for CEOs. Capitalism isn't an inherently moral economic system. I don't think I really need to give proof of this. Making America a "good place to do business" doesn't necessarily make America a good place to work.
Wasn't the trickle-down theory already proved a failure?
Liars.
Sanctions were working. The UN was doing its job just fine.
Why did we really go to war in Iraq, Mr. President?
Sanctions were working. The UN was doing its job just fine.
Why did we really go to war in Iraq, Mr. President?
10.05.2004
More in TWPWEH files:
There is increasing evidence that Bush's No Child Properly Educated, ahem, I'm sorry, I mean No Child Left Behind education initiative is a monumental failure. Here's more, pointing out that testing data is insufficient in most states, and that little to no guidance was ever given for implementing these plans. Yay!
Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose dedicate a chapter of Bushwhacked to the educational failures in Texas under Bush's "leadership," including (and most damning, in my opinion) the method of encouraging students to drop out in order to raise test scores. It reminds me a little of "Pump Up the Volume." Is that terrible? The point is Bush took a bunch of bad policies and made them national. Brilliant.
Testing is not educating.
There is increasing evidence that Bush's No Child Properly Educated, ahem, I'm sorry, I mean No Child Left Behind education initiative is a monumental failure. Here's more, pointing out that testing data is insufficient in most states, and that little to no guidance was ever given for implementing these plans. Yay!
Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose dedicate a chapter of Bushwhacked to the educational failures in Texas under Bush's "leadership," including (and most damning, in my opinion) the method of encouraging students to drop out in order to raise test scores. It reminds me a little of "Pump Up the Volume." Is that terrible? The point is Bush took a bunch of bad policies and made them national. Brilliant.
Testing is not educating.
"Panders to voters."
An interesting to phrase to apply to a presidential candidate, or anyone running for public office in a representational democracy. How does someone whose job it is to represent voters "pander" to them? He is SUPPOSED to do what they want. That's his job. "Panders to large corporate donors," ok, I understand that. "Panders to international opinion," alright, I can see that. "Panders to voters"?
That that phrase can make sense in election season shows that we have greatly lost perspective on what a representational democracy is meant to be.
An interesting to phrase to apply to a presidential candidate, or anyone running for public office in a representational democracy. How does someone whose job it is to represent voters "pander" to them? He is SUPPOSED to do what they want. That's his job. "Panders to large corporate donors," ok, I understand that. "Panders to international opinion," alright, I can see that. "Panders to voters"?
That that phrase can make sense in election season shows that we have greatly lost perspective on what a representational democracy is meant to be.
You know what I think I'd like to see? Kerry and Cheney debate. It would be much more equal in terms of policy knowledge and history in Washington, and they might actually be able to discuss real, important policy-related things. It's not as if Bush actually makes policy. Yes, a Kerry-Cheney debate might actually be meaningful.
I watched "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" last night. If you can stomach the Capra cheesiness, it's a good election-season movie, all about one idealist uncovering graft and corruption in Washington, and initiating an epic (kind of silly) battle on the Senate floor against it. I think they should show it on network television some Sunday night before the elections. Maybe it would get people fired up to throw out the corrupt, corporate-owned politics currently dominating Washington. Ok, probably not. But I can dream, right?
I watched "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" last night. If you can stomach the Capra cheesiness, it's a good election-season movie, all about one idealist uncovering graft and corruption in Washington, and initiating an epic (kind of silly) battle on the Senate floor against it. I think they should show it on network television some Sunday night before the elections. Maybe it would get people fired up to throw out the corrupt, corporate-owned politics currently dominating Washington. Ok, probably not. But I can dream, right?
I think it's a bit nauseating that the Republican party constantly tries to paint Edwards as beholden to trial lawyers, claiming he uses his influence for their benefit. "Kettle! Kettle! Black! Kettle!"
In frenzy for tort reform, we seem to have overlooked a very important thing about the American judicial system--the courts are the main tool the American people have to exert some regulatory authority over business. If we could not sue corporations and professional service providers for providing bad services and products, they would have no reason not to do so. We'd be driving cars with malfunctioning seatbelts, our children would be playing with dangerous toys, we'd be eating poisonous food on a regular basis, and there would be nothing we could do about it.
Trial lawyers are not evil creatures. They do a very important job. Yes, there are some frivolous, meaningless lawsuits happening. But reform shouldn't mean eliminating civil suits altogether. Balance, people. Balance.
In frenzy for tort reform, we seem to have overlooked a very important thing about the American judicial system--the courts are the main tool the American people have to exert some regulatory authority over business. If we could not sue corporations and professional service providers for providing bad services and products, they would have no reason not to do so. We'd be driving cars with malfunctioning seatbelts, our children would be playing with dangerous toys, we'd be eating poisonous food on a regular basis, and there would be nothing we could do about it.
Trial lawyers are not evil creatures. They do a very important job. Yes, there are some frivolous, meaningless lawsuits happening. But reform shouldn't mean eliminating civil suits altogether. Balance, people. Balance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)