SOTU 2004

At the White House website.

My favorite part:

I believe that God has planted in every heart the desire to live in freedom. And even when that desire is crushed by tyranny for decades, it will rise again.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Tue. 01/20/04 10:15:08 PM
Categorized as Political.

The Great Distraction?

Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode CXXVIII

A column, yesterday, by Blair Reeves in The Cavalier Daily at the University of Virginia.

WHEN THE news broke last month that Saddam Hussein had been captured -- disheveled and disoriented, hiding in a dark hole in the ground -- it was hard to overstate the magnitude of the shockwaves that reverberated around the world. World leaders and regular citizens across the globe felt an exhilarating sense of satisfaction knowing that this ruthless dictator would finally answer for his heinous crimes. It didn't take long for pundits here in the States to begin theorizing about the political fallout from this long-awaited event either. The most elementary political calculus tempts us to chalk up Saddam's capture as a big political victory for the Bush administration -- right on the eve of the Democratic primaries no less, and just less than a year before the election. But thinking of Hussein's capture in this way doesn't just lack sense. It also trivializes our national security and casts an ominous prospect of just how much harm another four years of Republican-led foreign policy could do to our country.

On the most simplistic level (which is how most Americans think of politics), one could imagine that capturing Saddam is a significant victory in the "war on terror." But like most issues, the real matter is a little more complicated. If we think back to last year, when the sitting president was eagerly selling the war to a reluctant American public (one wishes it worked the other way around), our primary justification for invading Iraq was that it posed an imminent threat to our country in the form of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and Saddam's ties to terrorist organizations. The anti-war coalition has been all but been proven right in refuting these two counts -- we now know, as Washington insiders did then, that Iraq did not in fact possess an active nuclear weapons program and destroyed nearly all of their chemical and biological weapons over twelve years ago. In fact, according to the United Nations, International Atomic Energy Agency or the nonpartisan and widely respected Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Iraq never possessed those weapons in the amounts Colin Powell, Paul Wolfowitz and other hawks claimed. Neither the Iraqi government nor Saddam Hussein had any ties whatsoever to Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda or the September 11th attacks, and even the current administration didn't bother to submit a single shred of evidence that suggested otherwise. In fact, the only thing that Hussein and bin Laden (who railed against the Iraqi government almost as vehemently as he did against the United States) appear have had in common were that they were both Arab and Muslim. One hopes this isn't all that it takes to convince the American public that they were in league.

Meanwhile, after a much longer and larger scale search, Osama bin Laden -- the man most directly responsible for a long terrorist campaign against our country -- remains at large. The United States has completely lost the international goodwill and sympathy that September 11 evoked by defying international criticism and the United Nations, invading Iraq unilaterally on pretenses that were flimsy then and demonstrably false now, and causing a cavernous and long-lasting rift between the United States and most of our deeply trusted allies. Though domestic issues are vitally important -- like the passage of the callous Bush tax cut plans for the very rich, unconstitutional infringements on a woman's reproductive rights, galling favors to the very corporations most of the Bush administration has close ties to and the loss of 3.1 million jobs, the most of any single administration in 60 years -- this administration's two-faced disregard for our national security is hard to ignore. Even while the Republican party veils itself in terms of being almost obsessively security-conscious, we see studies that indicate that "Homeland Security" is being under-funded, under-manned and required to rely upon supplies from many of those corporations to which the Bush administration is close.

The increasingly anxious anti-Howard Dean cabal went apoplectic when he dared to caution Americans that Hussein's capture "does not make America any safer." With some basic analysis, it's clear he's right. Hussein was just one of dozens of bloodthirsty and tyrannical dictators with no regard for democracy or human life that America had no problem dealing with just a few years ago and with whom we still do today. While his departure is truly uplifting for its humanitarian implications, to say that America is made materially "safer" because our efforts against terrorism are being skewed towards cravenly political ends is simplistic and dangerous. America must decide whether it prefers slogans and politics or concrete policies in our fight against terrorism -- and decide so soon.

Copyright 1995-2002 The Cavalier Daily, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The Blog from the Core asserts Fair Use for non-commercial, non-profit educational purposes.

This column explains a great deal, Faithful Reader. Much of what passes for thought amongst Democrats in both wings of the party (mainstream media & political office) has proceeded no further than the thought of those in their late teens and early twenties who have yet to live in the real world.

Of course, I speak on the most simplistic level. I just can't help it.

P.S. See also Reeves' column, Nov. 17, 2003:

.... With the recent endorsements from two of the most politically powerful labor unions in the country, Dean has firmly established his seat as the front runner in the Democratic race. The loud support from low-income, blue collar workers that Dean's endorsement from the SEIU and AFSCME labor unions represent further undermine the fantasy that Dean is an out-of-touch leftie, which conservatives have been nervously trying to pitch to the public since his emergence. Might we be witnessing a new resurgence of the Democratic Party? One can only hope.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Tue. 01/20/04 09:33:04 PM
Categorized as Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode & Media & Political.

Finally! I Know Where It All Comes From!

Vide.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Tue. 01/20/04 08:23:58 PM
Categorized as Political.

The Dyspeptic One on Electrolux

From the heart of the Rust Belt, I refer you to Let us all praise the free market! and Electrolux Redux.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Tue. 01/20/04 08:06:05 PM
Categorized as Social/Cultural.

"Going for Broke": Ain't It The Truth?

Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode CXXVII

And an extra special treat!

Paul Krugman hallucinates (again) in today's New York Times.

According to advance reports, George Bush will use tonight's State of the Union speech to portray himself as a visionary leader who stands above the political fray. But that act is losing its effectiveness. Mr. Bush's relentless partisanship has depleted much of the immense good will he enjoyed after 9/11. He is still adored by his base, but he is deeply distrusted by much of the nation.

Mr. Bush may not understand this; indeed, he still seems to think that he's another Lincoln or F.D.R. "No president has done more for human rights than I have," he told Ken Auletta.

But his political handlers seem to have decided on a go-for-broke strategy: confuse the middle one last time, energize the base and grab enough power that the consequences don't matter.

What do I mean by confusing the middle? The striking thing about the "visionary" proposals floated in advance of the State of the Union is their transparent cynicism and lack of realism. Mr. Bush has, of course, literally promised us the Moon — and Mars, too. And the ever-deferential media have managed to keep a straight face.

But that's just the most dramatic example of an array of policy proposals that don't withstand even minimal scrutiny. Mr. Bush has already pushed through an expensive new Medicare benefit — without any visible source of financing. Reports say that tonight he'll propose additional, and even more expensive, new initiatives, like partial Social Security privatization — which all by itself would require at least $1 trillion in extra funds over the next decade. Where is all this money going to come from?

Judging from the latest CBS/New York Times Poll, these promises of something for nothing aren't likely to convince many people. It's not just that the bounce from Saddam's capture has already gone away. Unfavorable views of Mr. Bush as a person have reached record levels for his presidency. It seems fair to say that many Americans, like most of the rest of the world, simply don't trust him anymore.

But some Americans will respond to upbeat messages, no matter how unrealistic. And that may be enough for Mr. Bush, because while he poses as someone above the fray, he is continuing to solidify his base.

The most sinister example was the recess appointment of Charles Pickering Sr., with his segregationist past and questionable record on voting rights, to the federal appeals court — the day after Martin Luther King's actual birthday. Was this careless timing? Don't be silly: it was a deliberate, if subtle, gesture of sympathy with a part of the Republican coalition that never gets mentioned in public.

A less objectionable but equally calculated gesture will be Mr. Bush's demand that his tax cuts be made permanent. Realistically, this can't make any difference to the economy now, and it makes no sense, given the array of new spending plans he will simultaneously unveil. But it's a signal to the base that any seeming moderation needn't be taken seriously, and that the administration's hard-right turn will continue.

Meanwhile, the lying has already begun, with the Republican National Committee's willful misrepresentation of Wesley Clark's prewar statements. (Why are news organizations letting them get away with this?)

The question we should ask is, Where is all this leading?

Some cynical pundits think that Mr. Bush's advisers plan to leave the hard work of dealing with the mess he's made to future presidents. But I don't think that's right. I can't see how the budget can continue along its current path through a second Bush term — financial markets won't stand for it.

And what about the growing military crisis? The mess in Iraq has placed our volunteer military, a magnificent but fragile institution, under immense strain. National Guard and Reserve members find themselves effectively drafted as full-time soldiers. More than 40,000 soldiers whose enlistment terms have expired have been kept from leaving under "stop loss" orders. This can't go on for four more years.

Karl Rove and other insiders must know all this. So they must figure that once they have won the election, they will have such a complete lock on power that they can break many of their promises with impunity.

What will they do with that lock on power? Their election strategy — confuse the middle, but feed the base — suggests the answer.

The Blog from the Core asserts Fair Use for non-commercial, non-profit educational purposes.

And the ever-deferential media have managed to keep a straight face. Good ol' Krugman: he's still seeing a mainstream-media compliant to George W. Bush's every whim. Groovy, man. Groovy.

Krugman's insanity is actually fascinating: studied and measured, in its own warped way. It is to be contrasted with today's extra-special treat, by way of Between Heaven and Hell....

You used to be able to read this kind of stuff, about Bill Clinton and his administration, everywhere... except in mainstream media. How come the frothing-at-the-mouth Bush Haters can find an outlet — even as regular columnists, no less — in MM though the Clinton Haters couldn't find anything there but ridicule?

P.S. See Hoy contra Krugman.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Tue. 01/20/04 06:47:12 PM
Categorized as Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode & Media & Political.

Did It Get Lost In The Mail?

Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode CXXVI

This is "old" "news" already, but it's too good to ignore. Howard "See Me Roar" Dean says former president Jhimmi Carter invited him to Georgia; Carter says he didn't. Time reports, Jan. 18 (ellipsis in original).

Back in the distant past of, say, five days ago, when it looked like Howard Dean was the man to beat in Iowa, it seemed as though he had pulled off yet another master stroke in snagging an invitation to appear in public with Jimmy Carter on the eve of the caucuses. Carter, after all, was the man who had put Iowa on the political map in 1976, when a surprise victory there launched him to the White House. While the former President wouldn’t endorse Dean explicitly — such a move would be unseemly in the midst of a hard-fought primary — campaign aides put out the word that he would do everything but. The trip to Plains, Georgia, would take Dean out of Iowa for 22 precious hours on the weekend before the caucuses, but the campaign deemed it well worth it. Not only would it boost them in Iowa, it was an investment down the road: The South Carolina primary is only two weeks after Iowa, and an appearance with Carter — at a church, no less — would be an important signal that Dean could have some appeal in the Bible Belt.

The decision to go to Plains wasn’t even a close call, Dean later suggested. “When the former President of the United States asks you to go to church with him on a Sunday before the caucuses, I think you probably take that up.” But that was before a series of polls started showing he was in a much tougher fight in Iowa than previously thought. He now might wish he had spent that time talking to Iowans. The latest Des Moines Register poll has him running third in a four-way race, although all four — Dean, John Kerry, Dick Gephardt and John Edwards — are so closely bunched that the polling margin is statistically insignificant.

The summons from Plains? Carter doesn’t remember it quite that way. “I didn’t invite him, but I’m glad he came,” the former President told reporters shortly before he conducted one of his frequent Sunday School classes at Maranatha Baptist Church. “He called me on the phone and said he’d like to come worship with me. … He called and asked me if it would be all right.” As for the timing, Carter’s son Chip later told reporters that the former President had also offered Dean dates in February and March. It was Dean — not Carter — who picked the day before the caucuses. Dean may not even be the only Democratic candidate who gets to boast a church date with the former President. Carter said retired General Wesley Clark has also asked for an opportunity to visit him in Plains and worship with him, and that he expects to be able to arrange one.

Though the event’s main value was as a media spectacle, reporters were kept out of the church, except for a brief photo opportunity, and could hear most of the service only from an overflow room. (As a result, none of them actually got to hear Carter’s brief introduction of Dean in the church; the former President was not wearing a microphone at the time.) And the subsequent public appearance by the two on the Main Street of Plains — all eight minutes and 25 seconds of it — fell well short of even a hint at an endorsement by Carter. He praised Dean for his outspokenness against the Iraq War, which Carter also opposed, and the two of them noted that Dean had gotten his start in politics by working in Carter’s 1980 campaign in Vermont. What neither one noted, however, was that this was the race that Carter lost.

The Blog from the Core asserts Fair Use for non-commercial, non-profit educational purposes.

Ah, how fondly we can remember the days of yore — you know: two days ago — when a reporter could say the Democratic candidates were "so closely bunched that the polling margin is statistically insignificant".

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Tue. 01/20/04 06:34:07 PM
Categorized as Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode & Political.

On Polls

A reader writes:

The modern fascination with polls strikes me as somewhat like the obsession of medieval elites with Astrology. Just about every court had its Astrologer, and many famous old Astronomers actually made their living by casting horoscopes while they advanced our understanding of the cosmos on the side. It is doubtful whether modern pollsters with a success rate that is perhaps similar to their ancient colleagues in prognostication have such useful hobbies.

If we didn't have polls, Faithful Reader, what would the pundits talk about?

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Tue. 01/20/04 05:59:24 PM
Categorized as Media & Political.

The Big News Out Of Iowa

The pollsters blew it big time.

But a great deal of the "news" in the coming week will be the poll results from New Hampshire.

As recently as Sunday, all the pollsters said it was too close to call: three or four candidates in the Iowa Democratic caucuses were ranked within the margin of error between, roughly, 18% and 25%, depending on which poll and which candidate.

As I write, with 98% of the caucuses reporting, Kerry got 38% and Edwards got 32%.

No poll of which I am aware ranked anybody higher than 25%. Here's the skinny from Zogby's vaunted three-day tracking poll for the week ending last Saturday:

Zogby had Kerry and Dean in a dead heat: Kerry actually got more than twice as many votes — or twice as much support, however you have to look at it — as Dean (38% of delegates to 18% of delegates). And Zogby had Gephardt and Edwards in a dead heat: Edwards actually got nearly three times as many votes — or three times as much support — as Gephardt (32% to 11%).

And don't miss this sage observation from the same webpage: "There are limits to pre-caucus polls. But can anyone doubt that this race has tightened among four serious challengers?"

If pollsters can be so wrong the day before the event, when are they ever right except by coincidence? And why do we depend on them so much?

This isn't a story you'll read about in the newspapers or see on TV or hear on the radio because it's a story about how wrong the media can be — the media who spend so very, very much time telling us all about polls — and they don't want to have to engage in the kind of self-examination that would be required by an honest appraisal of why they're so wrong the very day beforehand.

Okay. Okay. A caucus isn't like a primary election where an individual goes in privately and casts a vote. Still... let's see how the pollsters will have done the day before the New Hampshire primary.

P.S. See Lead and Gold.

[Follow-up: "Poll Tax".]

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Tue. 01/20/04 06:59:07 AM
Categorized as Media & Political.

Third Day of Christian Unity Octave 2004

Please pray!

See First Day of Christian Unity Octave 2004 / January 18 through January 25, inclusive. / "My peace I give to you" (Jn 14: 23-31).

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Tue. 01/20/04 06:51:35 AM
Categorized as Religious.