Saddam Hussein would still be at large if Howard Dean were President. Support the re-election of George W. Bush.
Friday, December 19, 2003
JUSTICE FOR ENVIRONMENTALIST GADFLY: Financial Times: "Bjorn Lomborg, the author of a controversial book attacking the environment movement, was cleared yesterday of 'scientific dishonesty' by the Danish science ministry."
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MCCAIN/FEINGOLD: Check out these two posts at Cardinal Collective about how free speech is finding a way.
HOWARD DEAN, THE MODERATE LIBERAL: "Reading his position papers sounds eerily similar to what we've been saying," says Ralph Nader. Yeah right Howard Dean is a centrist!
ANOTHER JERK WRESTLED TO THE GROUND BY BUSH/BLAIR: Can you honestly say that this would have happened if Howard Dean were President?
"BEYOND THE MAINSTREAM": The Washington Post writes: "[Dean's] most serious departure from the Democratic mainstream is not his opposition to the war. It is his apparent readiness to shrink U.S. ambitions, in Iraq and elsewhere, at a time when the safety of Americans is very much at stake. "
DEAN LOOKING EVIL: Remember the "Angry Demorats" ads that Chris pointed out? Here's a video of the entire Dean speech from which those clips of the furious Dean were taken, and here is a a transcript. He is most furious at the end, but the content of his comments aren't as bad as you'd think. There was a reason that the Bush team only took clips of Dean saying things about fundamentalist Preachers and "thank you very much" -- the other comments during his climax weren't that crazy:I want my country back! We want our country back! I am tired of being divided! I don't want to listen to the fundamentalist preachers anymore. I want America to look like America, where we are all included, hand in hand. We have dream. We can only reach the dream if we are all together - black and white, gay and straight, man and woman. America! The Democratic Party! We are going to win in 2004! Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Stand up for America, Stand up for America, Stand up for America. Also check out Dean's stumbling entrance, which is certainly embarassing. If you can't do Windows Media Player, visit this page for more options.
LIEBERMAN CALLS DEAN "DIVISIVE LEADER". This man has balls.
THE DEATH PENALTY IN AMERICA: TNR REPORTS: "In fact, opinion polls show that Europeans and Canadians crave executions almost as much as their American counterparts do. It's just that their politicians don't listen to them. In other words, if these countries' political cultures are morally superior to America's, it's because they're less democratic."
UPDATE: I just read the rest of the article, which describes how European politicians were able to get away with banning the death penalty in spite of popular support. Check it out.
Thursday, December 18, 2003
ANOTHER BUSH-IS-NOT-GOD STORY: Paris Hilton beats President Bush in TV ratings.
Why is this news? It isn't. In my view, life is completely normal when Americans would rather watch Paris Hilton instead of the President. Most Americans work hard, and when they aren't working they would prefer entertainment to solving the world's problems. One of the reasons we elect representatives into government is so that we can do other things with our lives.
The reason this is news is the same reason that the fake turkey story was news, along with all of the other pathetically unimportant "Bush lied" stories.
That reason is: Some people in the media think this "imperialism" thing is serious. They genuinely suspect that the President is trying to gain world domination. Among other things, the President's success in Iraq confirms this beleif and shows that it is possible for him to succeed.
To such an audience, any sign of weakness is news. I can't think of any other good reason why anyone would care about Paris Hilton received better ratings than a politician.
GOOGLE ADWORDS KOREA launches, as does the Korean Google Toolbar.
REALNETWORKS SUES MICROSOFT FOR ANTI-TRUST VIOLATIONS: Story here.
ENOUGH: I've had enough of these anti-war ads appearing on the right. Google has a feature through which certain advertisers can be blocked, and I'm putting it to use this afternoon.
SWEET!: TNR starts a Anti-Howard Dean Blog, written by Jonathan Chait. The title is, "Diary of a Dean-o-Phobe."
Wednesday, December 17, 2003
ONE OF THE STRONGEST ARGUMENTS AGAINST my take on the EU (below) would be that the actual deliberations did not fall apart over arguments about how deeply to integrate. Instead, they fell apart over what voting structure would have control over integrated Europe. The New Republic comes to my defense.But even if the deal involving [voting rights] hadn't derailed the summit, other issues would have. The British and Irish were hostile toward tax harmonization. The Austrians, Finnish, and Irish were dead-set against abandoning their neutrality for common defense. The Spanish were loath to give up their subsidies as a poor country now that poorer countries from Eastern Europe are joining. And so on.
THE KEY TO IRAQI HEARTS AND MINDS: Is through the job economy, according to The New Republic.
Tuesday, December 16, 2003
HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE EU: I just don't get it. Why does Europe need to be a super-state? Someone help me here. Don't get me wrong: I am completely aware of the virtues of multilateralism. We don't need to go there. Nor do I need to be shown how European states have common interests on certain issues and topics. I can see that perfectly fine.
What I don't understand is this: Why isn't European integration moving forward strictly in accordance with the demand for integration? In other words: Increase integration when there is a demand by all parties to increase integration. Otherwise, give member states the autonomy that they clearly prefer and let them make treaties with those with whom they make common cause.
I don't see what is wrong with cooperating on a limited set of issues and leaving all other decisions to the nation states. Why does Europe need to become a superstate in order to cooperate on a few key issues? The process I described is not the one that is actually going on. If it were going on, it wouldn't take forever to figure out. It takes time to decide whether certain tradeoffs are worthwhile, but I suspect that countries' haven't spent half a century making up their minds.
Instead, integration-dreamers have put the cart before the horse. They have started from the position that Europe should be highly integrated -- a popular idea in theory, just like "a hypothetical Democrat" sounds better than President Bush to some people.
When the idea of a "unified Europe" or a "hypothetical Democrat" is replaced with a real, live constitution or candidate, the situation is different. People stop projecting ideals onto ambiguous phrases like "unified Europe" or "Democratic candidate" and concentrate on the specific proposal. Many who supported "the Democrat" or "unified Europe" change their minds once they see what they're actually voting on.
European integration is a promising concept. But it is being executed in the wrong direction. European leaders should acknowledge only the possibility for limited cooperation with other European states on a finite set of issues. They should actively seek new opportunities for cooperation, but should not assume that integration is inevitable.
LIEBERMAN STEPS IT UP YET ANOTHER NOTCH: Launches fresh attacks on Dean.
IRAQI MINISTER TELLS UN TO STOP SNIPING, START HELPING. He even accuses the anti-war Security Council members of appeasement. Sweet."One year ago, the Security Council was divided between those who wanted to appease Saddam Hussein and those who wanted to hold him accountable," Zebari told the 15-nation council, which was sharply divided over the war.
"The UN as an organisation failed to help rescue the Iraqi people from a murderous tyranny of 35 years," he said. "The UN must not fail the Iraqi people again."
Annan, who publicly opposed the US decision to launch the war after failing to win the support of the Security Council, said it was "no time to pin blame and point fingers" over the past.
"I think the UN has done as much as it can for Iraq," Annan told reporters. "So quite honestly I don't think today is the time to hurl accusations."
"The fact that the war was won doesn't make legitimate something that was not legitimate," France's UN ambassador Jean-Marc de la Sabliere said after the council meeting. "But this is the past."
"Settling scores with the United States-led coalition should not be at the cost of helping to bring stability to the Iraqi people," he said.
"Squabbling over political differences takes a back seat to the daily struggle for security, jobs, basic freedoms and all the rights the UN is chartered to uphold." This is brilliant.
CHECK OUT Bobby Jindal's farewell letter.
RALPH NADER WILL MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT BY JANUARY about his second Presidential run -- that is, before a Democratic nominee has been selected. This is a curious development, given that Nader said he was waiting to see how well the two parties accepted his anti-corporatation message.
BIG SPENDERS: Turns out that Kathleen Blanco beat Bobby Jindal party by outspending him on election day.Expense reports show that Blanco's campaign spent nearly twice as much as Jindal's on election day, $55,282 to $28,597. The vast majority of Blanco's money, $39,035, was paid to 573 people who received $40 to $500 to help get voters to the polls on election day. Jindal, by contrast, relied on volunteers for his voter outreach and spent just $717.76 on election-day workers, with the biggest chunk of that going to campaign manager Phillip Stutts.
THE IRAQ MARKET: For those with money on the Iraq situation, be it TradeSports or otherwise:George Friedman, the director of intelligence gathering service Stratfor.com, provided early intelligence on geopolitical developments in the Middle East that led him to state unequivocally that long-term investors -- the so-called "smart money" -- were counting on a successful clean-up of Iraq and a broad-based stock market rally.
"The markets have been pretty sophisticated on Iraq. There does not appear to have been any Iraq war discount," says Friedman, who operates a network of intelligence gatherers around the globe. "There appears to have been a premium on some commodities but not much."
Friedman, who in an interview here earlier this year coined the phrase, "There is not such thing as smart money, just long-term money," says investors were "pretty mature" in gauging the influence of the Iraq war from the get-go.
THE GLOVES THAT DEAN AND LIEBERMAN TOOK OFF after Saddam's capture have stayed off. Click here to view the latest anti-Dean ad by centrist Democrats. It is ruthless and scary.
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: Continuing to be more charitable to Saddam than to their own youth.
Monday, December 15, 2003
DEAN'S SPEECH, IN ONE SENTENCE: "I oppose the Iraq war for more-or-less non-ideological reasons." He says the center of his national security strategy will be terrorism and weapons of mass destruction (just like Bush). He says that he is not against the use of military force in defense of the United States -- even if it is used unilaterally. He makes supportive comments towards nation-building. His big problems with Iraq were the dubious use of intelligence and lack of international political and legal support.
This makes the conservative case against Dean more tricky. Instead of debating national security in abstract terms, the debate could easily focus on the administration's specific actions: As in, the sort of details that average voters are likely to forgot about. Team Bush needs to remind voters of these details and dramatize them.
THE NEW REPUBLIC has an article about Dean's foreign policy speech, noted below. The central thesis is that Dean's supporters will indeed continue backing him, despite his hawkish move to the center.
There is something to this thesis, but not enough to secure Dean's victory or competativeness against Bush in 2004. There are real limits to the extent that Dean can lurch towards the center without alienating his base. The left wing base is notorious for "making sure they don't take our votes for granted."
�The [liberal] interest groups don�t really like to win,� says James Carville, who helped his old client Clinton stand up to the special pleaders in 1992. �They just want a big ass-kissing festival.�
Bush might be wise to hammer on this issue -- or to have his allies hammer on this issue -- because it may sever Dean from his base. Dean would be wise to avoid further comment. Right now, I suspect that a lot of these people are simply happy to have something (anything) to throw back at a President they loathe so much.
Once Dean has the nomination and people think he has a chance of winning, the hippies will get selfish and self-defeating -- the way they were in 2000, when many of then bolted the Democratic party for Ralph Nader. It might even be before Dean gets the nomination, if some of the other anti-war candidates pick up the thread.
FOR A GOOD LAUGH, check out Engrish.com.
THIS WEEKEND, I SAW The Last Samurai. I don't regret seeing it, but if you've seen Dances with Wolves, you don't need to see it again.
Also, read about the Al Qaeda connection. Cruise's movie about a disillusioned American joining ranks with pre-industrial anti-modernists sounds an awful lot like the story of Johnny Walker Lindh, aka the American Taliban.
Exactly what Cruise's Samurai are fighting for is never made clear. Although their way of life seems to be losing popularity, their freedom to practice it does not seem to be affected by the modernizing Prime Minister. Some soldiers cruelly cut off a Samurai's ponytail, but there is no reason to suspect that this is happening on a mass scale. Carrying a sword is outlawed, but I have a hard time accepting the banishment of swords as the legitimate grounds for war.
Railroads are constructed that offend the traditional Japanese, but they were mentioned only twice in the movie. Besides: Are railroads constructed on private property, whose pollution is taxed really worth fighting a war over?
We are supposed to think that the Samurai feel their way of life threatened in some vague but legitimate sense. Without knowing the specifics, it is hard to know whether the Samurai had anything truly worth fighting for, or if they were simply a band of violent fanatics.
BOBBY JINDAL FOR SENATE: John Breaux is retiring.
DEAN DOESN'T SOUND SO BAD: Check out Howard Dean's speech on foreign policy delivered in Los Angeles today. I'd say he pulls it off pretty well. The statement that will get him in the most trouble might be this: "The capture of Saddam is a good thing which I hope very much will help keep our soldiers safer. But the capture of Saddam has not made America safer."
Alternatively, statements like these could resonate:Empowered by the American people, I will work to restore:
The legitimacy that comes from the rule of law;
The credibility that comes from telling the truth;
The knowledge that comes from first-rate intelligence, undiluted by ideology;
The strength that comes from robust alliances and vigorous diplomacy;
And, of course, I will call on the most powerful armed forces the world has ever known to ensure the security of this nation. I think Dean could get away with his position on Iraq if the issue fades into the background, as the Gulf War did after 1991. Clinton was highly ambivalent about that war, and yet was still elected handily. It isn't certain, however, that this war will fade the way the first Gulf War did.
BAD NEWS FOR SOUTH KOREAN CONSERVATISM: Lee Hoi Chang has admitted Dec. 15 that he collected $43 million in illegal funds for his failed presidential campaign.
CARTER'S INTERFERENCE: Does anyone else find this kind of thing extremely annoying from a miserable failure of a President? In November 1990, for example, the first Bush Administration was lobbying fellow United Nations Security Council members for a declaration empowering U.S. action to push invading Iraqi troops out of newly-occupied Kuwait in what would become the Gulf War.
As then-National Security Advisor General Brent Scowcroft recounted in the 1998 memoir A World Transformed co-authored with President George H.W. Bush, the Canadian Prime Minister sent them a letter just received from Jimmy Carter. The ex-President had written to all Security Council members asking them to reject the U.S. request for an ultimatum to Iraq and instead to support the perpetual delay proposed by the Arab League.
�It was an unbelievable letter, asking the other members of the council to vote against his own country,� wrote Scowcroft. �We found out about it only when one of the recipients sent us a copy�. It seemed to me that if there was ever a violation of the Logan Act prohibiting diplomacy by private citizens, this was it.�
President Bush �was furious at this interference in the conduct of his foreign policy and deliberate attempt to undermine it,� wrote Scowcroft, �but told me just to let it drop.� He could have filed criminal charges against Mr. Carter and perhaps sent him to prison. This is objectionable on a non-partisan basis. Ex-Presidents are not supposed to interfere with current US policy, no matter what party. They are not supposed to persue their own independant diplomatic adventures.
AL QAEDA-GA SEOUL-E KAYO: South Korean intelligence thinks that Al Qaeda has been in its country.
IT IS WORTH checking out Al-Jazeera's homepage to see how the news is being spun in the Arab world.
GAY RIGHTS PROGRESS: Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo has fired Prime Minister Beatriz Merino and her entire 15-member Cabinet. The move came after Merino, the first woman prime minister in that country's history, said one of her political rivals recently told Catholic Church leaders that she is a lesbian. Church officials immediately denied Merino's allegations.
copyright © 2001-2003 Bo Cowgill
|