The Wayback Machine - http://web.archive.org/web/20040126115917/http://thepoorman.net:80/

January 25, 2004

The Return of the Bipartisan Consensus

___DROPCAPLETTER___ oday, brought to my attention by alert readers:

BLITZER:Terry McAuliffe, when Wesley Clark was on that stage with Michael Moore, one of his campaign supporters, and Moore called President Bush a deserter and General Clark refused to distance himself from that comment right away, was that a huge blunder? You don't believe that President Bush was a deserter, do you?

MCAULIFFE[, DNC CHAIRMAN]: Well, Wolf, in order to to be a deserter, you have to actually show up.

Let's just deal with the facts. As you know, when President Bush got out of college in 1968, it was at the height of the draft. It's well known that the president, former president, used some of his influence to get George Bush into the Texas National Guard.

He then wanted to go to Alabama and work on a Senate campaign. So he went to Alabama for a year while he was in the National Guard, and he never showed up.

I mean, I would call it AWOL. You call it whatever you want. But the issue is the president did not show up for the year he was in Alabama, when he was supposed to show up for the National Guard.

BLITZER: All right. [Smoke rises from ears.]

MCAULIFFE: And I think that's what Mr. Moore was trying to say.

GILLESPIE[, RNC CHAIRMAN]: Wolf...

BLITZER: Hold on one second. I'm going to let you respond. [Top of head pops open, frazzled wires emerge.]

But I want to make sure I heard you right. Are you saying you don't dispute what Michael Moore was saying, branding the president of the United States as having been a deserter?

MCAULIFFE: He never should have called him a deserter. There are other issues that you can say -- AWOL, just didn't show up for duty. But he shouldn't have called him a deserter. Let's get out of this discourse in American politics. Let's just deal with the facts.

BLITZER: All right. [Error message displays on eyeballs: ERROR PROCESSING MAIN DIRECTIVE. DOES NOT COMPUTE. DOES NOT COMPUTE. ...]

MCAULIFFE: The facts are that George Bush didn't show up when he was supposed to in the National Guard, and that's just the fact.

But I wouldn't call him a deserter, nor should anybody call the president a deserter.

GILLESPIE: Well, Wolf, I'm glad to hear Terry acknowledge that what Michael Moore said was reprehensible. But Terry's wrong that the president was AWOL in the National Guard. That is not accurate. The president served honorably in the National Guard.

This is one of the -- the Democrats throw these charges out there. They're just completely inaccurate, and it's unfortunate that they stoop to this kind of politics.

But we're going to hear more of these kind of attacks against the president, personal attacks, because they don't want to talk about their policies because their policies are wrong for America. Raising taxes, reducing our national security expenditures and making us weaker when it comes to winning the war against terror are the wrong policies for America. That's the bottom line, and that's why President Bush is going to be successful in November.

I'm glad we've all agreed on that most pressing issue facing America today, whether or not Michael Moore can be sort of a dick, and that it has been answered so unambiguously in the affirmative. A triumph for the democratic process, and, indeed, the nation. Now there's just the small matter of whether Bush went AWOL, or just missed a lot of duty, or if there is nothing at all to see here and we should all just move along. It's times like these when a fact or two would be very handy indeed, and, although I can understand why news organizations might not want to divert valuable resources away from shark attacks and children trapped in wells and such, perhaps you could take a spare moment to see if you can't help out in this regard. Peter Jennings, famous fact-fancier, perhaps you could make an effort here. You're a mensch.

Posted by Andrew Northrup at 04:09 PM | Comments (18) | Post a new comment | TrackBack (1)

All Your Vote Are Belong To Us

___DROPCAPLETTER___ he internet is a harsh mistress. One minute you're inevitable, the next minute you're The Star Wars Kid, with your dwindling supporters complaining that someone set up them the bomb. There's a certain irony in a campaign based on largely substance-free internet posturing ending as some joyless internet running joke, but, given that respectable media around the world has decided, apparently, that nothing could offer deeper insight into the issues facing America in the 2004 than playing the stupid video of Dean's stupid speech on continuous loop while speculating if he's more angry than crazy, more crazy than angry, or what!, it's mostly just depressing. Welcome to the sad trash heap of internet fads. Or not.

The internet may be almost entirely worthless, but there's still Get Your War On. Whatever nonsense the next year may bring, we will always have the funny to comfort us in dark times. God help us all.

Posted by Andrew Northrup at 12:40 PM | Comments (7) | Post a new comment | TrackBack (0)

January 24, 2004

John Kerry - He's So Hot Right Now

___DROPCAPLETTER___ ohn Kerry now leads the national Democratic race, and, according to this Newsweek poll, would beat Bush 49-46 if the election were held today. (Check out the whole poll, which shows Bush looking very soft nationally). The LA Times looks at it this way:

"Looking at it right now, I'd worry about a Kerry-Clark ticket or a Kerry-Edwards ticket," said GOP pollster Ed Goeas, referring to retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark and North Carolina Sen. John Edwards as potential vice presidential nominees. "I think Kerry-Edwards is about as tough as they could get. I still think Bush would win, but that might be the best in this field."

In another symptom of incipient Kerrymania, Republican National Chairman Ed Gillespie devoted much of a speech Friday to a denunciation of the Massachusetts senator.

"Whether it's economic policy, national security policy or social issues, John Kerry is out of sync with most voters," Gillespie told the Conservative Political Action Conference. "Who would have guessed it? Ted Kennedy is the conservative senator from Massachusetts!" ...

"I'd be more afraid of Kerry," said Frank Luntz, who was an advisor to Newt Gingrich when the Georgia Republican served as House speaker. "They will say he's more liberal than Ted Kennedy, but he doesn't come across that way. His war record and the fact that he was a former prosecutor get a positive response."

"He gets high numbers [of voters] saying he is someone they would trust in time of war," Luntz said. "That's Bush's strength. And you don't want an opponent who's capable of coming at your strength."

"Dean was clearly the desired candidate," a Republican congressional aide said. "Republicans were all geared up for a McGovern-like blowout, and now it becomes more problematic." He was referring to former Sen. George S. McGovern (D-S.D.), who lost the 1972 presidential election to incumbent President Richard M. Nixon by a landslide.

"A lot of Republicans are crying in their martinis," the GOP aide said. ...

Mahe noted that Kerry and Dean share one important characteristic: They chose to refuse public funding for their primary-season campaigns, freeing them to raise as much money as they can. "If either Kerry or Dean wraps up the nomination early, the general election campaign [against Bush] will start immediately, because both sides will have the money to do it," he said.

Any other Democratic candidate might face a long spring and summer without enough funds to counter early Bush campaign efforts effectively.

In any case, GOP aides said, they are already honing their critiques of Kerry as a Northeastern liberal — "Dukakis with height," said one, referring to former Massachusetts Gov. Michael S. Dukakis, who lost the 1988 presidential election to George H.W. Bush, the current president's father.

The Bush campaign will inevitably try to use Kerry's Boston origins against him, the campaign strategist said.

"Massachusetts?" he said. "To somebody in Milwaukee, Wis., it signals things."

So does crying in your martini.

So, they are going to be left with Kerry's from Massachusetts, home of the Super Bowl champion Patriots, and, of course, the fact that he's awful on TV. God forgive me, he's awful. But that's about it. And I'm not sure how much traction you can get out of screaming "Massachusetts liberal" over and over, especially when Kerry, whatever his many cosmetic flaws, certainly doesn't come across as a Dukakis-style nebbish. Not to underestimate the importance of geography in these things - being from New York/New England is a hurdle, no doubt - but if that's really all you've got, I don't think that's going to cut it. I could get very comfortable with the idea of President John Kerry.

Posted by Andrew Northrup at 11:46 AM | Comments (24) | Post a new comment | TrackBack (0)

Thanks, Drudge!

___DROPCAPLETTER___ ookie what's the top story on the Drudge Report right now:

FLASHBACK: Kerry in 2000 claimed it is a matter of character that Bush avoided duty oversees by joining the Texas Air National Guard. No documents have been found to show he reported for duty as ordered in Alabama in 1972... 'Those of us who were in the military wonder how it is that someone who is supposedly serving on active duty, having taken that oath, can miss a whole year of service without even explaining where it went,' said Kerry... Developing...

Great detective work, and way to keep this issue front and center. Old and New Media, it has now been proven, are both capable of dredging up statements made by or near Democratic presidential candidates, at any point in the past, questioning Dear Leader's service record, or lack thereof. Now, can anybody demonstrate that these charges are in any way unjustified? Developing...

Posted by Andrew Northrup at 11:08 AM | Comments (17) | Post a new comment | TrackBack (0)

January 23, 2004

Nutty Nutty 2 - Where We All Toss Glass At Stone Houses

___DROPCAPLETTER___ ndrew Sullivan is bemused that Michael Moore opposed a war - Kosovo - run by (and advocated for) by the man he wants to President:

MOORE ON CLARK, 1999: Check out Michael Moore's 1999 diatribe against the war to stop genocide in the Balkans. Now, we all know Moore opposes any military action to stop dictators murdering innocents. But doesn't Moore recall that it was one, er, General Wesley Clark, who was commanding this military operation? ...

Michael Moore: a man who never without an excuse for keeping murdering tyrants in power. But now he's supporting the man who bombed Milosevic into submission? How about an explanation, Mr Moore?

But how can Andrew Sullivan hold up Kosovo as a handy example of a noble exercise in humanitarian intervention to beat up Moore with, while at the same time calling Wesley Clark, the man who led and fought for it, who without whom it might well never have happened, "Ross Perot crazy" with no understanding of foreign policy? It's phony paradox within phony paradox, mock outrage within mock outrage! While we're at it, how can Andrew Sullivan be an advocate for gay people when he gets a paycheck from a loony Korean cult leader who wants gays wiped off the face of the Earth? How about an explanation for that one, you half-a-moron?

winger_p1.jpg

Posted by Andrew Northrup at 07:10 PM | Comments (11) | Post a new comment | TrackBack (0)

Nutty, Nutty

___DROPCAPLETTER___ imothy P. Carney lets the mask slip a bit:

President Bush's recess appointment of Judge Charles Pickering to the Fifth Circuit follows a string of other actions that make it clear: When it comes to the judge battle, the gloves are off. Unfortunately, Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch hasn't gotten the memo.

Hatch's politeness and charity towards his Democratic colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, often the source of frustration for conservatives in Washington, is now acutely damaging to the struggle to get conservative judges onto the federal bench.

Specifically, Hatch's eagerness to comply with the Democratic witch-hunt — cooked up to draw attention away from embarrassing memos regarding special-interest control over the minority Judiciary staff — could seriously derail the president's effort to restore restraint to the judiciary.

The Senate sergeant-at-arms next week will release a report on the ways Democrats' scheming memos — on how and when to block votes on judges — ended up in the hands of the press. Hatch and Majority Leader Bill Frist ought to act immediately and decisively to make clear that no wrongdoing occurred.

If they do not aggressively move to reverse Hatch's early missteps — made under the duress of bad press from a hostile media — Republican leaders will give a victory to the forces of deception, discouraging the will of Bush's allies and heartening the enemy.

I'm sorry ... "the enemy"?

Hatch's and the media's overblown portrayals of how the memos got out makes it sound like someone hacked into a Democratic server and procured confidential documents. In fact, the documents, through an oversight on behalf of the Democrats running the committee after the Jeffords defection, were easily available to all Judiciary staff from either party.

It would be pretty difficult, Republican lawyers privately surmise, to prosecute someone for gaining access to documents by clicking on a folder under "My Network Places." This is exactly what occurred, according to Senate sources familiar with the case.

A preview of Bush's conservative, restrained judiciary, perhaps? "Judge, sure I stole the guy's car, but he forgot to lock the door!" "Case dismissed!"

Giving in on judges and giving credence to bogus charges don't merely imperil the nominees in question, but by demonstrating a pattern of surrender they deflate the activists. It's becoming a saying around Washington about the Judiciary chairman, "don't count on Hatch before he chickens."

In Washington, dozens of conservatives literally make it their full-time jobs to fight for these nominees. How to they drag themselves to work each day when the pilot of the process looks like Neville Chamberlain?

I'm sorry ... "Neville Chamberlain"? Can't even continue the poultry motif with a "Foghorn Leghorn" or "The San Diego Chicken" - metaphorical consistancy be damned, we have to go right for Nazis?

For this extraordinary essay, I hereby give Timothy P. Carney the first ever Kip Winger Award for Outstanding Achievement in Wingerdom. Rock on, Tim.

WingerBand.jpg

Posted by Andrew Northrup at 02:34 PM | Comments (3) | Post a new comment | TrackBack (0)

Democrats and Independents

___DROPCAPLETTER___ xcite the base or go for the swing voters? Before the Dean meltdown, this was the big debate about Democratic strategy, and, given the way this thing has gone, it probably will be again when Dean comes back into the spotlight in a couple of weeks. One of the things that is rarely considered in this debate is how far "to the left" or "to the center" one would have to go in order to make your strategy pay dividends. Ruy Teixeira notes here and here that the continuing convergence of Democratic (mostly liberal) and independent (largely centrist) opinions means that the distance the party would have to tack center is a lot less than many people think.

Of course, the thing that the Dean campaign has showed, going "left" or "center" has a lot more to do with sending cultural messages than with any real philosophical differences. Going for the independents may not involve any sacrifices of principle, as the majority of the country seems much closer to the Democratic view than the Republican, although it would be wise to think carefully about how a candidates style will or will not alienate the dreaded "Middle America". You know, it might be just that easy.

Posted by Andrew Northrup at 02:07 AM | Comments (13) | Post a new comment | TrackBack (0)

January 22, 2004

Deserter

___DROPCAPLETTER___ eter Jennings brought up an interesting issue at tonight's debate, in a question to Gen. Wesley Clark:

At one point, [Michael] Moore said, in front of you, that President Bush -- he's saying he'd like to see you, the general, and President Bush, who he called a "deserter."

Now, that's a reckless charge not supported by the facts. And I was curious to know why you didn't contradict him, and whether or not you think it would've been a better example of ethical behavior to have done so.

Now, I think we can all agree that it is a truly awful thing for Michael Moore to say that the President of the United States is a deserter. That much cannot be denied. What is actually open for debate is whether it is a truly awful untrue thing for Michael Moore to say that the President of the United States is a deserter. Now, Wes Clark said he had no opinion on this matter, and that Moore can say what he wants, and that this campaign isn't about the past, but the future. That's a fine attitude for someone to take whose job is running for President, but those of us who aren't currently running for President could perhaps spare a moment to sort out this piece of recent historical trivia.

Michael Moore himself references two articles from the Boston Globe, and one from the WaPo, which do, indeed, cast a certain doubt on the question of where George W. Bush was for 18 months between 1972 and 1973, when he was officially in the Houston Air National Guard. The extraordinary story of how these charges have been handled by the press is related by Bob Somerby here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, a list which is not exhaustive. Those with an interest in source documents may find some here, obtained through the FIA, although they aren't all exactly legible.

Whether these charges are true or not is, of course, an open question. I'm tempted to accept the judgment of Peter Jennings, for, as a journalist, it is his job to determine the truth or falsity of charges such as this, just as it is Wes Clark's job, as a Presidential candidate, to focus on other things. This is good enough for me, but the President himself might add to the level of public confidence by releasing his military records. While he's at it, he could increase public confidence in our ability to defend ourselves from terrorists by cooperating with the 9/11 Committee, and he could increase public confidence in our energy policy by asking Dick Cheney to reveal who was on the energy task force which helped craft it. It would put some people's minds at ease, and, really: what could it hurt? It seems like a good idea all around, to put these crazy conspiracy theories to bed once and for all, and we should thank Peter Jennings for bringing it up.

Oh, and what was Wes Clark so busy doing that he couldn't look into the Bush desertion allegations? He was putting his military and private financial records online.

[UPDATE: What he said.]

[UPDATE 2: Some more here.]

[UPDATE 3: Bob Somerby, naturally.]

[UPDATE 4: The Daily Misleader.]

[UPDATE 5: Josh Marshall as well, who thinks that "deserter" is a bit strong, but AWOL might be appropriate. Maybe so, maybe not - I think we should leave those sorts of distinctions up to our friends at JAG.]

Posted by Andrew Northrup at 11:25 PM | Comments (31) | Post a new comment | TrackBack (1)

Today in Robert Novak

___DROPCAPLETTER___ ASHINGTON, Jan. 21 — A group of former intelligence officers is pressing Congressional leaders to open an immediate inquiry into the disclosure last summer of the name of an undercover C.I.A. officer, Valerie Plame.

Their request, outlined in a letter on Tuesday to Speaker J. Dennis Hastert and others, reflects discontent and unrest within the intelligence services about the affair, along with concern that a four-month-old Justice Department investigation into the matter may never identify who was behind the disclosure. The syndicated columnist Robert Novak, who first identified Ms. Plame as a C.I.A. officer in a column last July, has identified his sources only as Bush administration officials, and the Justice Department inquiry has not yet produced any public findings.

It is unusual for former intelligence officers to petition Congress on a matter like this. The unmasking of Ms. Plame is viewed within spy circles as an unforgivable breach of secrecy that must be exhaustively investigated and prosecuted, current and former intelligence officials say. Anger over the matter is especially acute because of the suspicion, under investigation by the Justice Department, that the disclosure may have been made by someone in the White House to punish Ms. Plames's husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, for opposing administration policy on Iraq.

Also:

The office of Senate Sergeant-at-Arms William Pickle has already launched an investigation into how excerpts from 15 Democratic memos showed up in the pages of the conservative-leaning newspapers and were posted to a website last November.

With the help of forensic computer experts from General Dynamics and the US Secret Service, his office has interviewed about 120 people to date and seized more than half a dozen computers -- including four Judiciary servers, one server from the office of Senate majority leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, and several desktop hard drives.

But the scope of both the intrusions and the likely disclosures is now known to have been far more extensive than the November incident, staffers and others familiar with the investigation say.

The revelation comes as the battle of judicial nominees is reaching a new level of intensity. Last week, President Bush used his recess power to appoint Judge Charles Pickering to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, bypassing a Democratic filibuster that blocked a vote on his nomination for a year because of concerns over his civil rights record.

Democrats now claim their private memos formed the basis for a February 2003 column by conservative pundit Robert Novak that revealed plans pushed by Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, to filibuster certain judicial nominees. Novak is also at the center of an investigation into who leaked the identity of a CIA agent whose husband contradicted a Bush administration claim about Iraqi nuclear programs.

Citing "internal Senate sources," Novak's column described closed-door Democratic meetings about how to handle nominees.

Its details and direct quotes from Democrats -- characterizing former nominee Miguel Estrada as a "stealth right-wing zealot" and describing the GOP agenda as an "assembly line" for right-wing nominees -- are contained in talking points and meeting accounts from the Democratic files now known to have been compromised.

Novak declined to confirm or deny whether his column was based on these files.

"They're welcome to think anything they want," he said. "As has been demonstrated, I don't reveal my sources."

Which, as Atrios reminds us, is purest bullshit. What Novak meant to say is that he will always serve the holder of the precious. Robert Novak, by the way, is also still employed.

Posted by Andrew Northrup at 08:51 AM | Comments (7) | Post a new comment | TrackBack (1)

clark_advocate_cover.gif

Posted by Andrew Northrup at 12:34 AM | Comments (21) | Post a new comment | TrackBack (0)