Comparing Records

The standard defense of Bush's record in the War on Terror is that we haven't had any terrorist attacks on American soil since September 11th. The domestic part is very important, because otherwise you're forced to deal with the fact that even in while Bush has been fighting terrorism, we've still had terror attacks in numerous places in the world. Atrios points out that the GOP's latest press release seems to hold Clinton and Gore to standards that Bush will never be held to (imagine that!). By the Clinton/Gore standard, not having had a successful foreign terrorist attack on American soil in less than three years is nothing.

I really do wish that success for Republicans in fighting terrorism meant more than getting Bush reelected.

Oh, Yes, And Jesus Hates You, Too

The soldiers are, apparently, very sensitive people. Nancy Pelosi was chastized by House Majority Leader Tom Delay for saying that Bush had an incompetent Iraq policy; the troops were going to suffer for that. Those who criticize Bush at all are giving a blank check to our enemies to assault the troops - in fact, they're encouraging them to do so.

Repeat that for an hour. You'll get a sense of what it's like to listen to Rush Limbaugh's show on American Forces Radio (truncated, since airtime is at a premium). But why does such a fierce partisan get to be on AFR, and why is his counterbalance NPR? Eric Boehlert explores this.

Is Blogging Bad For You?

The Times has a surprisingly perceptive article on obsessive bloggers; people who become addicted to the daily routine of type/publish and find it taking over their lives.

There's a kink in the analysis that I want to talk a bit about. Society condemns addiction to very specific things -- alcohol, drugs, television, video games -- pursuits thought of as solitary and unfocused. Work, on the other hand, garners admiration for those obsessed with succeeding -- lawyers who put in 14 hour days and residents who work 100-hour weeks net appreciative, sympathetic whistles from their friends. The phrase workaholic is occasionally applied but only seriously considered in the most severe of case. The critical difference between admirable and detestable obsessions is productivity, the perceived value of your act is weighed before the time you spend on it.

So where does blogging fall? For people trapped in jobs they don't enjoy or situations that disempower, blogging offers an escape route from drudgery into productivity. Psychologically, opining on crucial issues of the day in a forum that, depending on your quality, offers tens of thousands of readers a day feels like a much better usage of time than performing a rote or mundane task where the best possible outcome is a penny in the cup of your company. As I see it, blogging offers a cure for the powerlessness many "cogs in the machine" feel.

Allow me to use myself as an example. I'm 20 years old, a college student. I keep up very good grades, am involved in a serious relationship, have a number of friends, work out every other day, am close with my family and generally maintain an existence that most would see as full and normal. I also spend 3-4 hours every day writing about politics for a web log with around 11,000 daily readers. It's certainly an obsession of sorts -- anything done for this long, with this frequency, for no money certainly qualifies me for addiction counseling. But is it a harmful one?

Trailing Through The Sludge

Rush Limbaugh's stock position everytime he gets caught saying something stupid or offensive is "it was a joke!" The Chelsea's a dog image? Joke! Makes fun of black people? Joke! The man has a sublime sense of humor, as he's apparently able to joke about anything when his ass is on the line.

Kate O'Beirne, who's never met nonsense she couldn't spin into a wholly undeserved paycheck, decided to stick up for poor Rush. See, he was joking when he blew off the torture as nothing more than frat hazing. (It must have been a long-ass joke, because he also compared it to a Britney Spears concert, porn, and, I believe, his last family reunion after the kids went to bed - now that's a fucked-up family.)

The most unintentionally damaging part of O'Beirne's defense is her citation of Rush's genuine outrage at the abuse.

Let's summarize this as "It was bad. Now let's move on." I think that's a fair summary. Now, have you ever seen those electoral maps that show states' sizes in relation to how many electoral votes they have? It shrinks the entire American West to the size of a dime except for the coast, and blows up the Midwest like we just had one kegger too many. Let's do a similar thing with Rush's thoughts (and, sadly, those of many of his ideological compatriots):

It was bad.Now let's move on.

How'd I get on this? Well, Kevin Drum shows the Corner pulling off the rare double disingenuousness, a rare feat not seen since David Horowitz decided to restrain himself to peddling Laurie Mylroie conspiracies over at FrontPage Magazine.

Anything else from the Corner? Well, Rich "Why don't liberals care about prison abuses in American prisons like I started to three weeks ago" Lowry mocks Kerry because prisons are too cushy thanks to liberals. The magazine proper lambastes Kerry for flip-flopping despite the fact that the two quotes provided to demonstrate the contradiction aren't actually contradictory.

Onward to Boston

Kerry will accept the nomination at the Convention. That didn't last long. All for the best, I think. It was a PR disaster -- the sort of political maneuver that worked in the primaries when your audience was full of partisans but doesn't look so hot in the general when your target demographic doesn't much like politics. No matter, between conventions and everything else, August and September aren't important months for paid media anyway.

Want Progressive News?

Nico Pitney's got you covered - Priority Wire.

So long as we're (I'm) doing links, Timothy Noah's got a great Chatterbox up today.

Have You Seen Iraq?

You often hear conservative critics blast Kerry as unfit for the Presidency because, though Bush is doing a bad job on Iraq and terror, Kerry doesn't care about those things. And if he doesn't care about them, he can't be trusted with them. Ignoring the claims to telepathy inherent in these attacks, how do they account for the conspicuous absence of Iraq on Bush's homepage? Tom Schaller, the internet detective behind this, notes:

P.S - Andy, just because you advocated a gas tax and a Kerry/McCain ticket does not mean you riskily "floated" the ideas, and it certainly doesn't allow you to take credit for the traction they've gained. You grabbed onto them far after they'd been floated and were part of that jumping-onboard, traction gaining process. You were not part of the inventive phase. I argued for them before you and I cannot claim to be their point of origination either. Well, I could, but it wouldn't be true. See what I'm getting at here?

Cue Up The Triumphalism

The New York Times has lodged an apology for printing numerous factually bereft articles in the leadup to the Iraqi war as it related to WMD in Iraq.

Now, considering the problem revolves around the 800-lb. gorilla that was Judith Miller's unquestioning relationship with Ahmad Chalabi, it's a start, but that's it.

Now, once this came out, you could be sure that the 101st Keyboard Brigade would go through a series of emotions. First would be elation - the New York Times apologized for an error! Then, confusion - we never accused them of that. Then, moderate triumphalism - we're still pushed them into a corner! Then, anger - wait...they're apologizing to those Blame America First libruls! Then, finally, lying - as can be seen in this Power Line post declaring that "neither President Bush nor his aides ever said anything about "stockpiles" in describing the Iraqi weapons threat."

Uh-huh. And then he links to a speech where Bush didn't use the word stockpiles! He did, of course, talk about supplies of WMD stored for future use, but what reasonable person would call that a stockpile? Since we're going to play the "it doesn't count unless they said the full word" game, let's just go to Colin Powell in front of the U.N., the lynchpin, full-on case for war to the world community. Certainly he never said "stockpiles", right?

Of course, I can already see the fine minds over at Power Line screeching, "But he never said stockpileSSSSSS!" (They're excitable little buggers.) Well, howsabout Don Rumsfeld?

So, ah, that looks like a complete lie. Now, the only question is whether or not they can fess up in the next 16 months.

Not Liberal Media. Just Bad Media.

Here's the headline: U.S Stresses Transfer of Full Authority.

Here's the article's title: U.S. Emphasizes Intent to Transfer Full Power to Iraqis -- With Limits

Here's the first paragraph:

Van Wilder Turned Out Just Fine

In my experience, students who are still attending college full-time after six years are not doing so because of discrimination or institutional failure, but because they want to. I attend an overcrowded UC and will have no problem graduating in four (five if I decide to take on another major). Generally, extra super-seniors (as we call them) really enjoy college life, or really fear exiting academia's womb, and so stretch out their tenure at the university as far as they possibly can, switching majors and bouncing between disciplines in an attempt to find the magic bullet that'll make life after Santa Cruz seem as friendly and enjoyable as life in it. As the article mentions, there are ways to speed people up, particularly close-advising, which translates into a pressure to finish. I can't say whether or not that's a good solution, but the problem isn't one stemming fron the institutions themselves, maybe the answer doesn't lie in them either.

Wooooooooo! Discount Cards! Rock!

You know, there's more choice, and then there's just Russian Roulette, particularly when it comes to Medicare.

So, you put your hand in the pot, come out with a card, hope it works when and where you need it to for the entire year, hope that it covers the drugs you need it to, and hope that it offers enough of a discount to actually be meaningful. If you find that card, you just hope and pray that it stays the same from year to year or that you don't require any new medications that the card doesn't cover, otherwise you have to stick with the card you don't want until the next year, when you can start the search all over again.

This just sounds great.

I Don't Want to be a Cynic But...

This is scary, upsetting stuff:

Shorter Dumber Michelle Malkin

(As if dumber Michelle Malkin is possible. Piffle!, you say. What the fuck is piffle?, I say. Piffle on your not knowing piffle!, you respond. My foot is then broken off in one of your major orifices, and life is good.)

Anyways, Chelly-Chelle. The Washingtonienne - a story that I barely care about except that it was in my Senator's office, but which has "people on Capitol Hill talking" - is crass, vulgar, sexual, potty-mouthed, and perhaps unfresh down below, if you catch my drift.

When there was an intern in Washington serving with a Democrat implicated in sexual hijinks, it was all the fault of the media, society, culture, and the decadent and despicable Democratic Party. Now, when a staffer under a Republican is implicated in sexual hijinks...the media, society, culture, and the decadent and despicable Democratic Party. Whee!

Of course, Malkin has all the authority in the world to speak on this issue, considering she was a part of a mid-90s effort to get attractive Republican women with sex appeal out in the media. Maybe if Malkin's career wasn't based in no small part on her sex appeal, I'd at least be able to take this with a modicum of unseriousness, rather than the overflowing river of unseriousness with which I am now addressing it.

By the way, Wonkette - she called you a trash-mouthed skank. I've heard she has weak knees - just passing along a tip.

Wash, Rinse, Repeat

So, since there are new revelations about prisoner abuse, expect the line for the next week to be "the military is already investigating this", until the story is more than a week old, at which point it will become obvious that there's nothing new in this story, and the media is only covering it because they hate America.

There's much more in the article, but it's only for people who can actually take this seriously. For Instapundit readers, member of National Review's The Corner, and Dan Inhofe, here's a game where you can shoot some stick figures. Have fun!

You Can Be President, Too

This is really sweet on John Kerry's part.

If I Had A Liberal Media...

[Reverse Fox News]

Just three weeks ago, George W. Bush was running neck-and-neck with John Kerry. Today, a new Field Poll shows that even with Nader in the race, Kerry is ahead by 12 points. Why is the Bush campaign losing so much ground in the Golden State? Is it in trouble? How much?

Also, in his latest campaign trip to Ohio, a troubling pattern emerged for Bush. He's traveling to the same places Kerry has after Kerry's been there, and he's adopting the same themes as the Kerry campaign after they've campaigned on them. Has the Bush campaign run out of ideas?

We'll be back with Michael Moore and Al Franken - fair and balanced debate, right after these messages.

[/Reverse Fox News]

On the Right Road

Holy hell. The New York Times educating us about the campaign? Calling bullshit on Bush's lying ads? Fact-checking rhetoric against reality? This I like.

We're Safe

Bush can kiss California goodbye. The latest Field Poll (warning: PDF file) has his approval ratings at 39%, support for the war at 31%, and favorable impressions of how he's handled it at 33%. No wonder Arnold never mentions him.

The Children Will Survive

Okay, the ACLU really does need to rein itself in a bit. When you need to play "spot the cross" because it's obscured by the huge pagan Goddess on the seal of the City of Angels, it may be time to rethink your suit.

Just to be clear, the cross is smaller than the caliper, the triangle, the oil derricks, the Pagan Goddess, the Spanish Galleon, the tuna, the Hollywood Bowl and the cow. I think it's a safe bet that it's included to recognize a bit of history judged as influential as the Dairy Industry, not to insidiously attempt to promote Christianity. After all, the Goddess Pomona could crush it with one stamp from her might foot.

Thanks to Reason and Eugene Volokh.

Can't Breathe

The Mighty Mighty Reason Man (he of the sporadic blog) makes good on his comeback by posting the funniest Lilek's parody I've ever seen. Make sure not to be drinking liquids when you read it. If you must be drinking liquids, make sure they're not alcoholic. If they are alcoholic, make sure they're not fizzy. If they're both highly alcoholic and fizzy, I suggest not reading it.

Oh yeah, go read it.

From The 4 To The 3 To The 2...

Up until around Super Tuesday, there was a constant drumbeat from the Democratic/liberal side of things that Karl Rove was behind everything. It actually got on my nerves after a while, hearing Karl Rove's name attached to any and every single thing that might somehow aid Bush's election, even if the theory made no sense. "Karl Rove's" became the new "the" when it came to describing things Bush did.

Of course, the Glennonites do us one better, devilish bastards. Unable to fathom why the Bush folks wouldn't ask for Bush's speech last night to be televised by the major networks (something I'll get to soon enough), a reader theorizes this (and Glenn lends weight to it):

I suspect that if I were to smell the keyboard upon which this e-mail was written, I would catch a distinct whiff of shit. Luckily, I shall not be called upon to do so. I will, however, say that they seem to think that since people supportive of the Bush campaign are going on media outlets that aren't ABC, CBS, or NBC, it's a secret plan to destroy network television. Yes, you heard that right. The Bush folks are on a top-secret mission to destroy broadcast networks as we know them, even though the major networks would have gladly carried the speech if the Bush folks had asked.

Word to Your Mother

Tom Schaller's got a great article on the New Democrat's Network efforts in the Latino community, check it out.

The Tyranny of High Expectations

If homosexuality can destroy a civilization, high expectations can eviscerate a presidency. That's why I'm so excited for Bush's set of speeches (Collect them all!), I think they could prove a fatal mistake to his reelection effort.

Till now, Bush has survived, even excelled, by surpassing dirt-low expectations. As others have noted, he won the debates by refusing to drool on the podium and he made money by not losing it faster than his partners could replace it. But even if Americans don't have high standards for their candidates, they have generally unreachable ones for their Presidents. A wandering penis can turn half the nation against you despite extraordinary job creation, a hint of pessimism will get you thrown out because gas prices are too high and you don't seem smiley over it.

When George W. Bush began his presidency, the low bar for entry clashed with the high bar for excellence and his tenure was seen as unfocused, uneventful and unlikely to be renewed. Then came 9/11 and one speech changed him from an underachiever into FDR. Then Rove did something smart -- he kept Bush generally out of sight. We were doing big and powerful things, policies were painted with broad stokes and brushes that fairly leaked history. These could be applied to Bush in voter's minds, he became larger-than-life by association. But the broad strokes have, in the past year, become part of paintings we don't like, having them associated with Bush was no longer an asset. So the man himself began stepping out from the wings more and more often -- making speeches, holding press conferences, granting interviews -- in an effort to differentiate his picture from Iraq's.

Fox Story O' The Day

I was getting bored with CNN, which was mainly running horse-race numbers and surface exploration of Bush's speech last night...so I turned over to Fox. Right now, some Young Republican functionary is interviewing Anthony Zinni and Tom Clancy and trying to make Zinni admit that he's simply a partisan hack whose ego was bruised when his plan wasn't followed upon the invasion of Iraq. In other words, typical "fair and balanced" Fox stuff.

But the story of the day seems to be that there are a bunch of anti-Bush/anti-Republican documentaries coming out before the election, constantly delivered by Trace O'Bias (I'm not sure what his actual last name is). Now, the story is that Hollywood may be politically biased. But the stories simply seem to be that anti-Bush films exist and are being released this year. Should Hollywood make pro-Bush films? Are they rejecting pro-Bush films?

I rarely watch Fox News' actual news coverage (mainly because it's swung towards being a 24-hour talk channel with news breaks every so often), but I'm noticing now that it's not just biased - it's really, really bad.

They explore almost nothing, ask none of the obvious questions involved in exploring an issue. In fact, it seems like they just get news from other places, repeat it, and try to complain about the Democratic/liberal response to it.

Back to watching Toby Keith's Panama hat destroy anti-American entertainers.

What Is Western Civilization Made Of?

Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council are arranging "barricades" (or something, the article's headline doesn't make sense) against same-sex marriage, citing that it's more destructive than any of us know.

Why do so many religious conservatives think that Western Civilization is so fragile? Western Civilization managed to persevere through plague, famine, depression, war, slavery, etc. And although it still has its flaws, it's made definite improvements. Hitler didn't destroy Western Civilization. The Soviet Union didn't destroy Western Civilization. Bill Clinton's penis, the real-life surrogate for the Ultimate Nullifier, didn't destroy Western Civilization. But these people are going to do what the others couldn't?

(Incidentally, much the same thing was said about the War on Terror, which once again belies a complete lack of faith in America or in liberal democracy, but that's merely a sidenote.)

This brings me back to something I was thinking about last week when Dahlia Lithwick wrote a column about the inanity of most slippery-slope arguments. They're particularly bad because, in many ways, they aren't making slippery-slope arguments. Look at what the people in the article are saying. They're arguing that same-sex marriage will be the end of Western Civilization. They're not arguing that it's a slippery slope - rather, they're arguing that it's a wall. And if one thing gets through, the wall will fall, and then everything will get through. It's all or nothing. The slippery slope is analog, what they're talking about is digital. Off or on, good or evil, pure or dirty.

If same-sex marriage is allowed to occur, there will be bestiality in the streets. Not because one leads to the other, but because one is fundamentally the same as the other. Enjoy your vote, ladies and gentlemen - once the homos are done, there will be nothing left of this liberal democracy we've built up, merely a pile of gaily arranged rubble.

Fuck Tha Vermonters

Dude. Does the Corner just hate Vermont outright?

527s And That Nautical Nonsense

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Republicans are starting up their own 527s, and other than the quick about-face on the issue, I don't disagree with it. If we can do it, so can they.

I hope, however, that they realize that they have to embrace the true heart and soul of the Republican base - the Club for Growth. For those of you who don't remember them, they're the "latte-swilling, goat-boinking, death-bringing" anti-Dean ad people and the ones who premised Pat Toomey's entire campaign around the movie Bob Roberts and a fixation on fruit flies and France.

I want to see the Club for Growth...well, grow. Run over-the-top conservative-paranoia ads on every channel possible. "Spongebob Squarepants will return right after these messages...Did you know John Kerry supported a bill that would have resulted in Spongebob Squarepants not being on the air? Why would you want your parents to support a man who hates those that live in a pineapple under the sea? John Kerry hates Spongebob. Paid for by the Club for Growth."

Embrace the crazy.

Iraq: The Perfect Gift For Your Dad This Father's Day

I've been reading some warblogger response to Bush's speech (or, more accurately, to the media coverage of Bush's speech - it's kind of awe-inspiring how quickly they can argue that any event wasn't properly covered by the "liberal media"), and none of it's really newsworthy/blogworthy. Long story short, the warbloggers didn't like parts of it, the media didn't like parts of it, but the media either didn't like the right parts, or disliked the right parts in the wrong way. Nobody in the media understands what the real mission in Iraq is, and what the real barometers of success are, which pretty much change by the day.

I was a fan of Michael Graham's response, though. 8:16 - Bush needs to talk more about what we've accomplished, for people like Graham's listeners. 8:45 - He talked too much about what we've accomplished. What a failure.

But what I really wanted to talk about was David Brooks' article on the speech, which suffers from Neocon Disease - blathering out the wazoo, with attendant false binaritis and grand oversimplificosis.

Bush's Speech

Summary version: "Everything I said before, updated with this month's new names and events. As always, we must stay steadfast in the war on terror, only not the real one, but instead the one I'm sure will exist if we just bomb enough shit."

He's not giving a vision, he's giving the "vision thing".

President Bush's Speech

Anybody see it? How'd it go?

Days of Future Speeches

I always love the future-past news that comes from big presidential speeches.

Things We Should Have Done Long Ago

U.S. to Demolish Abu Ghraib Prison with Iraqi Okay