In June 2003, I had a conversation about how Howard Dean needed to have his own TV show. Looks like it may happen...

Yahoo News:

While everything's still in the early talking stages, the former Democratic presidential candidate is mulling the idea of hosting his own syndicated gabfest. He's hooked up with ex-Big Ticket TV topper Larry Lyttle ("Judge Judy") and longtime political consultant Gerald Rafshoon, who would likely serve as exec producers of a pilot for any such project.

Sounds great! We finally get to have a real progressive political voice on mainstream TV!

"The last thing we're going to talk about is politics," Lyttle said. "We'd talk about a myriad of other things instead of politics."

So Howard Dean will be interviewing 50 Cent about his latest CD? Sounds fun...

"He'd look at things like, What happens if you lose a sibling? What about when you're victimized by not having health care?" Lyttle said, arguing that Dean has the perfect persona for the small screen.

"He's a little bit of Howard Beale, a little Dr. Phil and a little Donahue all rolled into one," he said. "What was so appealing to me is the fact that he's not afraid to express an opinion."

I hope the throws a chair or two so it can be a little bit Jerry Springer.

If you ever, like me, have always wanted to ask Gov. Dean for relationship advice, you may finally get the chance.

Matt Yglesias and Eric Alterman have got it completely wrong. Here's how you pick a veep.

UPDATE: Jesse seems to agree.

Howard Stern’s ratings exploded amid the FCC controversy.

From CNN:

The ribald radio host scored major gains in listenership during the winter quarter ended March 31 in the three biggest U.S. markets -- New York, Los Angeles and Chicago -- according to figures made public on Monday by the Arbitron radio ratings service.

In Stern's home market of New York, where his show is broadcast on WXRK-FM, he topped all morning drive-time competition with a 7.2 share in total audience, up 22 percent from the fall quarter and 18 percent from last winter, Arbitron said.

No matter what the FCC sees as the values it must protect, Howard Stern gives listeners exactly what they want.

CNN again:

In San Diego, one of the markets where his show was removed by Clear Channel, radio station KIOZ-FM's drive-time ratings dropped from an 8.9 share in February to 0.7 in March, the first month without Stern.

8.9 to 0.7 in a MONTH. Wow.

So a word of advice if you own a radio station, taking Stern off the air pretty much hurls you into obscurity. Don’t do it…

In the world of actual progressive radio it looks like Air America is in some trouble.

Washington Post:

Air America's high-ranking executives, CEO Mark Walsh, a former AOL exec and Democratic National Committee operative, and David Logan, director of programming, are stepping down.

Well, that doesn't sound good.

Michael Harrison, publisher of Talkers, an industry publication, see a glass quickly draining.

"Chaos is not a good sign," Harrison said.

So, Chaos = bad in radio? Don't tell that to Howard Stern, he thrives on it.

John Kerry is a douche bag but I’m voting for him anyway.

Ok, well I don’t think that… currently. Maybe I did think that for months when I worked for Dean, consulted with Clark, and finally endorsed Edwards. Yes, Kerry wasn’t my first choice (he was my fourth, well fifth, but I knew Sharpton couldn’t win) but I’d do anything today to elect him.

Alan Blevins thinks that he can get undecided voters by acknowledging that yes, John Kerry is a little bit of a douchebag.

John Kerry is a douchebag, but I'm voting for him anyway. Well, not really. That is to say, he's not actually a douchebag, or not nearly as much of one as what the media, George W., and even perhaps John Kerry himself have made him out to be. It seemed that every time I saw, heard, or read something about Kerry, his doucheness factor increased. It wasn't until I did just a little research on my own that it became clear that all of these occurrences could be explained as lies, deception, media excess, or simply poor campaigning strategy. It is beyond vital that we all overlook these minor blemishes and unpleasantries, and unite in electing John Kerry to be the next president of the United States of America.

His site will feature, in the near future; five essays on why Kerry is the first kinda-douchebag rock star. The topics are:

1. Instances of Doucheitude and Why it Doesn't Matter
2. How Fucked We are Right Now
3. How Fucked We will be With 4 More Years of George W. Bush
4. Why This is Not the Time or the Place to Vote for a 3rd Party Candidate
5. Why Every Conservative Should Seriously Consider Voting Democrat this Fall

His first essay on why ‘Doucheitude’ doesn’t matter is definitely worth reading. He sums it up with something that we can all get behind, douche or no douche:

We need a fundamental change in direction for this nation, and we need it soon. Under no circumstances can we entrust Bush with this great responsibility; he has taken and abused any chances for redemption he may have had. Kerry is the man for the job, even if he does have a penchant for Harleys.

Harleys, funny, keep it coming Alan.

Karen Hughes' stupid statement is pretty well-known by now. The real problem I have with it, though, isn't that it attacks pro-choice people for not valuing human life (which is a defensible view, even if wrong-headed in my mind), it's that Karen Hughes is so clearly using the value of human dignity to gain votes.

If Bush et al. care so much about protecting every human life, where's the funding for mine safety? Why is their EPA trying to allow for more (instead of less) mercury in the air and water? If Bush values every life, where did the death warrants come from?

Now, I'm politically pro-choice (and about as much so as one can get). I am pro legalization of euthanasia. I'm not a big fan of the death penalty, but I'm past my days of actively organizing against it. The fact of the matter is that human life is important, but there are more important values in my mind, such as the quality of life, etc. Hughes basically says that the sanctity of life is central to her worldview. Yet her actions speak louder and tell us one of two things: Hughes isn't very smart or she values power more than human life. I'd have to be pretty stupid myself to say Karen Hughes is not smart.

Spend your Sunday night doing these two things.

Generation Democracy, an offshoot of Generation Dean, has just announced their new project. Take a moment to sign up and tell your friends.

Joe Trippi’s new project, Change For America, has suggested we all put our support behind Air America. Add this graphic to your web page and link it to Air America.

Steal it. Blog it. Link it.

812 coalition casualties

Breakdown:

708 Americans
59 Britons
17 Italians
11 Spaniards
6 Bulgarians
4 Ukrainians
2 Poles
2 Thai
1 Dane
1 Estonian

3,864 American troops wounded

1 American held hostage

10,000+ Iraq Civilians Killed

$4,700,000,000.00 – Cost of war per month

$1.73 - Gallon of gas at start of war (March 21, 2003)

$1.79 - Current gallon of gas (April 24, 2004)

Anymore numbers?

Last night, I attended both a meeting at the Salisbury University College Democrats and a John Kerry MeetUp. I already miss the facade of Dean’s organizational structure.

While campaigning with Harry Sampson, I recently worked with the College Dems who seem to be disinterested in politics. Most wanted to go to parties that involved kegs and not letter writing.

The president of the club is a good guy who does his best to rally the troops. Although he’s not an effective leader and failed to increase the membership successfully, he’s responsible for starting the group.

At tonight’s meeting, they elected a new president who didn’t seem to have any interest in the position. I talked to the group about following me to the nearby Kerry Meetup, but the members were fixated on something called the ‘Maryland Student Legislature.’ Great, all they need is another distraction.

The Kerry Meetup was completely useless and riddled with problems from the very beginning. It was sad considering the fact that I had helped start two of the Dean Meetups on the Eastern Shore of Maryland last summer, which did solid work until the end of the campaign. Kerry’s first Meetup in this area was last month, so he’s getting a late start on a national effort.

The group was about half ex-Dean people and half new faces who wore nice ‘Kerry 2004’ buttons. The leader of the first meetup (again, last month) didn’t show up this time, so, our jumbled group completely lacked direction.

It’s obvious that hostility exists between the Dean and Kerry people. The Dean people have worked to beat Bush for nearly a year, while the new Kerry crew hasn’t even handed out a single flyer yet.

None of the new people wanted to volunteer for any upcoming events. They even refused to appoint a new meetup host. They must come from the George W. Bush School of Work Ethics: show up rarely and seldom work.

Six months ago, I said that the Eastern Shore grassroots were strong. After last night, they seem virtually nonexistent. Short of having to start all over again, how can the Kerry Campaign create an actual grassroots organization? What were your local meetups like? Do you notice the interest fading in your college organizations?

The SEIU is pushing ahead with its blogging efforts and doing it in the right way. Led by well-jacketed Andy Stern, they are kicking off a dialogue across blogs and list-servs everywhere about the "Wal-Martization" of the American economy.

The Great American Conversation continues.

Here are a few state specific reasons to hate Ralph Nader.

Florida
Bush 46%
Kerry 45%
Nader 3%

Iowa
Kerry 47%
Bush 46%
Nader 3%

West Virginia
Bush 46%
Kerry 41%
Other 5%
Not Sure 8%

He’ll only pick up momentum as he continues to nail both Bush and Kerry on the Iraq War.

“We need to announce a withdrawal of our troops, not increase them. Calls by the major presidential candidates to indefinitely "stay the course" spur the spiral of violence.”

Can Kerry stand to lose support from more of the left?
Anyone attend the Kerry Meetup tonight?

Matt Drudge reports that Michael Moore does what he can to promote globalization.

Moore, the great protector of the U.S. working class, has outsourced the design of his Web site to a foreign company in Canada, records show.

Both his design and hosting company are located in Canada.

Should we really hold Michael Moore accountable for where his website is hosted? Will you hold me accountable for my Italian leather shoes?

Drudge is just trying to piss off the left before the release of Moore’s new film this fall. It won’t work. If they didn’t get pissed off at him after spending twenty bucks on his last crappy book, they won’t get pissed over anything.

When I was sixteen, I was a Log Cabin Republican, I suppose.

I ran a conservative website, supported Clinton’s impeachment, and attended a Christian school. But then, I grew up, I read books, went to college (and Europe), and found out that being a Log Cabin Republican was as absurd as being a poor Republican.

Apparently, the Log Cabin Republicans have Peter Pan syndrome; they never grew up.

"It's difficult for me to reconcile him having turned his back on an organization that supported him," said Gardner, who was among an estimated 1 million gays who voted for the president four years ago.

White House political director Karl Rove told a group of conservative activists last month that the gay marriage issue was helping Bush because polls are starting to shift in his direction, with more people opposed to same-sex unions.

Luckily for Bush, the Log Cabin Republicans are stupid enough to vote for him anyway.

John Karczynski, vice-chair of the Orange County chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans, said he was disappointed in Bush's support for the amendment but wouldn't change his vote.

"I'm still voting for Bush ... but I have serious issues with the current team the president has put around him to cultivate the religious-right support," he said. "The 1 million votes he got in 2000 is going to be hurt by this."

A lot of gay Republicans intend to stay with Bush, but they will vote "with their eyes closed," Karczynski added.

If Bush is reelected in 2004 and a constitutional amendment against gay marriages passes, I will blame John Karczynski and Gardner for voting against their, and our, own interests.

So, Bobby Woodward has this book where I guess he gives the CREEP view. Oh, the irony!

All things being equal, the president asked, when would you like to begin the campaign and active fundraising?

Rove said he wanted the president to start that February or March and begin raising the money, probably $200 million. He had a schedule. In February, March and April 2003, there would be between 12 and 16 fundraisers.

"We got a war coming," the president told Rove flatly, "and you're just going to have to wait." He had decided. "The moment is coming." The president did not give a date, but he left the impression with Rove that it would be January or February or March at the latest.

"Remember the problem with your dad's campaign," Rove replied. "A lot of people said he got started too late."

"I understand," Bush said. "I'll tell you when I'm comfortable with you starting."

Who wants to bet this was all Rove's idea?

Hey, Bob, how does it feel to sell out?

Back during the Democratic primaries, some of the most egregiously useless speculation concerned which candidate George Bush and Karl Rove were scared to face. Commentators went to great pains to figure out who really gave Rove nightmares -- the implication being that Democrats should support whomever the jumble of half-assed political analysis and triple-reverse psychology determined that Rove feared most.

There was a bit of a stir among the Rove tea-leaves set when, at a Fourth of July parade last year, Rove was heard saying, "Heh, heh, heh. Yeah, that's the one we want," and then cheered the passing pack of Dean supporters, shouting, "Come on, everybody! Go, Howard Dean!"

Less remarked upon at the time was the observation a month later by George Will that

some in the White House are beginning to worry about Dean because he understands that venting may be a practical precursor to governing: Venting energizes the party's base.

That is why some in the White House say they worry that Dean might be an especially dangerous opponent.

All that ends today. As he readies for the release of his bombshell book on Bush's drive to Iraq, Bob Woodward breaks smaller news in today's Post:

"The good news for us is that Dean is not the nominee," Rove now argued to an associate in his second-floor West Wing office. Dean's unconditional opposition to the Iraq war could have been potent in a face-off with Bush. "One of Dean's strengths, though, was he could say, I'm not part of that crowd down there."

Looks like it will be at least November before we can have some hope for truth. Though I suspect it will be clear by then that it never mattered who Rove feared most; this administration has done such a bad job on so many issues that nothing can stop this election from being a referendum on the incumbent.

Joe Trippi seems to be of the Woody Allen state of mind: He would never belong to a club that would have him as a member.

"Absolutely not, there is no way I'm running for office," Trippi said this afternoon via cell phone.

Joe has been incredibly busy promoting his new progressive grassroots organization, Change For America.

"I'd prefer people join Change For America, instead of speculating about me," he added.

This should end any of the rumors that Trippi would vie for the nomination left vacant by Ann Tamlyn. She recently pulled out of the race for Congress in Maryland's first district.

I ran Harry Sampson's campaign for that spot and see him as the best chance to beat Wayne Gilchrest.

Sampson is a moderate Democrat, the kind who would sit well with Eastern Shore voters, since they tend to be fairly socially conservative.

When asked about the Trippi gossip, Sampson said, "Joe is a genius, I'd love to have him on my campaign."

While that seems unlikely, given how busy Trippi is with CFA, Sampson did echo my thoughts exactly. "I hope Trippi campaigns for whoever ends up getting the nomination," he said.

Yeah, Trippi, remember: All politics are local.

I just got back to Maryland after spending a few days in New York City, where the Democratic grassroots seem alive and well.

I walked down 7th Avenue when I saw a woman with a John Kerry pin coming toward me. As she was passing, I smiled and said, “Nice Pin.” She immediately stopped and said, “Do you want one?” She then gave me five pins and a bumper sticker while rattling on about getting rid of George W. Bush.

A few minutes later, in front of the Time Warner Building, a girl who was carrying a clipboard stopped me. She saw my John Kerry pin and said, “Glad you’re on the right team.” Apparently, the DNC does what Green Peace has been doing for years, paying college kids to raise money on the street.

She didn’t do her job well, and I thought that it was pretty funny when she asked me if I had done anything to get rid of George W. Bush. Still, it made me happy to know that the DNC attempts to raise small donations.

If we can figure out a way to transfer this “excitement” from the streets of New York to the streets of Miami or Phoenix, then we can win this election. Has anybody seen any Kerry visibility in the Swing States? Is the Kerry Campaign planning a “Visibility Day,” in order to show that Kerry supporters are more than just “Anybody But Bush”?

Here in Atlanta, Andrew Young is a great leader amongst democrats. He was one of Dr. Martin Luther King's lieutenants. He helped draft the Civil Rights act of 1964 and the Voting rights act of 1965. In 1970, he ran for congress and lost, but was elected in 72, 74, and 76, and was Georgia's first African American congressman since Reconstruction. Jimmy Carter liked him so much, he appointed Andrew Young the United States Ambassador to the United Nations in 1976. He was mayor of Atlanta in 1981, and re-elected in 1985. He brought the 1996 Olympics to Atlanta. He is presently the CEO of Good Works International.

He was mentioned to be thinking seriously as running for senate here in Georgia this year. Most recently, he was Wesley Clark's Campaign steering committee co-chairperson. Wesley Clark's campaign ended on February 11th at 3:30PM.

My latest obsession is fundrace.org which puts a nice, fast, easy to use interface on FEC donor reports. While there's also Political Money Line, I find that fundrace is just more simple and easy to use.

So while perusing the site, imagine my suprise when I saw that Andrew Young gave $2,000 to George W. Bush. Imagine my greater suprise to find out through Political Money Line that Young gave this $2,000 on February 5th, BEFORE the campaign that he chaired called it quits.

He apparently also appeared at a fundraiser for the President, in January, proclaiming "I've had as much access to this president as I've had to any president."

Say it ain't so Andrew! Is it because of the oil? Is there something I'm missing?

I really can't stand most of the writing being done about the choice of a running-mate for John Kerry. Nearly everything I've read has been positively saturated with half-cocked, dour pronouncements on the rules and regulatations supposedly governing the pick.

In yesterday's Week in Review, David Greenberg does some of the best pushback I've yet seen against these lazy, recycled presumptions:

Most of the recent guesswork on the subject assumes that Mr. Kerry should use the choice to pick up a state or attract a constituency he couldn't win otherwise. But the idea that a running mate can deliver votes has always been dubious, and it's even less tenable today. Increasingly, candidates choose their understudies not for balance but to shape their image nationally.

And for all the talk about Kerry-Edwards or Kerry-Richardson for regional balance (or, in Richardson's care, both regional balance and an appeal to Latino voters), the new thinking about the veepstakes keeps bubbling to the surface in the person of John McCain.

John Kerry has two narratives he's running on: military fortitude and reform populism. He's running on his record as a veteran who fought, was wounded, and came home to oppose an unjust war. And, taking his cue from insurgents McCain and Dean who nearly upended both party establishments in the last five years, he's running as a reformer who will "stand up to the special interests and stand with hardworking families," according to the ubiquitous blurb on the front of johnkerry.com.

What gives the McCain story legs is not any broad public appeal leftover from McCain's GOP primary run in 2000 -- you'd think Lieberman's excruciating McCainiacs for Joe episode in New Hampshire would have put that rest. Many of the independents and Democrats who supported McCain in 2000 felt that he fell in line behind George Bush far too quickly after the bitter and disgraceful events of South Carolina. More than a few former McCain voters (and even some former staffers) went on to work for Howard Dean -- they followed the message, not McCain the man. And an informal survey of my Republican friends who supported McCain in 2000 reveals, somewhat unfairly I think and for whatever it's worth, that few still hold him any special regard (you can probably chalk that up to benevolent leader syndrome over Bush).

No, what gives the McCain story legs is the fact that he props up both Kerry narratives -- albeit in the passé and out-of-touch way typical of mainstream-media concoctions. Let's get real: the guy is a Republican. Think Democrats already have their work cut out for them trying to stop Ralph Nader from peeling away two or three percent in swing states? Watch what happens when there's a bona fide Republican on the ticket.

And if McCain ditches and hops on board with Kerry, it would give Bush what he craves most: a way to unite the Republican Party and make the election about something other than him or his record. There are plenty of Republicans out there who don't like where Bush is taking the country, but that in no way means they're prepared to vote for John Kerry. Why send disaffected Republicans who are proud of their party running back to Bush? Better they just stay conflicted and stay home.

The real question is: who else out there reinforces one of these two main Kerry narratives? This narrows the field quite a bit (in alphabetical order):

Wesley Clark, military man
Max Cleland, military man
Howard Dean, reformer
John Edwards, reformer
Russ Feingold, reformer
Bob Kerrey, military man

The true strength of these candidates will be the extent to which their political identities are potent in the narrative Kerry will need them to symbolize. Thus, on the military side, it would seem that Cleland has an advantage over Clark because of his more intense personal story. On the reform side, Dean's record of shaking up the party and the political system outweighs Feingold's reputation as campaign finance reform's Chong to McCain's Cheech.

Edwards gives a good speech, but unfortunately much of his reform message was under-reported in favor of a brutally superficial coverage of him and his campaign. And consequently his indentity these days is more of a guy who almost won a game of musical chairs, not the embodiment of fundamental reform in politics. Kerrey has a similar whiff of almost-was -- that had the wind been blowing a different direction on a some day in 1992, he might already be a retired two-term president.

I'm open to different interpretations of how this list shakes out in the end, but I remain convinced that the narrative criteria -- not regional, ethnic, or gender concerns -- are the right place to start.

A new profile piece on Robert Novak?

No, it's the title Tom Friedman's latest hope-against-hope column calling for sanity in our foreign policy.

One of the most obvious and increasingly frustrating differences (and there are many) between Tom Friedman's and Paul Krugman's columns is that only Krugman realizes that seeking sanity or responsibility from this administration is, in fact, hopeless.

Jesse sums it all up in one graphic. Granted, I haven't been in too many high government positions where we have to deal with terrorism, but I have been in on meetings where pressing issues need to be addressed and the biggest impediment is a lack of information. Typically, the way the manager in the room responds is by cracking the whip, demanding additional information, and calling another meeting in the very near future.

In Slate's collection of Don Rumsfeld's poetry, they include the poem "The Unknown":

The Unknown
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

The reality is that there was a document given to the President in early August outlining the fact that al Qaeda was working hard on an attack (that relied largely on intelligence collected in the post-Clinton era) in the United States, but did not include any actual plan. At that point, the attacks became a known unknown. And when something move from the unknown unknown to the known unknown, that steps up the level of responsibility owed by the government.

Once that document emerged, the White House should have made preventing an attack a priority and should have made sure that any information regarding potential bombings, hijackings, etc made it to centralized processing areas. As I said before, this doesn't appear to be an intelligence failure. Rather, it is a structural and managerial failure.

In an extended evening of internet procrastination with a sprinkling of the work I stayed home to do, I find myself reading the following without knowing how exactly I got there:

The one-handed economist "Paul Krugman and the controversial art of popularising economics"

All hail the ice queen "As Bjork releases an extraordinary career retrospective, it's time to crown her as the most important pop musician of her generation"

Zellhole "Senator Zell Miller would like people to think he's a principled centrist offering a tough-love critique of his party - but he's nothing more than another mindless Republican hack"

Check here. Somehow, I think there are more important things we could be worried about.

Update

As the comments get to, this is some more serious fudging by some journalists than I originally assumed. Let me still say that I think anyone who speaks in public as often as Condi does is used to the occasional unfavorable editing job. No one except C-SPAN gives all the context. Let me also say that I still think there are more important issues to be dealt with in this arena, like, say, national security. Regardless, I think I jumped a little too hard. My apologies.

Glenn Reynolds, in his summation of the Condi Rice testimony, seems to come down to a couple points:

1. Clinton's team did not turn a plan over to Bush's people and Bush's people got a strategy together by September of 2001. Ergo, Clinton did not focus in on terrorism. The problem with this argument is that no one is saying that Clinton did an incredible job. Hell, Clarke's not claiming that. The claim that is being made is that the Clinton White House did a better job than the Bush White House. Clarke emphasizes that when the Millenium attack was feared, it became a central priority for everyone in the Administration, including Clinton. Bush, on the other hand, was, by all accounts, not part of the meeting where the strategy for counterterrorism was crafted. Beyond that, nothing in Condi's testimony appears to contradict Clarke's claim this issue was a lower priority than it had been. The Hart-Rudman Commission, for example, had issued a number of structural problems in the US Government's ability to respond to terrorism. That report was dismissed.


2. No one has realized the importance of the war and some people still don't. The obvious response here is that there seem to be a number of people who still don't understand that we're no longer in an old-style major powers conflict. We're in a terrorist conflict. Strategically, many of the old rules still apply, but many differ. The poor response of the Bush Administration reflects that, unless, of course, you think things are going well in Fallujah right now (the AFP has a different story).

On that level, Rice still has not rebutted the fundamental charges against Bush, et al.:

1. The Administration received information extremely early in its tenure that terrorism was the major threat facing the United States, yet Bush simply passed the Hart-Rudman report on to Cheney, who sat on it. The report both said that attacks were imminent and that there were structural deficiencies in the United States government that needed to be addressed if the US was going to be successful in preventing terrorism. Hart-Rudman was right on both counts. The Administration missed the boat.


2. Noam Scheiber in &c.; makes the second point quite well, that the Administration received word that a huge attack was likely and yet did nothing. From the G8 meeting, the Administration knew planes as missiles was a possibility. The chatter was going off, yet all indications are that Condi did nothing, simply saying if she had known, she would have moved heaven and earth to stop the attacks. She should have moved heaven and earth to find out more.


3. Finally, in the days following September 11, the Administration's focus returned nearly immediately to Iraq and whether they played a role in the attacks. Condi brushed this aside today by pointing out that Bob Kerrey had suggested a similar approach. All I can say is that Kerrey made a bad suggestion. But the responsibility still falls with the Administration. They looked away from the real threat again. They stonewalled necessary reforms again. And they stonewalled others who were trying to find the right solutions again.

At the end of the day, this is about making our country safer. And if a President and some top Administration officials need to lose their jobs to make this country safer, that's a truth we should be able to deal with. We're currently asking 100,000 young men and women to be willing to lose their lives for the same.

Someone owes the US militaryan apology. After talking about military contractors, Glenn writes:

Hey, back when I was consulting with Al Gore's "Reinventing Government" task force back in '93 it was all about introducing efficiencies by getting the private sector involved. Looks like it worked!

Matt Drudge’s leading headline is a story about President Bush talking to White House reporters today in North Carolina.

He has this exchange with the AP reporter.

"THE PRESIDENT: I just….And that's an important message that I wanted to share with you today.

Let me ask you a couple of questions. Who is the AP person?

Q: I am.

THE PRESIDENT: You are?

Q: Sir, in regard to --

THE PRESIDENT: Who are you talking to?

Q: Mr. President, in regard to the June 30th deadline, is there a chance that that would be moved back?

THE PRESIDENT: No, the intention…"

Once Not Geniuses gets our White House press credentials, I’ll have the chance to show Bush the respect he deserves, and address him as “President-Appoint.”

You can listen to the exchange here.

Today I spent the day in New York City celebrating my birthday with friends.

I turned 22 and I’m proud of my accomplishments so far, both working with Howard Dean and creating theatre. What really keeps me going though, are my dreams of the future.

I want to work toward a more positive future for this country.

I want to settle down in New York City and lead a slightly more normal life.

I want to spend more time with people I love, doing things that I believe in.

The AP reports that ten American soldiers died today.

They died today; the same day I spent eating brunch at a French Bistro in Midtown. The same day I sent my eggs back because they were cold. These ten Americans put their lives on the line for a cause that I am lost to identify.

I don’t know anything about them, but I assume that they were pretty close to my age. They had their dreams, and three years ago they did not dream of being stationed in Iraq.

I’m angry with Bush for being so callous with the lives of brave Americans. It’s three in the morning, but I don’t think it’s too late for me to blow out some candles and make a wish. In November, lets make my wish come true.

Joey Drymala, an ex Dean speechwriter, has a great post on Change For America.

This is a post to forward to any friends you have who consider voting Republican. I don't think that I have any left.

I haven't commented yet on the Kos incident in large part because I was not paying much attention to the blogosphere when it apparently became a big deal. Atrios and TalkLeft have both written rather insightfully on the issue. Matt Stoller, I believe, has the definitive take. InstaPundit has also, I believe, crossed the line, once again. Kos's statement was inappropriate. That's hard to deny. But in comparison to the webs of impropriety that have stoked Kos's anger and so many others of us who comprise the (to use InstaPundit's term) "reasonable if partisan" left. Frankly, if I had a nickel for every liberal independent turned partisan due to the Bush Administration I know, I'd be a rich man.

InstaPundit could, of course, give a shit about the $500 billion deficit that my generation will pay off as long as he gets his refund check. Despite his claims of supporting troops, I don't think I've ever read anything on Glenn's site to indicate that anything going on in Iraq affects him emotionally the way it affects Kos.

Consider Glenn's writing style on this matter:

IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU, KOS: Kos is whining now about a campaign against him, "led by InstaPundit."

[...]

Some lynching. "Heh," indeed. Have we been trolled?

I was angry that five soldiers -- the real heroes in my mind -- were killed the same day and got far lower billing in the newscasts. I was angry that 51 American soldiers paid the ultimate price for Bush's folly in Iraq in March alone. I was angry that these mercenaries make more in a day than our brave men and women in uniform make in an entire month. I was angry that the US is funding private armies, paying them $30,000 per soldier, per month, while the Bush administration tries to cut our soldiers' hazard pay. I was angry that these mercenaries would leave their wives and children behind to enter a war zone on their own violition.

So I struck back.

Unlike the vast majority of people in this country, I actually grew up in a war zone. I witnessed communist guerillas execute students accused of being government collaborators. I was 8 years old, and I remember stepping over a dead body, warm blood flowing from a fresh wound. Dodging bullets while at market. I lived in the midsts of hate the likes of which most of you will never understand (Clinton and Bush hatred is nothing compared to that generated when people kill each other for politics or race or nationality). There's no way I could ever describe the ways this experience colors my worldview.

[...]

So not only was I wrong to say I felt nothing over their deaths, I was lying. I felt way too much. Nobody deserves to die. But in the greater scheme of things, there are a lot of greater tragedies going on in Iraq (51 last month, plus countless civilians and Iraqi police). That those tragedies are essentially ignored these days is, ultimately, the greatest tragedy of all.

As usual, Saletan has nailed a larger theme that explains so much of what has happened in the last three years.

Tom Friedman takes time off from being smarmy and wrong to channel a good idea:

Canada, Mexico and America have to go beyond Nafta and start building "a North American Community" — which addresses continental issues, from transportation to terrorism, in a wider framework. Among other things, [Robert Pastor, director of the Center for North American Studies at American University] proposes that the U.S., Canada and Mexico establish a North America investment fund, which, over 10 years, will invest in roads, telecommunications and post-secondary education in Mexico. (Amazingly, there is no highway today that runs directly from resource-rich southern Mexico to the U.S. border. You have to go through clogged Mexico City.) When the European Union brought in the poorer countries of Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland, it didn't just tell them, "O.K., now you're in our free-trade zone, let the market rip." The E.U. invested big, big money in roads and education in the four new states and narrowed their income gap with the rest of Europe, giving their workers an incentive to stay home.

"The United States and Canada should only contribute to such a fund, though, if Mexico contributes an equal amount through new taxes and implements the reforms that will make its economy more competitive," said Mr. Pastor. "If the U.S. shaped this approach with Mexico as part of building a larger community, it could break the Mexican stalemate on reforms. Without reform, Mexico will never develop to the next stage, and without Mexican development, no U.S. immigration plan will stem the flow. The only effective migration strategy is one that narrows the income gap. This is also good business, because as Mexico grows, it buys 80 cents of every dollar of its imports from the U.S. — unlike China."

President Dwight Eisenhower said: If a problem can't be solved as it is, enlarge it. Right now Mexico does not have the resources or consensus to reform, and America does not have a strategy for managing immigration or the relationship with its neighbors. Neither will solve its problem without a larger canvas. The Bush team is just pretending it has an immigration policy to win Hispanic votes. But it has neither a policy nor a Mexican partner. The Democrats are still debating whether Nafta was a good idea! Hello? The truth is this relationship is drifting aimlessly, and the problem won't get smaller until the thinking gets bigger.

On the Right, the frothing, xenophobic willingness to pay any price to keep immigrants out will likely trump the visceral reluctance to pay for anything. The message Pat Buchanan and the boys want to send is, "Stay home!" and this kind of thing allows them to do that.

Kos raises the specter of McCain switching parties:

It would make no sense for McCain to go independent, a la Jeffords. His notoriety stems in large part on his "maverick" status inside the Republican party. It's the same reason Zell doesn't get his lame ass out of our party. So if McCain is going to do something dramatic, it would be switching parties, and that makes no sense unless his switch brings something to the table, such as a change in control of the Senate.

Or the vice-presidency.

McCain seems to be laying the foundation for such a switch, whether we like it or not. Keep in mind that his voting record would immediately improve if he were to switch parties (party discipline, while not absolute, is still a powerful force. Especially since he still has to raise money as a Republican for his reelection fights). So it may be a bit unfair to hold him against his past record. I'd be more interested in where he would stand in the future on issues like choice and the war in Iraq (which he strongly supported).

Maybe McCain is basically telling us the truth when he says his party can be saved.

I still seem to be in the minority position that MoveOn not only did nothing illegal or unethical in using Clarke's name (although I think this point every one is pretty much in agreement now), but that their doing so is a good thing.

I missed Kevin Thurman's thoughts on the matter. Thurman has a sharp political mind and, like many of us in this blogosphere, is both a fierce partisan and a policy wonk at heart. In this case, he argues, the need for better policy comes before and is damaged by the political maneuvering of the MoveOn ad:

Our foreign policy is a mess and while I do agree half the solution is getting rid of Bush and the neocons (which is what MoveOn is thinking I am sure) there is another half.

The other half is having a real discussion about how best to protect Americans. Sometimes the best partisan position is work with the other guy (just ask Clinton or Russ Feingold). This is one of those times. The conservatives I hate have shouted down the better angels of the Americans who did not agree with the Iraq invasion and questioned the patriotism of President Clinton when he struck in 1998 (to the point that the discussion about America's first strike against al-Queda was simply about "Wag the Dog"). I think that has hurt our foreign policy. Let's stop making this discussion into a partisan mess. Mistakes were made by everyone, Democrats, Republicans, and bureaucrats that led up to 9/11.

Thank God that Richard Clarke has managed to pierce the Politically Correct conversation about how we fight the war on terror.

[...]

I believe that the Democrats should side with Clarke's move not with TV ads but action. So not only should we respect Richard Clarke's position, but we should offer inspiration and real discussion about foreign policy in a world of non-state threats. What MoveOn is doing hinders that discussion that has begun by Clarke not expands it.

I want more than partisan bickering. It will always be there, and I will always continue to fight that fight. But sometimes we must lay down that sword to tackle something together, even when some refuse to do so. Let us rise up and strive for something more.

But the problem with grand policy discussions is that they don't happen typically in a way that involves the public, especially foreign policy discussions.

And the Bush Administration is still clubbing the Democrats with their terrorism bat on a regular basis. Trying to engage in policy discussions while being politically battered is a bad strategy for getting anything accomplished. Connecting MoveOn's name to Richard Clarke does little to make him seem more partisan. Even if it makes him seem more partisan (as Bush's ads likely make Bush seem more partisan), they're probably also going to be quite effective. Pre-MoveOn, the only polls on the subject that I'd seen had nearly 60% doubtful about Clarke's testimony. Keeping this issue highlighted is really the only hope anyone had of making sure the American people got this information and, for some reason, I don't think the Council on Foreign Relations was going to air clips of the interview anytime soon (it may, however, be worth asking the Medicare office to put together some press clips).

It's probably unfair of me to name a post about Mark Danielewski's excellent novel House of Leaves after that horrible movie.

If you haven't heard of it, the book is a spiderweb of footnotes. It is, as one person put it, a book about a book about a documentary about a house. The documentary and the book are both fake (as is, of course, the house). The basic premise is that this house is larger on the inside than it is on the outside.

Yet, as people who either love it or hate it will tell you, the plot is close to overshadowed by the faux autobiographical footnotes added by the faux editor Johnny Truant. The levels of complexity, with a heavy reliance on both and real and fake academic works, work to occasionally leave the head spinning.

The book was recommended to me by Craig (whose own blog, mormons do it better, is itself about as close as any blog I've seen to being a post-modern trip -- if Craig had the programming skills and the interest, I'm sure it'd be a (sight/site) few of us would ever forget). He claims it is utterly terrifying. I'm not sure I'd agree.

But, at least so far, it is an extremely interesting act of intellectual self-love.

For all the other former debaters out there, reading it will remind you of Schlag and, maybe, of some of Bell's stuff. Of course, that's only if you were into CRT and normativity.

And, honestly, who wasn't into the critique of normativity? If you weren't, you should have been. (Aren't I just the funniest guy ever?)

Washington Times:

“The U.S. administration knew of al-Qaida plans to target buildings with planes months before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, a former FBI translator claims.”

So claims an ex-FBI translator named Sibel Edmonds.

Yahoo News:

“Sibel Edmonds told the Independent newspaper, in an interview published Friday, that a claim by US President George W. Bush's national security advisor Condoleezza Rice that there had been no such warnings was "an outrageous lie."

This should get interesting.

Having seen Governor Dean’s stump speech live nearly twenty times, I’d admit that there were times when I wasn’t completely interested. There are only so many times you can hear the same lines without accidentally letting a yawn out. But, the first few times when I saw the Governor were amazing. No one fires up a crowd like Howard Dean.

Bush doesn’t have that gift.

A few weeks ago, CSPAN aired a Bush Campaign Rally in Florida that was stunningly boring. Bush isn’t a gifted speaker, but the least he could do is master some simple rhetoric.

He can’t, though. He stumbles through his stump like he stumbles through anything else. This makes for a pretty dull speech.

Some of his supporters, like 13-year-old Tyler Crotty, agree with me.

"…Bush at a March rally in Orlando standing at a lectern with several listeners behind him -- among them, a boy in his early teens who could barely stay awake. While Bush spoke, the young man yawned, twisted his head, checked his watch and generally seemed dead on his feet."

Tyler, we know how you feel.

Well, I guess it is time to show my stupidity and try wrassling with a Yalie about logic.

James of Off the Fence, who claims to be an evolving liberal (or some such nonsense), but who links pretty exclusively to conservative blogs (Insta, Lileks, etc. -- Sullivan and OxBlog are about as good as it gets on the list), says that anti-Coca-Cola protesters look ridiculous and will make Bush look comparatively sane.

Fair enough, not much argument there.

But he then takes that argument, which is decent enough, if poorly developed (and overly reliant on some name dropping and appeals to authority), and turns it into a claim that Coca-Cola is a fundamentally good company.

Now, granted, Coca-Cola has brought jobs to a lot of people. So did a number of companies in the US during the Gilded Age. But things like labor unions were also important in building a middle class and widespread prosperity. The argument against Coca-Cola is that they kill union leaders as a form of union-busting. It's a pretty damn serious charge. Given that Atlanta's response to the argument typically comes in the form of "Well, we can't control what goes on at independent bottling companies in South America" as opposed to "Murdering does not happen" or even "Coca-Cola has never killed union leaders" while staying silent on their affiliated bottling operations (aka a non-denial denial), I think it may be safe to say that the charges are true.

Not that Coke would be alone. Exxon, for example, gave the use of its facilities for harsh regimes to torture opposition groups.

This was a fairly big issue on UM's campus last year, because the administration signed an exclusive contract with Coke. I've heard from some of the labor leaders actually involved down there (and, if you pay attention to community events, you can probably find a chance to meet some them too). Some people tried to push a rather ineffective boycott. I thought that was a silly idea, much for the reasons given - the public just doesn't buy it.

But just because the public ain't willing to stop drinking Coke and just because the tactics of the protesters may even be counter-productive, it doesn't necessarily follow that their cause is wrong. And the only thing more dangerous than knee-jerk anti-corporatism is knee-jerk pro-corporatism in the third world. I'm a free trader and all, but murder is, well, wrong. And if Jamie and InstaHack want to take a different tack, I suggest they go organize in South America for a bit (or, Hell, even go fight in Iraq) instead of smugly declaring their moral superiority from a hot spot at their respective institutions of higher learning.

From the folks at the Kerry campaign:

Bush Tries to Outsource the Deficit

President Bush shows how the outsourced deficit will go "over there"

Washington, DC -- The White House announced today that President Bush will be sending legislation to Congress to outsource the deficit.

"Outsourcing is the solution to all of America's problems," said President Bush. "If it worked for Andersen and McKinsey, it works for me."

Bush's announcement is a dramatic extension of the Administration's growing support for offshore outsourcing, an increasing trend that has moved hundreds of thousands of jobs in manufacturing and service sectors from the U.S. to lower wage countries.

In December, the Commerce Department hosted workshops at the 2003 Economic and Trade Conference to train American companies in outsourcing and to specifically encourage the exportation of jobs to China.

In February, the President's Chief Economic Advisor said the "movement of U.S. factory jobs and white-collar work to other countries [is a] positive transformation."

On an official trip to India in March, Secretary of State Colin Powell promised that the Administration would continue to support the outsourcing of American jobs.

Bush also explained why the world must take responsibility for America's deficit. "Why should every kid born in America be stuck with $35,000 in debt -- when we can just outsource it and stick it to every kid on the planet?"

President Bush also indicated that outsourcing the deficit could help support multilateral cooperation in the war on terror. "And make sure that other countries pick up the tab for the war on terror -- that's multilateral cooperation for ya'!"

President Bush's new plan flies in the face of Democrats' criticisms that providing economic incentives for companies to outsource risks America's prospects for economic recovery.

John Kerry, the Democratic candidate for president, responded strongly to Bush's proposal: "Five years, not four, at Andover, and then Yale and Harvard and he still can't balance the budget? Pigs will have wings before this plan passes the Congress. Come November, let's outsource George W. Bush instead."

April Fools!

These are not actual Bush quotes. Like Bush's economic plan, this email is just a joke.

George W. Bush takes the American people for fools. Let's show him we know better -- send this email to five friends now.

And don't forget the best way to show the Republicans we mean business: give $25 now.

https://contribute.johnkerry.com

Thanks for your support,

John Kerry for President

Bush Addresses 8.2 Million Unemployed: 'Get A Job'

Above: President Bush urges America's jobless to get off their duffs.

WASHINGTON, DC—Responding to the nation's worst unemployment rate since the Hoover Administration, President Bush addressed the nation's 8.2 million unemployed workers in a televised speech Monday.

"The economy has been on the rebound for months, but 5.6 percent of you are still out of work," Bush said. "Come on, people: Get a job! Don't just sit there hoping that you'll win the lottery. Turn off that boob tube, get off that couch, and start pounding the pavement."

When the number of people taking part-time jobs because they can't get full-time work is factored in, the unemployment figure approaches 15.1 million, a number Bush called "unacceptable."

"My fellow Americans, don't come crying to me," Bush said. "I've got a job. I go to work every day, whether I feel like it or not. I don't take handouts, and I don't give them. That's a belief my daddy taught me. Now, let's get this show on the road!"