Citizen's Rent 2005

Remedial Instruction for Bush

So I read in the Washington Post today what are the Bush team "lessons learned" from the last year. Before we look at those lessons, let's look at the the instructional material they had to work with.

• Spectacular failure in the effort to privatize social security
• Shocking incompetence responding to a natural disaster, Katrina, for which we had ample warning - after four years of justifying everything on the basis of making us safer
• An exploding deficit and an out of control budget
• A popularity rating so low that a rise to 47% is cause for celebration
• An economy that looks good on paper (the wealthy's tax returns that is) but hasn't translated into wage stability or increases
• The continued presence of over 160,000 American troops in Iraq, with no end in sight, a rising death toll, and Congress restless to finally exercise a bit of oversight
• The beginnings of a real anti-war movement, growing loss of support for the war in Iraq (a clear majority of Americans), and the call for troop withdrawal from a career Marine, Rep. Murtha
• The 9/11 commission assessment that we are no more prepared today than we were prior to 9/11 to prevent or respond to a terrorist attack
• A continuing investigation into the outing of a covert CIA agent which just might result in the indictment of Bush's own deputy chief of staff, Karl Rove
• Indictment of the Vice President's chief of staff for perjury, lieing to the FBI, and obstruction of justice
• The disclosure that the adminstration/Pentagon/CIA is running secret prisons in other countries where prisoners are held secretly and interrogated, some say tortured
• The reality that the administration didn't have the muscle necessary to prevent the McCain anti-torture amendment from passing
• The constant barrage of questions here at home and across the world, asking about US treatment of detainees
• The revelation that Bush authorized, unilaterally and in secret, the wire tapping of US citizens with no warrant or court review
• The appellate court's rejection of their position on Jose Padilla and their efforts to hold him without charges as an enemy combatant and to try him in a military court where he would not receive the rights constitutionally granted to American citizens
• The loss of support from the religious right that forced Bush to withdraw Harriet Mires' nomination to the Supreme Court
• The inability to get Congress to renew the Patriot Act

Now that's largely off the top of my head. No doubt, I missed a few major and untold minor problems that the adminstration faced in 2005. So what have they learned? According to the Washington Post, it's this:

1. Big initiatives like privatizing social security can't be done during a time of war
   Nice, the way they make this about the war and not about the complete dishonesty of declaring a financial crisis and then proposing a wholesale restructuring of the program such that it doesn't deal with the alleged financial crisis. No surprise that they failed to mention the total unity of the Democrats in Congress or that the expensive 50+ city campaign for privatization was dished only to approved insiders. They might have learned that preaching to the choir is no way to convince the country to risk its most successful social program. Or that the American people are smarter than they think. Or that big initiatives require bi-partisan support.
2. It's not enough to offer assurances of victory in Iraq. The American people actually want a true accounting of how things are going and a real plan for winning.
   And yet, we still don't have a plan beyond "as they stand up, we'll stand down". We got one speech with "things haven't gone as smoothly as we hoped" type of language, but still no-one has been held accountable for the grave mistakes made and still we deplete our armed services who fight and sometimes die without the equipment they need to do so as safely as possible. Here are some good Iraq related lessons: Equip the troops. Don't lie to the American people. Take responsibility and hold people accountable. Don't say support the troops and then blame commanders for how the war is going, the troop levels, or the slow pace of training Iraqis. Learn to question your idealogical conventional wisdom, especially if it leads you to risking American lives. Learn the value of internal debate and engage in it. Oh - and stop taking five week vacations when our military is fighting a war and you're the commander in chief - it just doesn't look good. There's so many more lessons to be learned - but I'll leave them to the Juan Cole's among us to point out.
3. Anger at Bush subsides somewhat when he takes responsibility.
   Now that's a good lesson. BUT, it's not enough to say your responsible, you actually have to be responsible. Firing Michael Brown at FEMA was a good start. But that's not enough, especially with the recent reports that the Dept. Homeland Security is disfunctional at best and may impede our ability to respond to a domestic crisis.
4. You can't do anything dramatic unless you have 60 votes.
   The right way to say this is: "If you're going to make major and substantive changes in the way the government operates and interacts with its citizens, the changes must be bipartisan."

These are the four lessons identified in the WaPo article that the Bush administrion has learned. That's it. And that's not enough. Not given the wealth of material they had to use as a basis for learning their lessons. If they were a class in school, they'd be given a "not proficient" mark and deemed to be part of the failing population of what might be a failing school.

So lit's time for a bit of remediation - what "lessons learned" did they miss?

Cross posted at DailyKos.

Republicans See Opportunity in Katrina Disaster

Are you surprised?

"Congressional Republicans, backed by the White House, say they are using relief measures for the hurricane-ravaged Gulf coast to achieve a broad range of conservative economic and social policies, both in the storm zone and beyond." (WSJ)

I'm not. Bush suspended wage protections for reconstruction workers, meaning companies can pay low wages for any construction jobs funded by the federal government. He's considering suspending wage protections for the service industry too. He's put Karl Rove in charge of the reconstruction effort. Didn't he learn anything about appointing people with no experience to critical jobs when FEMA failed so miserably to respond to the disaster Katrina wrought? Apparently not.

So how do the Republicans plan to take advantage of the greatest natural disaster in our history and the terrible human tragedy that followed it? Well, besides suspending the prevailing wage laws - something the Republicans have been trying to get rid of for decades, Bush is also waiving some affirmative action requirements for reconstruction contractors. The Republicans in Congress are reportedly planning to pass legislation to limit victim's rights to sue, introduce vouchers for schools, eliminate environmental protection laws, and give tax breaks to companies working in the reconstruction areas.

I particularly like the sly way they've included expanded off-shore drilling and new refineries in the legislation - those are things that didn't survive the energy bill. So why not slide them in here? Well, the oil lobby is already knocking on doors and this is the least the Republicans can do to thank them for being so prompt.

What I want - desperately - is for Congress to exercise its oversight responsibilities. Instead, what I'm getting is Congress using the devastation in the Gulf Coast as a real-world petri dish for trying out Republican ideologies. I just hope that 2006 changes the balance in Washington. We won't get accountability any other way.

Putting Dollars First

I wonder if the people bemoaning the cost of the Gulf Coast reconstruction take pride in the rebuilding we did after WWII in Europe through the Marshall Plan. If they do, and if they justify the different response by exclaiming that the foreign rebuilding was a matter of national security, then I'd really like them to explain how allowing poverty to flourish and devastation to remain unaddressed won't have a significant negative impact on the health of our country and ultimately our domestic security.

I read one blogger's comment referring to federal funding of the reconstruction as taking his money and giving it to someone else, morphing the reconstruction into wealth redistribution. Well, I say that if my tax burden this year goes up a hundred dollars or two in order to rebuild the Gulf Coast then so be it. There is a responsibility we have as members of this national community - a responsibility to help one another. And why in the world we should leave that up to chance, the hope that the private sector will step in and do the job fairly and completely, is beyond me.

We've been told that we're in the midst of a global war on terror and as a nation we have not been asked to sacrifice to fight and win that war. Instead, a small percentage of our fellow citizens are carrying the burden - and future generations will inherit the bill to pay for the war. For once, can our leaders ask us to do something as one? To make the sacrifice of a one-time higher tax bill in order to reconstruct the Gulf Coast and not condemn those hit by Katrina to years of poverty? I believe in the goodness of Americans and believe we'd give what was needed.

Blogs that Make You Think

The following posts are ones that caught me as I surfed the web. Some are insightful, many  informative, others provocative, most are partisan, and all thought provoking. I recommend them.

Michael Berube skewers the modern Republican party adeptly and well. Who knew that we'd ever miss the old Republican party?

James Wolcott explains better than I why it's imperative to push for answers and fix accountability now.

Emma at American Street names and challenges what she labels a southern culture that falsely distinguishes the white poor from the black poor, and leverages that distinction for political gain. The comment thread here adds substance to the post.

Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, makes the case for impeaching the President in this extremely provocative CounterPunch post.

Billmon nails the President for using firefighters in a photo op instead of sending them into NO to rescue trapped Americans and put out the growing number of fires. He's got plenty of suggestions for additional ways to use first responders to solve Bush's PR problems.

Eric Holdeman, Director of the King County, Wash., Office of Emergency Management, provides an interesting overview of FEMA before an after Bush. The real surprise here is found in this excerpt: "This year it was announced that FEMA is to "officially" lose the disaster preparedness function that it has had since its creation. The move is a death blow to an agency that was already on life support. In fact, FEMA employees have been directed not to become involved in disaster preparedness functions, since a new directorate (yet to be established) will have that mission." Huh.

And that's enough for today. It's distressing, infuriating, and just plain sad, sad, sad. What's happening to America?

The Blame Game

Here's the official white house talking point on calls for accountability:

MR. McCLELLAN: What you're doing is trying to engage in a game of finger-pointing and blame-gaming. What we're trying to do is solve problems. (Press briefing 9/7/05)

This is an administration that has been steadfast in its refusal to be held accountable. They now consider accountability to be a game, a blame game of finger pointing. They reduce the necessary burden of accountability, the infamous "buck stops here" nature of leadership, to a child's game of "nyah, nyah, nyah". It's a weak response and one we can't allow.

If the administration is right and the failure in New Orleans is the fault of the local and state government and the citizens who didn't evacuate, then they should embrace the opportunity to determine accountability. That they don't tells us all we need to know.

UPDATE:
Just a note that in today's press briefing, McClellan used a variation of the phrase "blame game" and the and "finger-pointing" sixteen times each.In yesterday's press briefing, he referenced "blame game" six times.The day before, he didn't use it once. Let's make sure this talking point doesnt' grow legs.

Bush is Leading What?

Yesterday morning, Bush announced that he was going to lead an investigation into the response to Katrina:

What I intend to do is lead a -- to lead an investigation to find out what went right and what went wrong. (Bush in response to press question before meeting with the Cabinet.)

Except he's not really going to lead an investigation. If he were then, McClellan's answer to this reporter's question would have been "President Bush" instead of the usual tap dance away from the topic:

Who will do that? I mean, who will lead that -- will it be an outside investigation, or White House?

MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, I think you heard from the President that we've got to remain focused on the task at hand. We've got to remain focused on getting help to people in the region. (In a press briefing later that day.)

In follow up questions, reporters tried to no avail to get a timeline for the investigation. McClellan parried in two ways: by suggesting that an investigation would detract from rescue and recovery and by reframing a desire for an investigation as playing the "blame game". The reporters were aggressive and consistently retorted that it was really accountability. It was nice to see an aggressive press corp. They even called out McClellan a few times, saying dismissively, "That's a talking point."

Oddly enough, on the following day (today), McClellan said that Bush was going to lead the investigation.

MR. McCLELLAN: You're trying -- well, the President is going to lead an investigation to find out what went right and what went wrong. The President made it very clear yesterday that we are going to look at these issues.

Um, except that's not really what he meant. I think. Oh, shit, now I'm really confused.

Q    Doesn't the President have a conflict of interest leading the investigation since what he did and did not do --

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't think that's -- I don't think that's what he was saying, Terry. I think he was going to say he's going to lead the effort to make sure there's a thorough investigation of things.

Let's see if I understand this. He's going to lead in making sure that there's an investigation?

What happened to the "I say what I mean" president and administration?

Bush/Rove Losing Their Political Nose?

Undoubtedly, the administration announcement that they'll investigate what went wrong in the response to Katrina is a result of the tremendous political pressure they face in light of the suffering of our fellow citizens. I don't think the administration is the right group to investigate, but at least they're acknowledging that an investigation is needed.

Given the endless comments about the political brilliance of the administration, you would think that the announcement of an investigation might reference the grief we feel as a country over our failure to meet the basic needs of those devastated by the storm - food, water, shelter, and safety. But nope. Maybe these guys have lost their political sense of smell. Because instead of a commitment to protecting its citizens and a steely resolve to never let it happen again (Bush likes that steely resolve thing), we instead heard this:

"What I intend to do is lead a -- to lead an investigation to find out what went right and what went wrong. And I'll tell you why. It's very important for us to understand the relationship between the federal government, the state government and the local government when it comes to a major catastrophe. And the reason it's important is, is that we still live in an unsettled world. We want to make sure that we can respond properly if there's a WMD attack or another major storm. And so I'm going to find out over time what went right and what went wrong." (Bush)

I could slam Bush for not caring about the people who suffered but I think he cares. I could slam him for paying more attention to the boundaries of federal power than the needs of Americans, and I'm tempted, but I'll leave it to you to decide if his focus is off. My point here is that the vaunted political genius of Bush/Rove is sorely missing here. And I think it's been off for a while. The campaign for privatizing social security is a waste of money. A defiant insistence on a five week vacation. The refusal to meet Cindy Sheehan and prevent the birth of a new anti-war movement. The failure to visit Ohio when so many soldiers from the same unit died on the same day. Giving a prime time speech to defend his Iraq policies and not offering one new thought. These are all political gaffes. I think they're losing their touch.

Of course, that doesn't mean that we, the loyal opposition, ease up. It means that his is the time to keep the pressure on - in getting all of the Roberts documents, in fighting the repeal of the estate tax, in protecting the courts from an extremist bias, in demanding a clear and executable exit strategy from Iraq, in ensuring that our veterans are cared for, in the follow through on the Katrina evacuees and the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast. Despite the endless laments from the conservative punditry, we do have clear goals. We need to keep the pressure on.

In Defense of FEMA

For those who are leaping to the defense of the federal government, may I direct you to the following links.

• FEMA won't accept Amtrak's help in evacuations
• FEMA turns away experienced firefighters
• FEMA turns back Wal-Mart supply trucks
• FEMA prevents Coast Guard from delivering diesel fuel
• FEMA won't let Red Cross deliver food
• FEMA bars morticians from entering New Orleans
• FEMA blocks 500-boat citizen flotilla from delivering aid
• FEMA fails to utilize Navy ship with 600-bed hospital on board
• FEMA to Chicago: Send just one truck
• FEMA turns away generators (See entry from 3:32 P.M. by Ben Morris, Slidell mayor)
• FEMA: "First Responders Urged Not To Respond"

Shameful, no?

Parsing the Rovian Response to Political Crisis

In his Washington Post column today, Dan Froomkin provides an excellent parsing of the classic response of the Bush administration to political crisis:

• Multiple appearances by the president in controlled environments in which he can appear leader-like.
• Extensive use of Air Force One and a massive deployment of spinners.
• No change in policy required.
• No admission of error.
• Attack critics rather than defending against their criticism.
• Throw up chaff to muddle the issue and throw the press off the scent.
• Regular public expressions of outrage over the politicization of the issue and of those who would play the "blame game."
• Ignore the administration's own politicization of the issue and its own efforts to allocate blame.

Froomkin goes on to explain why applying this strategy is a bit trickier with the poor response to Katrina. Let's hope that this time the strategy of misdirection and personal attack doesn't work. After all, this is about our national security. And if the public - even the Dems - saw the administration taking ownership of the federal failures in the past few days, they'd be more supportive and more open to discussing local failures. 

Please, Point Fingers!

Today, I've heard a number of local officials from the Gulf Coast as well as plenty of pundits repeat the mantra, "Now is not the time to point fingers".

Are they getting their talking points from Chertoff or what?

We HAVE to point fingers now. The Bush administration is stellar at avoiding accountability. Let's not help them avoid this one by demurely declaring that now is the time to focus on the rescue and recovery. We're actually capable of doing more than one thing at a time. So let's figure where things went wrong - bi-partisan commission, whatever. Because I'm quite sure that while some responsibility is local, it's not the friggin' mayor's fault that the federal government failed in its fundamental job of protecting its citizens.

Barbara Bush: Evacuees Better Off

So. I was channel surfing through the cable news shows and came across Larry King, suck up extraordinaire, interviewing George Sr. and Barbara. No newsworthy information of course - more of a commercial for how great their son is. He has a strong heart, he's determined, he feels people's pain, he's a man of faith. Uh huh. Parents get to brag on their kids. Of course, when the kid is the President and their bragging on Larry King while the devastation from Katrina is still being uncovered, it's a bit much. I hit my threshold when Barbara said that she'd talked to some evacuees in the AstroDome and they told her that when Bush Jr. flew over the area, it made all the difference in their lives.

REALLY?!? Imagine. Your home city is flooded and you're stranded on a spit of highway. You have no food or water for days. People around you are dying. When food and water are finally delivered, you hear promises of rescue, which doesn't happen for another day. Or two. Or maybe you followed the directive to go the sports arena because you didn't have the means to get out of New Orleans. You suffer heat, dehydration, filth, and violence. You're scared, thirsty, hungry, and locked in. You're promised evacuation. And when the buses come, they're turned away. Finally, you get on a bus in the same clothes you've been wearing for days. You ride for hours in order to be safe, to have food, water and shelter. Whether you come from the highway or the arena, would you really say upon learning that Bush flew over the Gulf Coast that it made all the difference in your life? I think not.

I might excuse this as a poor attempt by a mother to support her son. I was working my way towards that view when I heard that in a different news segment Barbara said: "So many people in the Astrodome were underprivileged anyway so this is working really well for them."

Are you kidding me? This is the statement of someone so fundamentally out of touch with the common man that they really shouldn't let her near a microphone. Does she really think that living in an arena, having gone through a terribly traumatic ordeal, having lost the few possession you had and possibly lost people you love... does she think that's better than living in poverty? That living in a public space on the charity of others with no privacy, no ownership, hundreds of miles from the place you know, sleeping next to strangers in the noise of thousands under lights that are always on... this is better than living in poverty?

I'm ashamed that someone so callous and assuming and uninformed and disconnected was our country's first lady.

Saving Americans? It's Politics, Baby.

How satisfying is it that Bush is finally taking the devastation in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast seriously. That he's sending in resources, committing the federal government to help its citizens?

Well, it would be a lot more satisfying if the motive for doing so weren't political. Suddenly, the administration is getting serious about its duty to protect its citizens now that it realizes that its own agenda is at risk. Yup. Threaten their agenda of ending the estate tax and privatizing social security and suddenly the desperation of those ravaged by the storm matters.

Glad to know what motivates this administration to act. It's not a commitment to a "culture of life" or else they would have acted to save the lives of those who were dying in the streets of New Orleans. It is, however, the preservation of power and the continued implementation of an ideological agenda disconnected from reality. I wish I found that surprising.

Info on the administration's sudden wake-up call in the face of political damage can be found in this New York Times article.

How We Feel Post-Katrina

LIke so many other citizens, I've been dismayed at the poor performance of our government in New Orleans and the Gulf. I share the shocked response of so many: "this is America?" I've read news reports and endless blog entries and this is the one that stayed with me.

From Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish, I read this email from one of his readers. I've excerpted it here giving you the start and end of the post, but you should click over and read the whole thing. Really - go read it.

"I've considered myself a socially libertarian, fiscally conservative Republican for a very long time. I got along with the idea that I wasn't going to get a whole lot of help. College wouldn't be free. Job training would cost money and time. And I'm probably a decent example of up-from-not-much.

But after watching what's happening in New Orleans-an American city that I've loved, visited and have always wanted to return to - I can't ever vote for these people again.
.....
I've had it. I'm done. And if the other bunch of assholes can't figure out that what's important is that babies don't starve to death here (and I'm not talking some metaphorical goo-goo thing with school lunches and welfare, but real, actual starving) and we get people out of harm's way, we'll get rid of them too. And so on.

Because this is about leadership, not about bitching on CNN how no one's in charge, or listening to Peggy Noonan furrow her brow at the Governor's performance, or bragging that we've sent in one National Guardsman for every 200 people, or actually having the audacity to say that "we had no idea the levees would break."

Today, I saw my country favorably compared to Indonesia and Thailand, (always our traditional benchmarks of infrastructural success) while the elderly die of thirst in the street. We sneered at France when this happened during a heat wave.

No more."

The Media Focus on Democrat Divisions

I'm tired of reading about how divided the Democrats are - when the Republicans have fissures in their party over the war in Iraq, immigration reform, the exploding deficit, and the increasing heft of the religious extremists.

Google "Democrats divided" and you'll get over 800 hits, with articles from media outlets in London, Moscow, and all of those here in the states. Just this week, we were treated to a WaPo article on the Democrats divide over the Iraq war - this in a week when Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel repeated his call for a timeline for pulling the troops and virtually labeled Bush a loser. The great Democratic divide is a media construct. Sure, we're not a single-minded entity. But the Dems are no more divided than the Pubs. We're just have a more vocal netroots community - one that hold the party accountable instead of marching in lockstep while we chant out the party talking points.

We need to challenge the media when it trots out the divided Dems theme and remind them that the great divide is actually democracy in action - different people with different ideas about how to solve the problems our country faces, in dialog and working together to find the right solution. Sure, we've got our DINOs that we diss and we hold our leaders accountable for abandoning principle in the cautious hope of not rocking the boat and losing their seat. But so do the Pubs. There's nothing happening on the left that isn't happening on the right when it comes to a lack of unity on what to do in Iraq. So let's not let the media pain us as divided while pretending the Pubs are in the midst of a Vulcan mind meld.

W is for War, not Women

On a fairly regular basis, we hear Republican leaders like Bush and Cheney defend the war in Iraq on the basis of the benefits to women there. I've posted on this before, noting that I don't buy their convenient embrace of women's rights. Well I was right to be suspicious. Just read the following statement made by a loyal member of the neocon movement.

I mean, one hopes that the Iraqis protect women's social rights as much as possible.  It certainly seems clear that in protecting the political rights, there's no discussion of women not having the right to vote.  I think it's important to remember that in the year 1900, for example, in the United States, it was a democracy then.  In 1900, women did not have the right to vote.  If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled America in the 1900s, I think we'd all be thrilled.  I mean, women's social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy. We hope they're there.  I think they will be there. But I think we need to put this into perspective.
Former Middle East specialist for the CIA, Reuel Marc Gerecht (Meet the Press, 8/21/05)

Hmm. I wonder what kind of outcry there would be if he said "Kurds social rights aren't critical to the evolution of democracy"? Quite a loud one, I think. But here we see that the equality of women in society is seen not as a central component of democracy but as a nice add-on. Screw him and those who would comfortably allow half the population to be excluded from participating in democracy. Screw him and those who would abandon Iraqi women to the oppressive male rule of Sharia, to the loss of such fundamental rights that they can't protect themselves, own their own property, escape an abusive husband, avoid physical harm and even death for behaviors we take for granted.

Girls going to school doesn't count for much if they are subordinate citizens without the protections and rights afforded men. If women in Iraq aren't given equal rights in Iraq then any claim that we've brought democracy there is an empty one.

These guys don't value women as equal citizens, as equal human beings with the same self-evident right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that men have.

They see the rights of women as good propaganda and a negotiating point to be abandoned as necessary. Crap like this, dished out on one of the top cable news shows and minimally challenged by the other men on the show, reminds me that there's a reason the ERA never passed here, that the ERA was the incentive that brought together the social and religious conservatives. Bush can campaign with a "W is for Women" theme, but it's really for war. Not just war against terrorists - but in some ways, war against women.

As an FYI, Reuel Marc Gerecht has his conservative credentials in order. He's a neocon, serving as the Director of the Middle East Initiative at the         Project for the New American Century -- PNAC is the heart of the neocon ideological movement. He's also a resident fellow at the American         Enterprise Institute - a leading conservative think tank. He's a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard. And he's a regular talking head on cable news shows. He's got hefty academic credentials and was a CIA analyst for nine years (left in 94). And he letting us know what the neocons really think.

Another Hectoring Thread on Fixing the Democratic Party

There's a post on The Moderate Voice titled "Kerry Blasts GOP And Says Democratic Party Doesn't Need Much Change". It's one more post on the failure of the Democratic party to win over the hearts of a majority of Americans. In it's favor, it acknowledges the role of bad consultants in past losses. The post is interesting, but what's got me blogging  about it (after a few weeks of being offline as I've immersed myself in a trying to help an actual progressive candidate win an actual congressional race) -- what's got me blogging about it is the comment thread. Here are a few excerpts:

Most voters, however, make choices based on something other than the kind of visceral hatred which is the only thing the left understands any more.

Unfortunately, the Democrats support for Roe v Wade leads to them putting the "right to privacy" so high on their priorities that our security suffers.

What the Democrats can't overcome could be called the "Roe Defect." A party that believes anyone in a mother's womb has the moral status of hamburger meat doesn't attract people with integrity.

But mainly, the Democratic party needs to support the war against terrorism, rather than undercut the government. I think that the only Democrat who could beat a Republican candidate for president would be a Democrat who can and will say that he supports the president on the war, and when elected, will continue to fight, not indict, terrorists.

The heart of a party has to be more than the killing of unborn children, special privileges for special groups, more taxes, anti-christian bias, surrender to terrorists, protecting the political class, and hatred for a sitting president. The little guy has learned that the Democratic party's high minded programs hurt the little guy.

But until the Dem's decide that this country is worth defending from our enemies, until they even acknowledge that we're at war - I'm voting straight Rep (even if I sometime have to hold my nose to do so).

To this life-long Democrat, our party has zero credibility on the paramount question of protecting the nation and defending liberal values from an ideology that wants to kill us or forcibly convert us to seventh century Islamism.

The Democrats will continue to be marginalized until moderates and sane liberals have the guts to read out of the party the discredited leftists, Michael Moore moonbats, and rabid haters that unfortunately have set the tone for the party.

The Dems today think they can be weak on the war and get elected. 

Until the Dem's figure out that the GWOT is the real deal, and that Iraq is the defining battle of that war, they will continue to be thought of as completely untrustworthy in the eyes of the majority of the electorate, regardless of how poorly Bush or his successor perform.

I'm so tired of being lectured to, told to change my party, based on inaccurate information or outright disinformation dished out by the far right. So here's the comment I posted - without a lot of thought put into it. And here's my question: How do we communicate that we take terrorism seriously, since I'm quite sure we do? How do we get our views on national security out there?

My comment on the Moderate Voice post:
Wow. For a site called "The Moderate Voice" there's not much that's moderate in these comments.

Here, the Dem party is soundly thumped for not taking terrorism seriously. I fundamentally disagree that this is the case. I think instead that's it's the mantra that's been chanted so often that it's assumed to be true.

The reason Dems didn't support the invasion of Iraq is because it was a distraction from the real threat - terrorism. Of course, now Iraq really is the heart of the war on terror but it wasn't back when.

My reasons for not supporting Bush are broad, but the bottom line for me is that I don't believe he's making us safer, despite his talk. His handling of the war has been a fiasco and we can't afford that. Osama still roams the borders of Afghanistan with the blind-eye of Pakistan turned away. We've pissed off the very allies we need to fight terrorism across the globe, making it that much harder for us to protect ourselves. Homeland security has been neglected, with minimal efforts to protect our ports, our public transport systems, and our borders. We've undermined our moral authority by our treatment of detainees and given fodder to those who hate us in doing so. It's a national disgrace and I really don't understand how patriotic talk makes up for the disastrous leadership we have.

We can't fight and win if we don't make decisions based on the facts. If we need more troops, send them. Don't dismiss the military's desire for them as "one theory" as Bush did. If we need the help of allies, work with them - don't piss on them. If we need better armor for the troops, get it to them. Don't let our soldiers die because of a screwed up Pentagon procurement process. Don't cut taxes during a war time and pretend the costs of war don't affect the budget. Have the courage to put those costs in the budget and tell Americans that we need to sacrifice in the name of national security.

Don't tell me that I'm not a patriot, don't love my country, don't take national security seriously just because I don't salute a president who isn't doing a good job. Because I didn't think invading Iraq was the best way to defeat our enemy. Because I'm a Democrat.

The Dems are a minority party - an opposition party. They have ideas, proposals, solutions for a wide range of issues including fighting terrorism and protecting the homeland. You can find them online - just check out some Dem politician's web sites. No - the alleged liberal media doesn't cover Democratic ideas. They aren't considered newsworthy. But that doesn't mean they aren't there. What does get covered is Dem opposition to Republican proposals and criticism of Bush's leadership. That doesn't mean that the message in the media is the sum total of Dem thought.

Finally, I don't believe that the Dem party is on the verge of disintegration and I don't believe that the assumed ascendancy and endurance of the Pubs is a given. What people respond to is authenticity and our candidates have stupidly allowed themselves to be packaged and positioned. That's what has to end. People responded to Dean because he was authentic and he gave average citizens the opportunity to be involved. Yes, his opposition to the war got him noticed. But his authenticity got him support.

Those on the right can claim that the left has been co-opted by the fringe. But from my view, that's exactly what's happened to the right. It's getting to the point where disagreeing with the far right is an invitation to be labeled unAmerican, unpatriotic, sinful, evil, whacked. That's a shame and I hope those of you in the Pub party can reclaim it. I don't know if that will happen as long as the disdainful, wholesale denigration of the opposition continues.

Look. There are thoughtful patriots who care about the country on both sides of the aisle. And both sides have their fair share of wingnuts and moonbats. Maybe the first step in wresting the political process away from the extremists is to begin to treat each other with a modicum of respect and to listen to each other. I'll try. I hope others do to.

Part Time President

Let's see. President Bush has spent 20% of his presidency on vacation. Today is his 321st day of vacation since he was inaugurated in January 2001. By the end of his current vacation - a record breaking five week stint in Crawford, he'll have spent almost a full year of his time in office taking vacations.

I wonder, though, of the time he has been working, how much work he's done. He takes a two hour exercise break every day and prefers not to work nights or weekends. He spent most of his time in 2004 campaigning and quite a few days this year traveling around promoting his privatization scheme - not exactly how we want our Commander-in-Chief to spend his time when we're at war and our soldiers are dying. On the other hand, who knows how much worse things might be if worked harder.

Bush needs all this vacation because, as he has told us repeatedly, fighting the global war on terror struggle against extremism is hard work.

Did anyone explain to Bush that he could have spent all of his time in Crawford if he hadn't run for a second term? Too bad - he might have decided to go home.

Tuned Out America

You know, the problem with rigidly staying on message is this - people stop listening. Bush is famous for staying on message and the acclaim is deserved. But unfortunately, he doesn't saying anything new - not even when he gives a prime time address. How many times can we read or hear that we have to stay the course, that  we can pull out of Iraq when Iraqis can defend themselves, that he's a "culture of life" guy who won't support stem cell research, that he wants to privatize social security, make tax cuts permanent, et al, - how many times can we hear the same thing before deciding that we don't have to pay attention to what the president says?

I'm guessing that we're near the tipping point. The fundamental assumption the public makes is that Bush isn't going to tell us anything we haven't already heard from him or don't already know. So why listen?

The administration's message discipline seemed so impressive a few years ago. But now, it's just a script that they keep reciting, even when it doesn't fit the facts. And America is tuning out.

BushSpeak

I love language, words, the way a specific word creates the perfect nuance of meaning. That's why it's so painful for me when I hear the person who represents us to the world, the President, say things like this.

"The best place for the facts to be done is by somebody who's spending time investigating it."

Sigh.

Intent vs. Motive: Lessons in Meaning for the Administration

One of the things (one of many) that really bothered me in the whole torture memo saga was the administration's legal analysis that said  a person was only culpable for torturous actions if when they engaged in the torturous behavior, their intent was to cause long lasting harm.

That came to mind when I read this in the NYT:

Mr. Rove told the grand jury in the case that the e-mail message was consistent with his assertion that he had not intended to divulge Ms. Wilson's identity but instead intended to rebut Mr. Wilson's criticisms of the administration's use of intelligence about Iraq....

The defense here is that Rove's intent was to discredit Mr. Wilson, therefore any disclosures about Valerie Plame, Wilson's wife, weren't criminal. But if he intentionally disclosed Plame's CIA status, regardless of his reason for doing so, he broke the  law. They're confusing intent and motive, making them equivalent.

Intent isn't motive - you can be motivated by the best of all possible reasons and still be found to have  intentionally broken the law. That's why if a parent kills a predator who molested their child, they're still arrested. Their motive, or reason, was to protect other children or their own child. But they surely intended to kill the guy in order to achieve their goals.

The official line may be that Rove's intent was to discredit Wilson and therefore he's not in the wrong, but what they're really saying is that Rove's motive was to discredit Wilson. Regardless of motive, if Rove intentionally outed Valerie Plame, he broke the law. The only way he's off the hook is if the disclosure was accidental. And I don't see anyone suggesting that.

Fuzzy Math 101: Reducing the Deficit

Welcome to math class, President Bush.

Today, you have one math problem: projecting the federal deficit.

You must show your work and calculate a 50% reduction in the deficit over a five year period. You have all the data you need and you are allowed great latitude in making assumptions about the future. You may use fuzzy math, as needed.

To begin, complete the following steps:

1. Figure out all the money you have and will get in the next five years. (Assets)
2. Now list all of your bills for the next five years. Be sure to include loans and one-time expenses. (Liabilities)
3. Now subtract your liabilities from your assets. If the number you get is a negative number, you have a deficit. (Bummer) This is your five year projected deficit.

If your projected deficit isn't half of today's deficit, you must use fuzzy math to reduce it.

It is strongly recommended that you focus on decreasing your liabilities instead of trying to increase assets, i.e. raising taxes. Fuzzy math may not imply that you will take actions that are inconsistent with your politics. It may be inconsistent with your actions, but not your political philosophy. This is a foundational fuzzy math principle that cannot be ignored. Therefore, any solutions that increase assets through any implied tax increase will receive a failing grade.

For help in applying fuzzy math to today's math problem, consider using any of the following options.

• Assume that increased tax revenues likely due to a one-time corporate tax holiday are really a permanent  increase. Increase your asset projections accordingly. (Congratulations. You  just found an additional $328 billion in income. What a way to start!)

• Decide that not  all debts are created equal. Don't include money borrowed from the social security trust fund in the minus column. Reduce your liabilities accordingly. (Hey, you just shaved $173 billion off the deficit! Good for you.)

• Examine the assumptions you've made about repaying loans and notice the interest rates you've listed for each loan. Decide that the private market doesn't really know what they're talking about and it's perfectly reasonable for you to assume lower interest rates than they do. Hey, it's not like they're all-knowing or anything. Lower the future interest rates on your loans and use the lower loan payments to lower your total liabilities. (Wow, that makes a big difference! Who cares if no-one believes the interest rates will be that low. You're on your way to cutting the deficit in half!.)

• Examine your  liabilities. Is there anything you can cut?  Hey!  How come you're including a few hundred billion for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan next year and billions in the years after that? You don't know that we won't pull out by the end of 2006, maybe win the war on terror by then, do you? You should include a nominal sum for next year but nothing else. If someone criticizes you, you can accuse them of not having confidence in America. That's a good defense. Reduce your liabilities by erasing all those billions you listed to pay for the war and adding, say, $50 billion for next year. (Wow. You just saved hundreds of billions of dollars! And you know, even if the war  goes past 2006, it's not like you have to buy body armor or armored humvees for anybody. If they don't have them now you don't have to provide them later, right?)

• Your deficit still looks kind of high so it's time to cut the liabilities again (you can't raise taxes, after all). You look and look but can't find anything to cut. Do it anyway. Just cut $144 billion of discretionary costs - things like veteran's benefits, job training, the space program. Stuff you don't have to pay but that Congress won't cut. (Ignore that small voice in your head telling you that you always underestimate this stuff - like just last month when you had to go ask Congress for extra money for veteran's health care because you didn't budget well. That was embarrassing and you don't want to do it again. But then, it was a lot less embarrassing than having to admit your not going to hit your deficit reduction goals, so just do it.) Reduce your liabilities by $144 billion.

Congratulations! You've done it! You've figured out how to announce big deficit reductions over the next five years by using every single one of the options above. Thank God for fuzzy math. (It may not reflect reality, but this is politics, baby. Reality doesn't matter.)

You are dismissed, President Bush. You have worked hard and deserve a nice bike ride and maybe a pretzel. Have a lovely day. 

In Defense of Rove

So the Republicans have launched their Rove defense and a key part of it is the claim that Rove was doing the right thing, steering a reporter away from an inaccurate story. According to the well-orchestrated Republican talking points, Joe Wilson was only sent to Niger because his wife suggested the CIA send him, the Vice President didn't have anything to do with it, and Wilson's work was shoddy.

Let's take a closer look at that argument.

1. Joe Wilson only went to Niger because his wife suggested he go.

Does the right really believe that the primary foreign intelligence agency for the United States, faced with the need to determine whether or not Saddam Hussein was actively working to reconstitute a nuclear program, with concern expressed by the Vice President, chose someone to investigate solely on the basis of nepotism, because an operative suggested her husband? If so, they're saying that the CIA didn't really take it's job seriously, cared more about accommodating the preferences of an operative over ensuring that they did their best to find out if Saddam was trying to go  nuclear. That's an incredibly harsh indictment of the CIA and if true, whoever was involved in sending Wilson to Niger should be fired.

Of course, the Republicans don't really believe what they're saying so there are no calls to identify and root out those who put  our national security at risk by agreeing to send Joe Wilson to investigate Saddam's efforts to procure uranium.

The truth is that Joe Wilson was eminently qualified to investigate the issue. That's why the CIA sent him. To claim otherwise is one more act of choosing politics over the credibility of the intelligence community, those  in charge of anti-terror intelligence gathering.

2. The Vice President didn't have anything to do with sending Wilson to Niger.

This is more of the name game. Cheney says he didn't know Wilson's name, ergo he couldn't have been involved in sending him to Niger. That reasoning is too simplistic for the second most powerful man in the country, though he's got a good role model in Rove.

Cheney may not have said, "Hey, let's send Joe to Niger." But that doesn't mean he didn't say, "Hey, I'm hearing reports that Saddam is trying to procure uranium in Niger. Can you guys at the CIA check that out?"

You don't get to absolve the administration of all involvement just because they didn't tell the CIA who should investigate. And just because they didn't assign Joe directly doesn't mean they didn't ask for the assignment to be done.

3. Joe Wilson did shoddy work.

I suppose it's irrelevant that Wilson was right.

I suppose it's irrelevant that the CIA wouldn't support the claim that Saddam was trying to get uranium - which is why Bush cited British intelligence in his State of the Union speech.

I suppose it's irrelevant that the documents indicating that Saddam was trying to get uranium were shown to be forgeries.

I suppose it's irrelevant that the administration acknowledged that it was a mistake to claim that Saddam was pursuing uranium - in the State of the Union speech and elsewhere.

I suppose it's irrelevant that once again the administration refuses to take responsibility and instead is laying the blame at  the feet of the CIA, saying they weren't told about Wilson's findings.

All that really matters is that they can discredit Joe Wilson, no matter that he was right about the Saddam's alleged pursuit of uranium and right about Rove being behind the leak of Wilson's wife.

The truth here isn't that Rove was a noble public servant, ensuring that the public wasn't mislead. The truth is that Rove is a political operative, working to discredit a critic of the administration and incidentally outing his wife as a CIA operative in the process. He's not noble - he's venal. And he should be held accountable.

Notes on DNC Conference Call with Sen. Reid

I participated in a DNC conference call on the nomination for a replacement of Sandra Day O'Connor. It took all of ten minutes, with a welcome from Howard Dean, and a short statement from Sen. Reid who then took a couple of questions.

It was almost interesting. 

Reid attending a White House meeting this morning on the upcoming nomination. Those attending included Senators Reid, Leahy, Frist and Specter, President Bush, Chief of Staff Andy Card, and Vice President  Cheney.

Is anyone else nostalgic for the days when Vice Presidents spent their time figuring out how to reduce  paperwork in government when they weren't attending state funerals? I am.

Key points Reid made were these:

• This first meeting wasn't consultation, it was the beginning of consultation.
• Consultation doesn't mean Bush accepts recommendations from Senators. Information has to go both ways.
• This is a chance to unite the country and it's up to Bush to do so. Bush can choose consultation or confrontation, judicial independence over ideology.
• If an extremist is nominated, Reid said "We'll use all procedural tools we have at our disposal to protect the American people."

Less centrally, there were a few things I noted. In talking about the seven Dems who made a deal and thereby negated the threat of the nuclear option being used, Reid said he approved the deal. Huh. It was an unnecessary comment I thought and came across as stealing credit or as posturing.

Reid is clearly annoyed at Sen. Frist for the comments he made on the floor of the Senate immediately following the White House meeting. The implication is that Frist isn't acting in good faith. Frist claimed that they didn't want co-nominations and Reid suggested that those words came straight from the mouth of James Dobson. Ouch. He also corrected the claim Frist made on the floor that what Bush is doing is unprecedented - Reid described that statement as "flim flam". To refute it, Reid referenced specific instances where President's submitted their preferred nominees to key Senators before making a decision.

Perhaps the most interesting thing Reid said was this:

"The nuclear option is gone, it's history."

He says too many Republicans won't support a non-mainstream nominee, the implication being that Frist couldn't get support to outlaw a filibuster if the Dems engaged in one. I guess we'll see. But Reid was pretty definitive in his statement. If he's right, that's good news.

Virgins in the Volcano

I think that one of the things that drives me crazy about the Republicans in control is that no matter what happens, they don't alter what they're saying - they co-opt everything and use it to prove their points. It's good spin, good marketing, but bad leadership.

After the bombings in London, there's been a lot of talk on blogs at least, about  what's being called the "flypaper theory" - that we're fighting terrorists "there" so we don't have to fight them here. The  London bombings seemed to show that this was just empty rhetoric.

I've always cringed when I heard Bush use the "fight them there" line. It strikes me as simplistic, based on false assumptions about the enemy, offering false comfort to the public. It's an invitation to sacrifice others to save ourselves. And it's simply not true.

The enemy we face isn't geographically bound to one locale. It's not the child of a nation-state, restrained by that association. It's not a quasi-military militia, managed with a top-down hierarchy of leaders. Instead, it is a network of militant, violent, ideologues united by common hatreds and a disregard for life. Yes, they are in the Middle East and it's likely that's where the greatest concentration of our enemy can be found. It's the land of  their birth, ideologically. But they're also in Asia, in Europe, and yes, they are likely here as well.

And yet, Bush continues to recite his misleading words of comfort: "We're fighting the enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan and across the world so we do not have to face them at home." (July 11 speech at FBI Academy) It's a disservice to the public, an insult to the world, and a lie. It makes our troops the modern equivalent of the virgins that ancient peoples threw into volcanoes - appeasing the gods and ensuring domestic tranquility. It's the sacrifice of the young and innocent to save the rest.  All we have to do is chant our support as they're tossed over the side, and trust our leaders that the sacrifice is worth it, that it will keep us safe at home.

Ultimately, Bush's continued use of empty and false rhetoric keeps me from having any hope that the administration is telling us the truth, is worthy  of my trust. I cannot make the leap of faith needed to have confidence that we are making the right decisions to win against our enemies. I fear  that the administration believes it's own rhetoric. And we can't afford such simplistic thinking if we are going to win this war. We can't afford to embrace the notion that as long as we support the war over there, as long as we're willing to send our troops into battle in foreign lands, we're safe at home. It's a false security we're offered - it's a dumbing down of America.

If Bush wants me to trust him then he should trust us to handle the truth. And he should tell it.

What "Public's Right to Know"?

So the Cleveland Plain Dealer, a highly respected newspaper, is withholding two investigative reports because the stories used documents that were leaked to them. This is an Ohio paper and there's a chance that these stories are about the 2004 vote in Ohio or the current rare coin scandal that keeps expanding and enveloping more Republicans. Those would be pretty important stories. I want to read them. But I can't.

Given that Judith Miller is now in jail for refusing to reveal a source, it's understandable that reporters and publishers might be concerned. But the reporters who investigated and wrote the stories are willing to risk jail for these stories that are described as "profoundly important" but the newspaper won't take a legal risk.

They should release the reporters from any legal limitation on publishing their work anywhere else, cover their butts legally with whatever documents they need the reporters to sign, and then let the reporters post the stories on their own blogs - with full disclosure that they do so against the express wishes of the paper.

I respect the fact that the newspaper is trying to bring attention to how the recent legal attacks on journalists can and is stifling real news. But I won't believe their concern is for the public until they let the reporters share their stories.

Words of Truth from Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London

In a number of places, blogs and newspapers, I've read that the attack in London targeted the G8 summit. Though he wasn't speaking to those pointing to the G8 as the target, this comment by the mayor of London is the best response to them.

I want to say one thing specifically to the world today. This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the powerful. It was not aimed at Presidents or Prime Ministers. It was aimed at ordinary, working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Jew, young and old. It was an indiscriminate attempt to slaughter, irrespective of any considerations for age, for class, for religion, or whatever.

The entire statement by Ken Livingstone is worth reading. So go read it.

A curtsy to Josh Marshall at Talking Points memo for the link.

Our Response to the London Bombings

I've thought about posting on the London bombings off and on all day. I've listened throughout the day as one politician after another has expressed their sympathies and then added a point or two that advanced their own agenda.

• The attacks show that we were right to go into Iraq - see how much smaller this was than 9/11? That's because we've killed so many terrorists over there.
• The attacks show that we were wrong to go into Iraq - if we hadn't shifted our focus off al Qaida and onto Iraq then we might have prevented this.

• The attacks make it clear that we must control our borders - al Qaida wants to harm us here.
• The attacks make it clear that it's not about controlling our borders - weren't they home grown terrorists?

• The attacks make it clear that the world is safer - only 40 dead instead of 3000.
• The attacks make it clear that the world is not safer - they're still exporting their terror.

It's endless. And as the day progressed, it got worse. Moonbats on the left claiming that the Bush/Blair contingent was behind this - or directly caused it. Wingnuts on the right citing the moonbats as proof that the left is anti-American and pro-terrorist. And that's the nice stuff.

I want to yell, STOP! People died today. Can we take one day and just stop it all?

The answer is no. I can't even do it. For while I refrained from saying it, I can't help but type it.

We now know this lie for what it is: "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here."

See?  I'm no better than anyone else.

UPDATE: For a profane response from an angry lefty, unimpressed with the right blogosphere's compulsion for quoting the extremists as representative of the rest of us on the left, I direct you to this post on Loaded Mouth. Those with gentle ears be warned that profanity is welcome on Loaded Mouth. (Yes, I'm warning you, Mom.)

UPDATE II: And here, Echidne of the Snakes puts me to shame.

Ban on "Up or Down Vote"

I'm declaring a ban on the use of the phrase "up or down vote". It's a Republican catch phrase and it's an annoying use of English. There is no sideways vote, no up only vote, no diagonal vote. The votes being referenced here are to confirm or not confirm nominees - those are inherently yes or no votes. What the  Republicans are saying when they say the President's nominee deserves an "up or down vote" is simply  that the nominee deserves a vote. But adding "up or down" sounds better, like they're embracing simplicity in government or something. It's catchy and they hope it will catch on.

When I'm told that a nominee deserves an "up or down vote", I'll reply that we don't deserve a rush to judgment, since that's what they're advocating.

On top of that, I may also explain that while the nominee may deserve a vote and they'll get one in due time, their right to a vote doesn't trump my right to a voice. And when the Dems ask the hard questions and speak out against a rush to judgment, it's my voice I hear. I may not be a Republican, but that doesn't mean I don't have a voice in what happens in this country.

War ABCs: Figuring Out What Victory Looks Like

In a revisit of a November 2003 article on the administration's efforts to win the PR battle over the war in Iraq, Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post reminds us that the President is getting advice from experts on public opinion in war time. Here's a bit of advice they gave, which is a  little humorous in its simplicity. At the same time, it's down right scary that this is something Bush has to be told.

"Also, he said, the administration needs to develop valid and convincing measures of success in Iraq, 'so he [Bush] himself knows whether he is winning.'

Bush's Handmaidens: Merging Public and Private

Bush has promised to "consult" with Congress over his nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. And true to his word, he's meeting with the party leaders and ranking members of the Judiciary Committee from each party. But. That's just a meeting and while I'm glad it's happening, I'm not sure his consultation with them will have as much heft as the non-governmental groups advising him.

Apparently, according to the Washington Post, Bush has outsourced much of the planning for the nomination to leaders of  these outside groups - the Committee for Justice, the American Center for Law and Justice, and the Federalist Society. These aren't mainstream groups - they're very conservative.

The plan is for the Federalist Society to do the research on the nominee and for a fourth group, Progress for America, to spend as much as $18 million promoting the nominee. The Judicial Confirmation Network will organize grassroots support in six states, where key Senators in the confirmation process reside. Apparently, each group has it's own role to play.

These groups could certainly work together, independent of the government, to support the President's nominee. What bothers me isn't that they're working with each other - it's that they're working with the White House. It's the merging of private groups with government. 

Unlike Bush,  who  at least gives lip service to the idea that he's everyone's president, these groups have no intention of representing every Americans; they only represent those who agree with their extreme conservative ideology. They're goal is to impose their worldview on the rest of us, to pressure the President to hew to a hard line conservative position. They aren't serving at the pleasure of the President - they're serving at their own pleasure with their own agenda and their own constituents.

The line between public and private institutions is so blurred as to be virtually indistinguishable. And the real problem here is that these private groups are not accountable to the public despite their quasi-governmental role. We didn't elect C. Boyden Gray and his co-horts. They aren't subject to federal background checks or campaign finance laws or disclosure laws or any real transparency. They are private groups. They're  working hand-in-glove with the administration to sway pubic opinion. We should start treating them as extensions of the administration, holding them to the same standards we use with public officials. If they are doing  the President's business, then they're doing our business. Even though they weren't elected.

Girding for Battle on the Right

Just in case you thought there was no vast right wing conspiracy....

"Within hours after Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's announced retirement from the Supreme Court, members of conservative groups around the country convened in five national conference calls...."

UPDATE:
Okay, so it's not just the right:

At the abortion rights group Naral Pro-Choice America, organizers were sending e-mail alerts to 800,000 activists within 15 minutes after the announcement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's resignation.

The difference, of course, is the coordination on the right. Let's hope the left follows suit.

New Social Security Privatization Proposal Doesn't Solve a Thing

What kind of intellectual vacuum do you need to live in to make this case? Here it is.

1. Social security will go bankrupt when the social security trust fund is depleted.
2. The trust fund is really just a pile of IOUs anyway.
3. To save social security we need to privatize it and let folks invest their social security payments in the stock market.
4. Privatizing social security costs a lot of money.
5. The solution is to fund privatization by using the social security trust fund surplus - the money represented by those IOUs.

Did you follow that? We need reform because the trust fund isn't solvent and it's not real money anyway so let's use the money represented by the  trust fund to pay to privatize social security. And the privatization would end when the surplus ended, providing a very short window for the program (although we all know how much the Republicans like passing laws that expire as a strategy for permanent laws - they just extend the expiration date again and again).

And note, this plan does nothing to address the actual solvency issue - it just redirects the spending of surplus dollars from other programs. The "solution" doesn't solve anything except the impasse over how to fund privatization. Of course, we'd see huge cuts in other programs that are currently funded with the surplus, but hey, who cares? It's not like the money is going towards essential programs like health care for the poor or anything.... except it is.

This proposal has all the hallmarks of a political maneuver designed not to solve any real problems, but to support an ideological position (privatization) and to undermine the opposition (Dems opposed to privacy and Pubs concerned about the deficit).

We'll being hearing grand announcements about the willingness of Pubs to compromise and great condemnations about the Democrats unwillingness to propose solutions. But the bottom line here is that the Pubs aren't compromising - they're still chasing privatization without addressing solvency. And the Dems aren't oppositional simply because they won't propose a program that supports the conservative ideological demand to privatize social security.

If the Republicans are serious in their claims that social security faces insolvency or bankruptcy, that there's a crisis,  they'll propose a solution to that problem instead of ignoring while they chase their ideological dream of privatization.

Where the Boys Are (the Pentagon Knows)

Information on kids, boys really, is being tracked by the Pentagon and shared with a database marketing firm. Nice.

When No Child Left Behind was passed, the public's attention was on the law's emphasis on testing and accountability, on the elimination of the "soft bigotry of low expectations". No-one really noticed that it included a requirement for schools to turn over student data to the Pentagon - to make sure that no child was left behind in their recruitment efforts.

The Pentagon is collecting student data that has traditionally been protected by privacy laws. They're gathering our children's names, ethnicity, GPA, major areas of study, and social security numbers. Our schools are required to turn over the data to the Pentagon if they don't want to lose their federal funding. Parents can opt-out if they'd like.

Of course, opting out is the weakest privacy option here. Most online vendors, particularly those collecting personally identifiable information, have to use an "opt-in" option, where the individual has to choose to share their data. Not the Pentagon, though.

To make matters worse, now we learn that the Pentagon has outsourced the student data management to a database marketing company. If I understand correctly, the laws proscribing the government's collection of data on citizens don't apply when the government agency uses a non-governmental third party. Nice loophole there. The company working with the Pentagon on this project - tracking children - will be creating detailed profiles on these kids by matching the data schools provide with data available in other public records. The result is a corporation with a giant database containing detailed personally identifiable information on children and young adults. That database will grow over the years as more and more children reach the age of sixteen.

And that database built on the educational records of our children will not only be used to recruit them for the military. The Pentagon has the right, with no notice to the public, to share the data with state tax authorities, law enforcement, and Congress.

It's a complete routing of the Privacy Act, which limits the government's right to track citizens.

And it's funny, you know? The government has long recognized privacy rights relating to student data - those rights are protected under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). FERPA defines who has access to what student data under what conditions. It explicitly prohibits schools from sharing specific data without the written authorization of parents, data that the Pentagon is now collecting and giving to a database marketing firm and making available to tax authorities and Congress (there have always been exceptions for law enforcement access). What data does the Pentagon have unique access to, data that FERPA previously made available only for educational purposes? Social security numbers, student ID numbers, race and nationality, and gender.

(A lot of schools don't collect social security numbers specifically to avoid being used as an extension of the INS. I wouldn't be surprised if even more began eliminating their practice or collecting that information.)

The NCLB law requiring schools to turn over private student information to the Pentagon voids FERPA when it comes to the military and apparently military subcontractors. It undermines the Privacy Act and allows the government to build a database of its citizens, starting when they're sixteen. In twenty years, they'll have detailed records for everyone age sixteen to thirty-six. I don't like this at all, but I'd feel better if I knew the Pentagon was destroying the data once they knew a kid didn't want to go into the military. And I'd feel better if the government took our privacy rights seriously. Especially the rights of children.

Rep. Deborah Price Denigrates and Demonizes Democrats

In response to a question about the relevance of an anti-flag burning amendment to the Constitution to people's daily lives, the House Republican Conference Chairman, Republican Deborah Pryce said:

"You know, this is probably as relevant to people's lives now as any other time because of what's going on with Democrats putting everybody in the world before our soldiers and the American safety. They're so worried about what's going on at Guantanamo Bay. And the flag has a place in that debate."

Yep, that's exactly what us Dems are doing - putting our troops and our country's safety at the bottom of the list. That's why we're pushing for an exit strategy from Iraq, for veteran's benefits, for honorable treatment of detainees to ensure that if our soldiers are captured we have a moral basis for demanding humane treatment. That's why we're paying attention to the Downing Street Memos and demanding to know if the administration really tried to avoid sending our soldiers into battle. that's why we're fighting for comprehensive information on the Bolton nomination, working to be sure that our UN representative is credible and committed to international diplomacy. That's why we fought so hard for the Department of Homeland Security. Why we pushed for the bi-partisan 9/11 Commission to make sure we did knew what we did right and wrong and were best positioned to stop it from happening again. Yep, it's all about our terrible priorities.

I'll paraphrase the recent comments of Rep. Hostettler: "Like a moth to a flame, Republicans can't help themselves when it comes to denigrating and demonizing Democrats." Of course, he was talking about Democrats' response to Christianity, making my point all over again.

Duke Cunningham Wants Your Attention, Sort Of

Well, it looks like 9/11 didn't change everything, although it seems to be relevant for everything the Republicans want to do.

The latest cause celebre to come under the aura of 9/11 is the an old canard - a proposal for a Constitutional amendment banning the physical desecration of the American flag. What's the 9/11 connection? The bill's sponsor, Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, says that allowing the burning of the flag is "an insult to all those who perished" in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

I don't know. I'm thinking that preserving the right to free speech, especially when it offends us, is a pretty good way of honoring them. On top of that, I'm guessing that another way our Congressional leaders can honor them is by showing a little integrity - something good old Duke doesn't seem to have in spades.

You see, I suspect that Duke is standing up for the flag in a burst of patriotism in order to divert our attention from his less patriotic activities. Like selling his house to a Mitchell Wade, head of the defense contractor MZM. He sold it for $700,000 more than it was worth. Duke pocketed that extra money, but contractor Wade took a $700,000 loss after putting the house on the market shortly after he bought it. There's a grand jury investigation underway to find out exactly what's behind this transaction. But hey, I'm sure it's nothing. Majority Leader Tom DeLay assures us that everything's above board and that Duke is an honorable man.

You might think this profitable real estate transaction was a one-off, that somehow Duke fell into a great deal. But you'd have to revise that opinion upon learning where Duke resides while in DC, while conducting the business of the defense contractor people. He lives on a yacht owned by that same defense contractor, Wade Mitchell of MZM. Of course, he says he's paying rent but one wonders why the yacht is named "Duke Stir".

Did I mention that Duke is a member of the House subcommittee that controls the disbursement of defense dollars? Before MZM got cozy with Duke, they were flat-lining. But what a shock to find their fortunes changing at just the time they got into their real estate deal with Duke. And they've been going like gangbusters. Why in the last year alone, MZM had roughly $65 million dollars in business with the Pentagon, some of it gained in no-bid awards where no competing bids are considered.

Bottom line? Despite Duke's military service in Vietnam and in the Air Force, I don't think he's in a position to lecture the rest of us on what honors the memory of the victims of 9/11. Choosing what contractors do the work so central to our security that most of it is classified, choosing based on who lines your pockets, is the real desecration of their memories. Not flag burning. He should know better.

Sources:
Boston Globe article on Duke
San Diego Union-Tribune article on grand jury investigation
The Hill article on DeLay's defense of Duke
Multiple posts by Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo

Porter Goss Declares Defeat

Why in the world would CIA Director Porter Goss say that he's pretty sure he knows where bin Laden is but can't go get him because we have to respect the sovereignty of other countries?

I'm not suggesting that we run roughshod over the sovereignty of other nations and I suspect that capturing bin Laden might not be a viable task for a covert special ops group. But I would think that this might be a viable topic for diplomatic discussions.

What Porter Goss is telling us here is that we lack the international heft to negotiate access to take down bin Laden. It's a statement of diplomatic impotence, a shrug at the weakened influence the US wields.  It's a declaration of defeat - "we know where he is but we can't get him". We can't get the cooperation we need.

We've come a long way since the days after 9/11 when a French newspaper declared that "we are all Americans". Haven't we?

An Unsuccessful "Success Strategy"

I saw Condoleezza Rice on This Week yesterday - all in all a "no news" interview as she spun the administration's message, using questions as cues to begin the spin. For example, a question about the Downing Street Memos gave us no comments on the memos but instead offered a regurgitation of the history of Saddam's defiance of UN resolutions. Not surprising.

What didn't work at all, though, was the rather inartful effort to avoid the term "exit strategy" in favor of the Rumsfeldian "success strategy". The spin here was transparent, even juvenile. It smacks of disrespect for the listener - as though we'll suddenly sigh a breath of relief that we're talking about success instead of an exit. It suggests that we're just a bit too slow to notice the change in terms and that we'll suddenly feel better about Iraq because of all this talk of success.

It didn't work and frankly, our leaders should have more respect for themselves and the public. We deserve better.

Speaking of Censure... Here's My List

It looks like those on the right side of the aisle have found their latest diversion - you know, something to keep the public from talking about the real issues. This time it's Sen. Durbin's comments suggesting that if you didn't know better, you might mistake the description of the treatment suffered by one Gitmo detainee as treatment dished out by the worst of the world's dictators - Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot.

Attacking Durbin conveniently enables the Pubs from addressing the real issue - detainee treatment. Now, I'll be happy to admit that Durbin's comments were politically incorrect - but were they inaccurate? Here's the treatment described in the FBI report:

• detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position for18-24 hours
• withholding of food and water
• detainees urinating and defecating on themselves
• lowered temperatures to induce shaking in detainee
• increased temperatures to over 100 degrees with no ventilation
• severe treatment that leaves detainee virtually unconscious after pulling out piles of own hair

Would you guess the US? Or would you guess the first repressive and torturous regime that came to mind? I'm guessing the latter.

Now there are calls to formally censure Sen. Durbin, initiated by Newt Gingrich but supported by plenty of those on the right. I've got a proposal. The Pubs can censure Durbin for highlighting the un-American treatment afforded these detainees with politically incorrect analogies if they issue censures to the folks listed below, for the comments or actions cited:

• Newt Gingrich - for the hypocrisy of leading the charge to impeach Clinton for lying about sex while regularly committing adultery with one of his staffers and later divorcing his cancer-stricken wife to marry that staffer
• House Majority Leader Tom DeLay - for blaming the war in Iraq on environmentalists, claiming that they put the lives of "snail darters" above the lives of our troops
• Sen. Rick Santorum - for comparing Democrats to Hitler
• Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist - for using his experience as a doctor to mislead the public on the health of Terri Schiavo based on a video tape of her, and  later, when proved wrong by the autopsy, denying that he ever diagnosed her from afar.
• Sen. John Cornyn - for suggesting that violence against judges was an understandable response from those who thought judicial activism was running amok
• Former Sec. of Education Rod Paige - for saying the National Education Association was a terrorist organization
• Former Sec. of State Colin Powell (and Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush) - for frequent and public claims that we had found WMD in Iraq, implying that mobile labs found were for biological weapons and not for legal artillery weather balloons as established by the Defense Intelligence Agency
• Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld - for approving the illegal hiding of a detainee from the Red Cross and yet claiming with no defense that it was legal, additionally for approving interrogation practices that weren't legal under international or domestic laws
• Former NSC Director and current Sec. of State Condoleeza Rice - for frequent misrepresentations of the state of WMD in Iraq and for using a reference to a "mushroom cloud" on CNN as a means of generating public support for war by scaring the public
• Vice President Dick Cheney- for telling Sen. Leahy on the Senate floor to "go f**k yourself" and misrepresenting the connection between Iraq and 9/11, going so far as to claim that debunked intelligence of a Prague meeting betweeen Iraqi security and the lead 9/11 terrorist was in fact true when it surely was not
• President Bush - for misle