Mental Handicap: Kevin Drum has been spreading rumors for some time that Bush may be suffering from a debilitating mental condition that causes him to mispronounce nuclear and make other verbal gaffes. His evidence? Nuggets of Bush speaking during the debate against Ann Richards for the gubernatorial race. Bush seems comfortable speaking in public, not hesitating before he gets to a big word or complicated thought. Not like the reputation he has now. Mr. Drum even links to a site that purports to quote a doctor who concludes that Bush is suffering from "pre-senile dementia". All that's missing is John Kerry popping up and saying that he approved the message.
Nevermind the fact that Bush's answers in the gubernatorial debate sound like typical canned campaign slogans. The truth is, I'll bet you could find a couple instances of Bush stumbling in the 1994 debate and compare it to a strong statement in the 2004 debate and say he's improved.
But to answer the accusation, yes, Bush has become less comfortable speaking after he ran for president. Before, he could mispronounce words and nobody would think anything of it -- because we all do that from time to time. Now he knows any misstep will be replayed ad nauseam on CNN. I'm sure he has been warned time and time again by his staff not to make any flubs, because that will overshadow anything else he says. John Kerry can make verbal gaffes without being crucified, and he does (his cross to bear is he can't even seem like he has changed his mind on an issue, ever, without getting slammed by the media -- something Bush does not have to worry about).
The truth is, we hold politicians to impossible standards. Bush mispronounces words, and he's considered a moron. Gore never mispronounces anything -- from years of political experience -- and he's called robotic. Kerry tries to appear presidential, and people say he's elitist. Clinton comes across as suave and clear, and he gets the nickname "Slick Willy".
If you want to know why it's hard to find quality candidates for office, it's because all the good ones are smart enough to stay out of that mess. Otherwise political opponents might start bringing up mistakes you made when you were 18 years old.
Case in point, Texas Republican Congressman Pete Sessions joined a group of hundreds of college kids in 1974 in a streaking stunt. Yes, a future conservative Republican got naked -- when he was 18. His Democratic rival, Martin Frost, is trying to make the stunt a campaign issue. That's what happens when people like Frost are losing in the polls 50 percent to 44 percent.
Media Rules: Michael Moore has been showing a lot of ads for movie Fahrenheit 9/11 now that it has come out on DVD. But there's something different from these ads compared to the ones he ran when the movie was in the theaters: No pictures of President Bush. As Election Day approaches, we won't get to see yet another clip of him standing on a golf course saying, "Now watch this drive."
That's because the McCain-Feingold law on campaign finance reform places strong restrictions on political ads. The law severely limits how groups can run ads close to an election that mention the name or show an image of a candidate.
While I don't agree with much that Michael Moore says, he should be allowed to say what he thinks about the president or any presidential candidate -- especially on television. But McCain-Feingold limits his freedom of speech.
The law puts more power into the hands of the media and less in the hands of people. We don't need to give more power to media powerhouses like Sinclair Broadcasting Group, which is forcing its 62 television stations around the country to run a movie that attacks Kerry's Vietnam record. Democrats want an investigation to see whether this violates campaign-finance law. But instead of restricting more speech, we should let more people participate in political debate by letting them air their concerns on television to set the record straight.
UPDATE: I originally overexaggerated my case. I fixed the language to make it more accurate.
White Conqueror's Day: Every day should be a government holiday. While I assume most normal people don't get Columbus Day off (I'm sure few are even aware it's today -- Google doesn't even have a Google-Doodle for today), federal government workers get a three-day weekend. Here in Washington, DC, that means almost everybody is gone.
Except for me, of course. But I still get to enjoy the day nonetheless. The Beltway was free of traffic for my drive home this morning. I didn't almost get run over as often as usual on M Street during my bike ride to work. And there was no line at Subway for lunch.
Funny, whether it's because of budget impasses or obscure holidays, life just seems better when the government shuts down.
Dred Scott? Judging from what I've seen on the Internets, most people think Bush did better this time at Friday's debate while Kerry still held on to his edge. Neither candidate apparently gained much from the exchange.
I was disappointed. This debate lacked the substance of the last confrontation. I watched it with my girlfriend, who disagrees with me on the Iraq issue, and we were articulating more informative arguments than Bush and Kerry during their debate.
Bush was a bit too excited early on. He wanted to appear more aggressive, but he just came across as hyper. I half expected one of his aids to come out and put an Abu Ghraib leash on him to keep him under control. The SAT word of the night: "facile", describing how he wants to improve the military. Not as many syllables as "vociferously", but we can tell Bush is still trying to shake off his dummy reputation.
Kerry seemed adequately sedated. But he was just a downer to listen to. I found myself dreading his moments to speak. After Bush would tell us what great things we're going to accomplish, Kerry would attempt to shoot everything down and convince the audience that everything is going horribly wrong.
I understand that Kerry is the challenger and that he has to criticize the incumbent to convince voters to change presidents. But some politicians have a knack of criticizing the current situation while staying optimistic. Kerry doesn't know how to do that. And I think that turns a lot of people off.
Instead, Kerry just declares that the crucial and historic work President Bush has done is failing and is the wrong path to take. Kerry tells everyone that he can do better because he has "a plan". Unfortunately, he never gives the specifics of any of his plans. He'll tell you the goals, like getting more allies in Iraq and reducing U.S. troop levels (both of which won't happen), but he never explains how he will accomplish this, other than claim to do what Bush is already doing.
Sure, there's plenty to be negative about. Things are not going as well as we would like. But I don't hold it against the president to try to stay optimistic. Bush talks about what we can do. Kerry talks about what we can't do. Confidence tends to rub off on people for the better.
By the end of the debate, we didn't learn anything new, and my girlfriend had already fallen asleep. I don't expect any surprises in the next debate, considering they'll be arguing over the same domestic issue politicians have argued about for generations. But it will be the last time they'll have a chance to connect with voters directly before the election. Hopefully some of them will stay awake.
Refocus: It all comes back to Iran. We apparently are not the only ones concerned with that country's development of nuclear weapons and other WMD. Saddam Hussein felt threatened by his neighbor, and he wanted to appear as if he had more WMD than he really did.
Also, Iranian intelligent officers have already been caught in Iraq guiding the terrorist insurgency and working with Al Qaeda.
Despite all the ties to Iran, that country and its activities were barely touched upon during the presidential debate that focused on foreign policy.
The focus instead is on whether the invasion of Iraq was a good idea. The lack of WMD in Iraq undercuts Bush's reasoning for the invasion. It wasn't the only reason he gave, but it's the one that convinced Americans that we had no time to waste.
Now we find out that Saddam Hussein was bluffing. He hoped that our belief that he had WMD would act as a deterrent rather than an instigator. He was gravely mistaken.
It was commonly held before the invasion that Iraq had WMD. Now that the conventional wisdom has been proven wrong, critics are blaming Bush, as if he made up the whole idea. I'm sorry, but if a crazy man says he has a gun and begins threatening others, police are right to shoot him, even if he only had a water pistol.
And for those of you criticizing Bush for not connecting the dots in time to prevent 9/11, you have no standing to condemn Bush for invading Iraq, given the intelligence that was available at the time.
Plus, the unfolding UN oil-for-food scam shows that many of our allies were accepting bribes from Saddam Hussein to let him ignore the sanctions. Russia, France and China -- all on the Security Council -- were the top three benefactors of Saddam Hussein's bribes. Despite what Kerry says, they are the real coalition of the coerced and the bribed.
The fact remains that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous dictator in the Middle East who sponsored international terrorism and continued to pose a threat to the region.
People say we are neglecting Al Qaeda. That's not true. We are continuing to pursue Al Qaeda. After they lost their home base in Afghanistan under Taliban protection, they scattered like cockroaches. Many are holed up in the mountainous region between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Others have fled to other countries. They aren't carrying out their operations from one country anymore. So we can't pursue them using our military without declaring war on several countries at once. This is mostly an intelligence and special-forces operation, which is under way.
Also, Al Qaeda is not one cohesive organization all under the same structural leadership. Osama Bin Laden is a spiritual leader who also provides finances and offers some ideas. But most of the group's funding comes from a network of shady business, phony charitable groups, corrupt governments, and other fundraising methods. The cells that have been carrying out further terrorist attacks in Asia and Europe are run by autonomous offshoots of Al Qaeda that use the name because they support the similar goal.
I have always argued that the war in Iraq was justified mostly because Saddam Hussein has ties to terrorism and has broken the cease-fire terms he agreed to so he wouldn't have been removed from power after he invaded the sovereign country of Kuwait. But mostly, I believe that in order to win the War on Terrorism, we need to change the culture of the Middle East by planting the seed of democracy, capitalism, and freedom in that region. Because of Saddam Hussein's multiple misdeeds, Iraq was the perfect candidate to launch phase two of the war.
The WMD factor gave the invasion urgency. We already waited 12 years while Saddam Hussein played games with the inspectors. We then waited several more months while we pleaded for the United Nations to enforce its own resolutions. We had no reason to wait anymore.
With the new findings, critics will argue that we should have waited so inspectors could have sought the truth. But we tried that game for long enough. While a few more years maybe wouldn't have hurt, we would have had to deal with the problem eventually.
And Saddam Hussein admits that he was trying to end sanctions and restart his weapons program. So later on we would have had a much bigger problem on our hands.
In short, we did good. Despite your personal feelings toward President Bush, we have a lot to be proud of. We've protected ourselves, we've liberated a country, and we're taking major steps toward transforming an oppressive region so it won't continue to act as an incubator of hatred and terrorism that launches attacks against many people in the world. Now it's time to focus on the next step of the war.
P.S. I'll be watching the debates tonight, but I have no computer at home to blog a reaction. I'll post something on Monday. Have a good weekend.
Primary Colors: Lots of people are expressing their cynicism regarding the Department of Homeland Security's color-coded Terror Alert. I can see why Jon Stewart or Jay Leno would make fun of what is essentially a terrorist-threat mood ring. But some people really believe the alert system is just a political tool for the Bush administration.
Frederick Maryland started a pool a few weeks ago attempting to predict when the whole country would be put on Orange Alert (He picked October 4, but no money was wagered). The expectation is that Bush needs to scare people to remind the voters that he's commander in chief of a nation at war.
Kevin Drum found a study that determined that Bush gets a 2.75-percent increase in his approval rating whenever the alert level is raised. That bump lasts for about a week, then comes back down. That leads Mr. Drum to confidently predict that the alert level will be raised within a week before Election Day. I criticized the cynicism in his comment section, and of course Mr. Drum's extremist entourage began lobbing profane insults at me. I have a lot of respect for Kevin Drum and his opinions. I have hardly any respect for his commenters. They are an embarrassment to everything he believes in.
Then of course there was Michael Moore, who went so far as to call the Orange Alert "fictition". The guy is a moron.
The truth is, we know the terrorists like to coordinate their attacks with elections (ie, Spain). And we know that they desperately want to influence the elections in the United States. That's not because they prefer John Kerry to George W. Bush. It's because they want to show their power by changing the results of the presidential elections.
It should be common knowledge that the terrorists are going to try something just before the election. It would be irresponsible of the Bush administration NOT to raise the terror alert level before Election Day. Sure, they won't mind the insignificant political bounce, but they still have a job to do while in office.
Whenever the alert level is changed, it means something. My building beefs up security, bringing in extra guards and only allowing people with pass keys to enter. And fire, rescue, and police organizations across the country undergo substantial staffing and procedural changes when the alert level is raised. While many people don't pay the alert status any mind, others depend on it. The color-coded system is the most effective way to get the word out.
When the terrorist alert is raised, it's fine for opponents to remind people that this is no reason to give Bush another four years. But to publicly accuse him of doing it purely for political reasons is ridiculous. Critics say Bush is just spreading fear. But his critics do the same thing. Terrorists have already attacked us and killed 3,000 Americans. Bush warns us to fear the terrorists. His opponents tell us to fear Bush. One warning has more credibility than the other.
Sic 'im, John: We shouldn't be hearing any more questions regarding whether John Edwards can be an effective attack dog. Although the North Carolina senator has been strangely quiet this campaign, he spoke up loudly for the VP debate.
Edwards gave a superior performance over Dick Cheney, in my opinion. Both candidates were well spoken, knowledgeable, and aggressive. But Edwards added that extra bit of charm and directness that I think people look for in their elected officials.
Cheney, on the other hand, gave some compelling testimony, but his message wasn't always as clear. His use of facts and figures often seemed muddled compared to Edwards, who seemed Dubya-esque in his clarity.
The vice president also seemed to avoid debate. On more than one occasion he passed up a chance to speak an extra 30 seconds to drive his point home, even after Edwards spent 30 seconds eviscerating him and his running mate.
On the substantive level, both men did fine, for the most part. I agree with Cheney on Iraq. The domestic issues, discussed in a debate for the first time, are trickier.
I'm tired of the Kerry-Edwards argument that Bush is responsible for the downturn in the economy that started before he took office. That's a huge turnoff for me. But the Democrats should keep hammering the Republicans for their lack of fiscal responsibility. Although the deficits aren't in an emergency situation yet, they're heading that direction.
Cheney made it abundantly clear, if not explicitly in words, that he disagrees with his boss on the same-sex marriage issue. As well he should, because Bush's position is indefensible. Although I disagree with Kerry-Edwards' opposition to same-sex marriage, I respect their politically expedient decision not to advocate it now, and to fight back against the idea of amending the Constitution to introduce bigotry and homophobia.
The best performer of this debate, however, had to be the moderator, Gwenn Ifill. She was able to make her presence known just enough to call the candidates out when they screwed up without drawing too much attention to herself. Other than that little flub at the end when she gave Edwards a free 15 seconds, she did great.
But overall, nothing happened that was big, controversial, or even new. The biggest surprise came at the bottom of the screen when CNN's scroll informed us that Rodney Dangerfield had died. The debates, however, continued without even a moment of silence. That man gets no respect.
UPDATE: Apparently Cheney's most successful jab, telling Sen. Edwards that they had never met before that night, was not true.
That's points off for Cheney. But Edwards should also be penalized for failing to call Cheney on the misinformation immediately. If Edwards couldn't remember that he met the vice president three times in the past, then we can give Cheney a pass for forgetting as well.
Cheney's point that Edwards had a bad attendance record still holds. But that doesn't mean much. Plus, Cheney said that, as president of the Senate, he showed up most Tuesdays. That doesn't sound like a stellar attendance record either. Of course, the vice president's role of being in charge of the Senate is largely ceremonial -- except in his tie-breaking capacity -- so he would be more productive elsewhere.
Lessons Learned: Remember when school districts were pushing to scale back PE, art, and music classes to leave more room for more reading, writing, and arithmetic? Now it appears all of that has backfired. Studies have already shown that students who participate in art and music excel at academics more so than their artless peers. Now experts are tracing the rise in child obesity to the lack of physical education in schools. Just an hour or two of PE noticeably reduces obesity among children, especially girls.
Wrath of God: Workers who were repairing a house that had been damaged by a tornado found a stash of child pornography. Authorities immediately arrested the man, who had a truckload of sexually explicit pictures and computer images of children. Score one for the tornado.
Dodging Controversy: Canadians have nixed plans to build a bronze monument honoring American draft dodgers of the Vietnam War. Apparently when the plans for the monument were announced, angry Americans threatened to boycott Nelson, British Columbia, where the memorial was to be erected.
That's a shame. I wouldn't mind seeing something dedicated to draft dodgers. They're not nearly as brave as the veterans who risked their lives in battle. But they do represent an American spirit of demonstration and dissent that is crucial to our society.
The era surrounding the Vietnam War was a difficult time for all Americans. Although we had good intentions of containing communism and supporting democracy, the war eventually became a mismanaged quagmire, and thousands of Americans died as a result. While some people still can find positives from our involvement, the idea of the war is widely considered a mistake.
Draft dodgers like Bill Clinton and George W. Bush helped end a misguided war by refusing to fight. They saved other men's lives as a result. And for that, they should be honored.
Debate on the Debate: Last night had to be the best presidential debate I've ever seen. That's probably because the candidates actually had something important to talk about and a message to convey. There were clear differences about a major problem that has to be addressed in the next term.
Polls indicate that Kerry is the perceived winner. I agree, simply because he was able to hold his own quite well as the challenger. Undecideds who are tuning into the campaign for the first time were probably very impressed by their first meeting of Kerry.
We can also dispense with both stereotypes about Bush being a moron and a figurehead and Kerry being a long-winded, flip-flopping bore. Bush sounded intelligent and knowledgeable. He intentionally kept dropping names of foreign leaders to show that he has a grasp at what's going on around the world. And he even used several SAT words, including "vociferously". He did make up the word "trans-shipment", but we can let that slide.
And Kerry was clear, concise, and resolute. From what I recall, his red light never started blinking to tell him he had gone over his time limit. He had a strong message, and he delivered it clearly.
The candidates had a few aesthetic faults. On the split screen, Bush looked flustered at times, and Kerry had the problem of nodding while Bush was criticizing him.
Bush kept repeating certain phrases, which is usually a good way to drive a point home. But he kept saying that the War on Terrorism is "hard work". It's good to remind people that we can't defeat terrorism, overthrow dictatorships, and create democracies over a weekend. But repeating how hard the work is sounds like Bush is whining and might not be up for the job.
Bush also kept criticizing Kerry for saying that the war in Iraq was "the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time". Bush said that so much that some people might associate that phrase with the war itself. On the other hand, one CNN pundit (I think it was Wolf) after the debate repeated that phrase and attributed it to Kerry. Although Kerry has been saying that repeatedly on the campaign trail, he never actually said it during the debate.
Now, I agree with Bush on the foreign affairs issue, so on a substantive level, naturally, I think Bush carried the day. He did a good job ripping on Kerry for wanting to gauge a "global test" before committing troops to war. Bush countered that we fight when we need to protect this nation.
Bush should have jumped on Kerry's insistence on "global summits". The terrorists have declared war on us. Bush wants to fight an offensive battle, and Kerry wants to conduct meetings.
Also, I'm tired of Kerry saying that the war in Iraq cost billions of dollars when the money could have been used for domestic programs and health care. We're at war, and that war will cost money. If the war were Kerry's number-one priority, he wouldn't be making such inane arguments.
And although Kerry stayed somewhat consistent during the debate, he still has to make up for his constant wavering on the campaign trail. And Bush delivered the best line of the night, pointing out that Kerry is trying to have it both ways, openly mocking the decision to invade Iraq and claiming he can magically get more allies to join us in the fight:
So what's the message going to be: "Please join us in Iraq. We're a grand diversion. Join us for a war that is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time?"We've still got a lot of campaigning to do. It's going to be interesting.
Thief in the Night: I know I've been blogging a lot on press releases lately, but this one from the Republican side of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce is a doozy.
ATTACK OF THE CLONES: Democrats to Introduce Bill Copying GOP Plan to Permanently End Excess Subsidies to Student Lenders; GAO Confirms Need to End Subsidies, as President Proposed Seven Months AgoThat's a common complaint I hear in politics, that one party is "copying" or "stealing" an idea from another party. For some reason, if a Republican comes up with an idea, a Democrat isn't allowed to like it without being accused of cloning. Bill Clinton was often accused of this, and I've heard Democrats making that accusation as well.
WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. House Education & the Workforce Committee Chairman John Boehner (R-OH) today called attention to a new report by the independent Government Accountability Office (GAO) that confirms the need for legislation that would permanently eliminate the 9.5 percent floor interest subsidy ("special allowance") being paid to lenders on certain federal student loans. President Bush called on Congress to eliminate the policy more than seven months ago. Congressional Democrats have blocked a comprehensive bill offered by Republicans (H.R. 4283) that would permanently implement the President's request, but today indicated they will introduce a bill copying the GOP proposal.
"This is the mother of all Democratic flip-flops," Boehner said. "Seven months ago, President Bush called on Congress to eliminate this policy permanently, and Republicans promptly introduced legislation to do it.
"First Democrats tried to kill our proposal. Now they've decided to clone it," Boehner said. "With all due respect to my Democratic friends, I've got to ask: where have you been all year?"
...
For all the fighting and partisan bickering in politics, I can't fathom why one party would accuse another of "stealing" an idea. It seems to me that the two parties are finally "agreeing", and that should be considered a good thing.
Party School: The Post is on a roll today. Here's a funny story, and a lesson on how to appropriately handle a mistake.
Reasonable Debate: The Washington Post has an interesting story about the handgun issue in DC, pointing out that many residents would feel safer against criminals if they were allowed to own a gun.
The House of Representatives is debating a measure that would overturn the District's ban on handguns. Although I support gun rights, I've already come out against this measure because I'm tired of the way Congress controls Washington, DC. Besides, the measure will most likely die in the Senate.
But it looks like the House debate is prompting discussion about handguns in the District. And any further discussion, as long as it's honest, will be a good thing. Perhaps the residents can decide on their own that they want the right to protect themselves.
P.S. You won't hear conservatives blast The Washington Post as being a liberal rag for this article. While other news organizations have had a problem controlling their bias lately, the Post has done a great job with balance and objectivity, as exemplified by their aggressive coverage of Rathergate.
Apology: Here's a press release I got.
News Conference on Wednesday to Discuss Anti-Lynching ResolutionThis seems very ceremonial and doesn't provide anything substantial, so I don't know what good it will do. But it's also odd that lawmakers are willing to apologize about lynching and have refused to apologize about slavery. It's just a shame that the people who committed the crime aren't able to apologize for themselves.
WASHINGTON, DC –U.S. Senator George Allen (R-VA) joins Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) tomorrow in introducing legislation calling for a formal apology for the failure of the U.S. Senate to enact Anti-Lynching laws when thousands of mostly African Americans were being tortured at the hands of lawless individuals and mobs throughout the U.S. up until 1964. The Senators will be joined in a news conference by Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) to discuss this historic resolution.
The legislation is just being introduced, but who knows if it will actually pass. Some people may want to bury it before somebody points out that Congress has still failed to pass adequate hate-crimes legislation. I guess some people don't learn well from history.
Shakeup: For an election that pundits have said will depend on rallying the political base, each party's base is beginning to muddle.
We appear to be seeing a higher than usual number of partisans switching allegiances this election. Many traditional Democrats are backing Bush. And many conservatives and Republicans, fed up with Bush, are supporting Kerry.
Granted, it's hard to quantify the extent of party switching and compare it to previous elections. But already we've seen high-profile switches, like Zell Miller and Pete McCloskey. Newspapers have been interviewing scores of disenfranchised voters who cast their ballots for Bush in 2000 but who now support Kerry. But a slew of voters who pulled the lever for Gore in 2000 but now back Bush have countered that conventional wisdom. Plus, tons of blogs have been started by folks who say they used to vote one way, but now are switching sides this election.
Is this a sign of a political shakeup? Historic events often have a great impact on party identity. And the political reverberations of 9/11 are still being sorted out.
Many traditional liberals have become hawks because of 9/11 and align themselves with conservatives because the war is their number-one issue. At the same time, many conservatives are disenchanted with Bush's war in Iraq and the president's and Republican Congress's run up of the federal deficit. Now that Republicans rule the world, they aren't preaching fiscal conservatism like they used to, possibly leaving that issue open for the Democrats to grab (fat chance, but one can hope).
Historically, major party identities have also changed by absorbing the platforms of less-popular third parties. With liberals still fuming at Nader, there are no viable third parties to influence the election this time around.
But that may change. Already, we've seen a number of socially liberal foreign policy hawks gain prominence -- such as Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger. If the Republicans continue to dominate, the party may become bloated and produce factions that split over lesser issues. If Democrats get a leg up, they may see infighting between hawks and doves, creating irreconcilable differences between the two. While the Democratic and Republican labels will remain, both parties may go through some substantial changes, complete with members switching allegiances over the years as priorities adjust.
We're still in the middle of the political vortex, so all ideas now are just complete conjecture. But the outcome of this presidential election could go a long way in shaping what each political party represents for many years to come.
Getting Closer: The election is finally focussing on today's problems, notably the war in Iraq. We had get through several tours of duty in Vietnam before we could start talking about the 21st Century again.
Unfortunately, it took a dramatic increase in terrorist attacks in that country to regain our focus. Keep in mind, the terrorists in Iraq are well aware of our election timetable. And they are unleashing these attacks, in part, to influence our elections.
But that doesn't explain why hotspots, like Fallujah, show no signs of cooling, and why attacks are occurring in Baghdad again. One report even indicates that the mega-secure Green Zone isn't all that safe anymore. Despite the lengthy conflict, the body count, and the destruction, there seems to be very little real progress lately toward diminishing the terrorist threat.
Kerry has finally wizened up to make that conflict the emphasis of his campaign. He seems to even be a little more consistent in his criticisms. Unfortunately Kerry is undermined by extreme lefties, like MoveOn, and their defeatism, as they have been itching for America to embroil itself in a "quagmire" since we began the war in Afghanistan. And despite bringing up legitimate questions about the progress in Iraq, Kerry has been catching some flak for spreading his criticism to include Prime Minister Allawi and American allies in the coalition.
Bush is still struggling to explain why things appear to be getting out of hand and how he plans to make Iraq safer. Repeating the refrain "staying the course" won't magically make everything better.
Iraq has become a tougher endeavor than we bargained for. That doesn't mean it was wrong. It unfortunately limits what we'll be able to do in the future. To put this into perspective, Volokh links to a column citing the problems we had in wars that are considered successes.
In July, the United States handed sovereignty of Iraq back to the Iraqi people. While that did not end the violence in that country, it changed the meaning of the attacks from terrorism against the U.S. military to terrorism against the Iraqi people and the U.S. military. Iraqis are beginning to claim their country again, and they are fighting back against the terrorists and Baathist insurgency. As Iraqi residents see what brutes the terrorists are, they are providing more information to our intelligence gatherers, making it easier to root out the terrorists there.
The next key will be to push for the elections to go on schedule. The fear is that some areas, like Fallujah, won't be able to participate if violence hasn't quelled. That should compel even more cooperation among Iraqis to fight the terrorists if they want the freedom to vote. And an elected Iraqi government will have more legitimacy to fight back against the insurgency.
No one said this would be easy. But no war has ever gone as planned.
Looking Back: From a historical perspective, George W. Bush seems to be this generation's Andrew Jackson.
There is an everyman quality that both Jackson and Bush share. Both were despised by the intellectual elite for being so -- American. Although they were both well-to-do aristocrats who had achieved financial success, both seemed more comfortable with the common folk. Jackson ran on a platform that the common man could be president. Bush has been an inspiration for C-students everywhere.
Neither man was considered well mannered. In fact, the social elite in Jackson's day considered him to be boorish and inept, just like they think of Bush today.
Jackson and Bush also embodied America's cojones. They were brass cowboys who alarmed foreign leaders and pacifists in this country. But they also provided the strength America needed when times got rough.
Both used the power of the presidency to the extreme. Jackson would often ignore rulings from the Supreme Court. Bush has not gone that far, but he has tested the powers of the executive branch with two wars, detention of foreign fighters at Guantanamo Bay, and even holding some American suspected terrorists for extended periods.
But neither Jackson nor Bush proved to be forward thinking on social issues. Jackson was a racist. In addition to owning slaves, he used the military to attack Native American nations, driving them further off their land. Thousands of Native Americans died, many of them through a torturous journey from Georgia to Oklahoma in the dead of winter, which came to be known as the Trail of Tears. Jackson's mindset on racial matters was completely in line with America at that time. But history has judged him harshly.
Bush is not a racist, but he is homophobic. While many Americans are still uncomfortable with homosexuality, Bush has overreacted with his proposed constitutional amendment banning marriage and civil unions between same-sex couples. Bush will lose that fight and homosexuals will most likely gain further strides in civil rights. As a result, the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment will become Bush's Trail of Tears. While many people agree with the president now, Bush will find himself on the wrong side of history.
But Jackson and Bush both made political decisions that seemed risky at the time with an eye on paying big dividends in the future. Jackson angered the South in 1832 when he approved a new tariff that was passed by Congress to protect Northern industry. South Carolina asserted states rights and attempted to nullify the law within its borders. If the federal government didn't allow the state to defend its sovereignty, then South Carolina threatened to secede from the union, likely bringing other Southern states with it.
Jackson responded by getting Congress to pass the Force Act, allowing federal troops to invade South Carolina if it tried to secede. The United States was on the brink of a Civil War. Eventually, a compromise was reached, and the tariff was lowered slightly. And war between the North and South was delayed for another 30 years.
After 9/11, Bush invaded Afghanistan under the clear mandate to destroy the Taliban, which was supporting the terrorist group Al Qaeda. But then he turned his sights on Iraq for violating United Nations resolutions, refusing to prove it destroyed its weapons of mass destruction, and for supporting terrorist groups. Above all else, Bush wanted to transform the Middle East from a wasteland of despotism and oppression that breeds terrorism to a democratic and free region where people can thrive and won't need to live under desperate conditions.
Many in the world thought Bush was going too far, and the president's popularity has sunk as a result. But the strong actions Bush took in Iraq won't bring noticeable results for decades.
To be sure, there are many differences between the two presidents. Jackson was a war hero before president. Bush was a draft dodger. Jackson was a populist who represented the common man and hated banks and business. Bush is well tied and supported by big business and other rich and powerful people. And Jackson's popularity never waned. Bush is gearing up for a tough re-election battle.
Still, many presidents who were despised by their enemies of their time went on to become glorified later. Presidents like Lincoln and Jackson adorn our currency, despite the controversy they caused in office. History will determine whether Bush ranks as a great success or a miserable failure.
Redress of Grievances: There's a small protest going on out in front of the CBS Washington headquarters. I only saw about a dozen or so people, but a colleague reported that there were more than 30 at one point. In DC, you can't walk across the National Mall without running into at least 30 protesters on any given day. But on M Street, it's not too common, and a few cops were even present.
The protesters held up signs with Dan Rather's mug and the slogan, "Unfit to Report", which is clever, and another with Osama Bin Laden's face and the words, "The American Press is My Best Friend", which is slapworthy.
But the protest is notable because all of them were dressed in pajamas. I wish I had a digital camera now.
The situation wouldn't have gotten this ridiculous if CBS hadn't been stonewalling so defiantly. I'm glad Dan Rather finally apologized, but it almost feels like too little too late. I wish I could say that I'm going to stop watching CBS News now, but I never watched it to begin with (or much of any broadcast news, for that matter, I'm a newspaper dinosaur).
We still need to find out more about who created these memos and why CBS so willingly fell for them. Bill Burkett seems to be CBS's source, but that still doesn't explain who forged them to begin with and why. And that doesn't begin to explain why CBS was so eager to trust a partisan hack after spending five years digging into an issue like this that has no important news value whatsoever.
Attention: Residents of the Washington, DC, area. Remember that plague of exploding manholes we had in Georgetown that would send manhole covers flying 50 feet in the air? Well, the same thing happened in Bethesda last night. Sometime around 1 a.m., one blew near the intersection of Cordell and Woodmont. Smoke kept pouring out of the manhole, emanating from a fire below the ground. The manhole cover was on the street, broken into two halves.
But Pepco says it will take care of the problem. And we all have faith in Pepco, don't we?
Friends Like These ... Sometimes a candidate's worst enemies are his own supporters. News articles are citing many instances of Bush and Kerry faithful making fools out of themselves and their candidates.
An intoxicated Kerry supporter became beligerent during a political debate on an airplane. Authorities took that person to jail.
An Amtrak employee who supports Bush used the train's PA system to tell customers that they were being delayed because of a Kerry entourage holding things up. He encouraged everybody to "vote accordingly in November". That misuse of company equipment got the employee (and Republican congressional candidate) suspended from his job.
A three-year-old Bush supporter burst into tears when Democrats ripped up her Bush-Cheney sign she was holding at a rally.
And my favorite: a woman with a Kerry bumper sticker on her car got fired by her pro-Bush boss. After hearing the news, John Kerry called her up personally and offered her a job on his campaign.
Political activity is healthy, and important to our system. But for some reason it can become very emotional, and some people end up acting stupid. While the candidate cannot be held responsible for everything his followers do, some people need to realize that their actions and words reflects poorly on the candidate their trying to support.
Fake But Accurate? That's how CBS is defending itself about its attack on Bush's National Guard duty. Despite being caught airing forged documents as fact and being accused of a partisan hackjob, Dan Rather and company refuse to admit that they screwed up.
Rather was quoted as saying about Bush, "We’ve heard what you have to say about the documents and what you’ve said and what your surrogates have said, but for the moment, answer the questions." In other words, Please disregard the fact that the documents are fabricated. You should be answering to the fabricated allegations in the fake documents.
Bush, of course, hasn't really said anything about the documents. Neither has Kerry. It's strange that the biggest campaign issue today really isn't involving either of the two candidates.
And they should stay out of it. CBS tried to dredge up an issue that has been put to rest many times already years ago. In their zeal, they failed as journalists.
The blogosphere has shown its worth by investigating the problems with the documents and disseminating the results rapidly. Eventually the mainstream media had to take notice. Now both conservative and liberal blogs concede that the memos are most likely fake.
I honestly didn't believe it would come to this. First, I thought this was more riffraff about Vietnam-era accusations and was a distraction from the real issues. When suspicions were first raised about he memos, I figured there had to be some explanation and that CBS wouldn't do anything so stupid as to go on the air with forgeries.
I was wrong. And now this is the biggest issue in the campaign. It's not the biggest issue in the election, mind you. We're still at war. But this mistake is huge. Bigger than Jayson Blair or Stephen Glass, this is the type of screw-up that ends people's careers.
Somebody forged documents implicating the President of the United States, and a major news network ran with the story less than two months before the Election Day. We need to investigate to find out who faked these memos, why that person did it, who else was helping him, how they did it, and why CBS didn't scrutinize them before presenting the documents as fact.
The major news media has taken a major hit with this scandal. And that's a good thing. The power of the blogosphere has shown that competition and self scrutinization can lead to better reporting and more factual coverage of the news.
Dry Well:I just got this press release:
BREAKING: Senate Panel OKs Unused Iraq $ For Darfur Crisis In SudanI'm very much for U.S. intervention in Sudan. (I've been meaning to blog about that for some time. Eugene Oregon has been doing an excellent job for me.) But I'm confused about the term "unused Iraq reconstruction funds". Granted, $102-million is pittance compared to the billions spent in Iraq. It just seems like an odd place to look for excess cash.
Senate Panel Votes
To Tap Unused Iraq Reconstruction Funds
For Emergency In Sudan’s Darfur Region
WASHINGTON (Wednesday, Sept. 15) -- The Senate Appropriations Committee Wednesday approved legislation offered by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) to redirect $102 million in unused Iraq reconstruction funds to be used for emergency relief efforts in Sudan.
Leahy, joined by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), and Democratic Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), drafted the amendment, which was added to the annual Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill. The Appropriations Committee Wednesday approved the bill with the amendment included. Leahy is the ranking member of the panel’s Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, which handles the Senate’s work in writing the annual foreign aid budget bill. McConnell is the panel’s chairman. DeWine is a member of the committee.
The amendment triggers a provision Congress wrote into last year’s $18.4 billion supplemental appropriation for reconstruction assistance for Iraq. Only $1.1 billion of that has been spent. In that bill, Congress opened the door to tapping up to .5 percent of any unused funds to be used in two countries: Sudan, and Liberia. The Leahy-McConnell-DeWine-Frist-Daschle Amendment gives the Administration 30 days from enactment of the bill to submit a request to Congress for the $102 million in humanitarian aid for the crisis in Darfur. If no request is made, the funds revert back to the Iraq account.
"A humanitarian crisis is unfolding before our eyes, and the world’s response is inadequate to the scope of this tragedy," said Leahy. "This is an opportunity to save the lives of thousands of people who would otherwise succumb from hunger, exposure and disease, simply because of their ethnicity."
Leahy said the amendment is flexible and allows the Administration to use the funds for virtually any needs the Administration identifies in the Darfur crisis: assistance for the African Union mission, humanitarian aid, or security assistance.
Regardless, more needs to be done about the crisis in Darfur.
More Gun Stuff: Congress is trying to supercede the total gun ban in Washington, DC. The city government there does not allowed any residents or visitors to bring guns in the city limits -- not even in their own homes for safety.
As we all know, this has done a bang-up job in reducing crime in the District. Criminals have guns, but residents can't protect themselves. Congress recognizes that the law is absurd and that even though it's popular, the gun restrictions infringe on the rights of the minority in the city.
But I'm torn. I'm sick of the control Congress has over the District. Congress has final say over everything that happens in Washington, DC, but residents there have no voice in either house of Congress.
Federal lawmakers have taken advantage of that by forcing their pet projects on the DC residents (see vouchers). Congress needs to learn that they can't run the District like it's a terrarium in their home. It's partly because DC has no home rule that I chose to reside in neighboring Arlington, Virginia.
So while I support gun rights, I do not condone what the House of Representatives is trying to do (not that it matters, because the bill would likely die in the Senate). However, that doesn't change the fact that the District of Columbia's complete ban on guns is unconstitutional.
If Massachusetts had enacted a total ban in the state, I would applaud Congress or the courts for overturning such an oppressive law. But because Congress has abused their power over the District in the past, they deserve to lose this one. DC residents who want to own guns should take up this issue in the courts.