Colin Powell Redux

Paul Krugman has alerted us to yet another Bush scam. You can read his article on the "Coffee Talk" page and there's a place for your comments. Its time to email our elected officials and the media to let them know we want journalists to be skeptics, not stenographers and we want politicians who are independent thinkers. We can demand it and we should. (Coffee Talk is at http://www.marignyperks.com/)

What's happened to the Republican party?

What is it with these sexually frustrated Republicans? Lets look at the list. Most recently, Senator Craig has been caught looking for sex in a public bathroom.

Then there was Mark Foley of Florida, who quit the House last year after exchanging sexually explicit e-mail messages with under-age male pages, or Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist whose dealings with the old Republican Congress landed him in prison. They are old news, replaced by a fresh crop of scandal-plagued Republicans, men like Senator David Vitter of Louisiana, whose phone number turned up on the list of the so-called D.C. Madam, or Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska and Representative Rick Renzi of Arizona, both caught up in F.B.I. corruption investigations.

Washington does not have a monopoly on the latest trend among Republicans. Just ask Thomas Ravenel, the state treasurer of South Carolina, who had to step down as state chairman of Rudolph W. Giuliani’s presidential campaign after he was indicted on cocaine charges in June.
Or Bob Allen, a state representative in Florida who was jettisoned from the John McCain campaign last month after he was arrested on charges of soliciting sex in a public restroom.

Other than William Jefferson, the Democrats can't compete in the corruption derby. What has happened to the modern Republican party?

How to measure success in Iraq

Click on Coffee Talk for the definition of success in Iraq. Coffee Talk can be found at www.marignyperks.com

The damage they've done

What's so familiar? It's not that the headlines remind me of prior administrations. Its that this one is so alarmingly consistent. They are incompetent, dishonest and arrogant. I don't have any hope for change as long as they are in power. Some of the damage is probably permanent. Some can eventually be repaired.

I wonder if the truth about Bobby Jindal will come out. If it does, it won't be good for Jindal.

More headlines

Not General Petraeus: White House To Write September Iraq Evaluation

US Mine Safety Czar Is Another Bush Fox Guarding the Henhouse

Government Spy Satellites To Be Used On Americans

Pentagon: Army Suicides At Highest Rate In 26 Years

Its all so dreadfully familiar.

Be Offended

Lets consider four words and how the media presents them. The words are: liberal, conservative, moderate, and extremist.

Liberal and Conservative are political philosophies. Moderate and Extremist describe intensity and degree and may be adjectives to describe either liberals or conservatives.

In its rush for ratings, television likes to present extremist liberals and extremist conservatives in debate and call it balanced. That is as balanced as standing with one foot in boiling water and the other foot in ice water. In this formulation; the calm reasonable voices of moderates are not heard at all.

Bush does this for political reasons. Fox does it to fire up the conservative base. CNN does it for ratings. They all polarize the national conversation and, in the process, insult us.

Hillary looks like Bush?

Obama calls Hillary's foreign policy "Bush lite". Would Hillary as President be a continuation of Bush style governance? Read on:

August 6, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
The Substance Thing
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Two presidential elections ago, the conventional wisdom said that George W. Bush was a likable, honest fellow. But those of us who actually analyzed what he was saying about policy came to a different conclusion — namely, that he was irresponsible and deeply dishonest. His numbers didn’t add up, and in his speeches he simply lied about the content of his own proposals.
In the fifth year of the disastrous war Mr. Bush started on false pretenses, it’s clear who was right. What a candidate says about policy, not the supposedly revealing personal anecdotes political reporters love to dwell on, is the best way to judge his or her character.
So what are the current presidential candidates saying about policy, and what does it tell us about them?
Well, none of the leading Republican candidates have said anything substantive about policy. Go through their speeches and campaign materials and you’ll see a lot of posturing, especially about how tough they are on terrorists — but nothing at all about what they actually plan to do.
In fact, I suspect that the real reason most of the Republicans are ducking a YouTube debate is that they’re afraid they would be asked questions about policy, rather than being invited to compare themselves to Ronald Reagan.
But didn’t Rudy Giuliani just announce a health care plan? No, he vaguely described a tax cut proposal that he says would do something good for health care. (Most experts disagree.) But he offered no specifics about how the plan would work, how much it would cost or how he would pay for it.
As Ezra Klein of The American Prospect has pointed out, in the speech announcing his “plan” — and since no policy document has been released, the speech is all we have to go on — Mr. Giuliani never uttered the word “uninsured.” He did, however, repeatedly denounce “socialized medicine” or some variant thereof.
The entire G.O.P. field, then, fails the substance test.
There is, by contrast, a lot of substance on the Democratic side, with John Edwards forcing the pace. Most notably, in February, Mr. Edwards transformed the whole health care debate with a plan that offers a politically and fiscally plausible path to universal health insurance.
Whatever the fate of the Edwards candidacy, Mr. Edwards will deserve a lot of the credit if and when we do get universal care in this country.
Mr. Edwards has also offered a detailed, sensible plan for tax reform, and some serious antipoverty initiatives.
Four months after the Edwards health care plan was announced, Barack Obama followed with a broadly similar but somewhat less comprehensive plan. Like Mr. Edwards, Mr. Obama has also announced a serious plan to fight poverty.
Hillary Clinton, however, has been evasive. She conveys the impression that there’s not much difference between her policy positions and those of the other candidates — but she’s offered few specifics. In particular, unlike Mr. Edwards or Mr. Obama, she hasn’t announced a specific universal care plan, or explicitly committed herself to paying for health reform by letting some of the Bush tax cuts expire.
For those who believe that the time for universal care has come, this lack of specifics is disturbing. In fact, what Mrs. Clinton said about health care in February’s Democratic debate suggested a notable lack of urgency: “Well, I want to have universal health care coverage by the end of my second term.”
On Saturday, at the YearlyKos Convention in Chicago, she sounded more forceful: “Universal health care will be my highest domestic priority as president.” But does this represent a real change in position? It’s hard to know, since she has said nothing about how she would cover the uninsured.
And even if you believe Mrs. Clinton’s contention that her positions could never be influenced by lobbyists’ money — a remark that drew boos and hisses from the Chicago crowd — there’s reason to worry about the big contributions she receives from the insurance and drug industries. Are they simply betting on the front-runner, or are they also backing the Democratic candidate least likely to hurt their profits?
All of the leading Democratic candidates are articulate and impressive. It’s easy to imagine any of them as president. But after what happened in 2000, it worries me that Mrs. Clinton is showing an almost Republican aversion to talking about substance.

Weak Foundations

A bridge and the Bush presidency were built on weak foundations. The bridge lacked strength. The Bush reign lacks honesty. Neither the bridge nor Bush are competent to carry the load.

We will replace both and maybe learn something as a result of these disasters. Engineers will study the bridge to improve future bridge construction and safety. We, as voters, need to question politicians in the future. We let Bush scam us and the price for that is terrible. Next time a president sounds like a used car salesman, resist.

The answer in our civic life is to question.

Gossip

I think there are more trinkets to come from the Vitter float in the Scandal Parade. I hear that Mike Foster had Vitter investigated when Foster was promoting Bobby Jindal for Governor and Vitter was running against him. There were stories floating around that Vitter was into kinky sex with prostitutes and, supposedly, Foster got the goods on him and forced him out of the race.

If that's true it would prove that these people have no shame - and no integrity.

A moral failure

What shall we do about Iraq? It is widely thought that a bloodbath will follow our departure if we leave now and that it will take 5 to 10 years to stabilize the country if we stay. It will be a moral failure if we leave, yet that is what we must do. Bush points to "progress" in Iraq but its must more of his political trickery. Of course, our military prevails when it can engage directly. But everybody agrees that we cannot succeed without a political solution. Certainly, it would help to reach a political solution there if our military could provide stability and put a lid on the violence. However, I don't think the political system in Iraq could function even in a stable, violence-free environment. The surge is necessary but not sufficient. The country has no history of democracy, it lacks the institutions and traditions, and it lacks the desire. None of the parties there want to compromise - they want to win.

We invade their country, wreck a lot of it (there is less electricity now than when Saddam was in charge), and leave. Bush is gradually forcing us into a moral failure.

Failure at the top

The people in charge of our country have failed. They don't seem to have a firm grasp of reality - or truth. How striking it is that the bright spot is the sight of our Secretary of Defense in tears.

Did you see the clip of Defense Secretary Gates chocking up as he spoke movingly of the loss of life and limb in Iraq? It was a relief to see a top official acknowledge the awful cost of this war. The arrogant Rummy was dismissive. The obtuse W. seems incapable of understanding how inappropriate his sunny spirits are. And the callous Cheney’s robo-aggression continues unabated. At least Gates gets it.

Gates and Secretary of State Rice have teamed up to try to bring reality into our policies. (One White House official was quoted as saying, "We create our own reality". That is a diagnosable mental illness.)

We don't hear much about "victory" in Iraq anymore and we never hear the phrase, "cut and run". Now we hear about competing exit strategies. Bush clings to his Iraq fantasy as the sons and daughters of the nation loose life and limb. Almost everyone else realizes we have lost. The Iraq Parliament is about to go on a month long vacation (which was originally a 2 month vacation, until the Bush administration talked them out of it). The only reason for the surge in troops is to buy time for a political solution. Even if our military is completely, 100% successful; the political solution it would provide breathing space for is nowhere in sight.

Bush's political advisor, Karl Rove, is expert at spin and manipulation. He knows how to tell part of the truth to mislead the listener. He is clever at conflating unlike or even contradictory elements into a false statement that sound good. He is a master of the reasonable sounding non sequitur.

It is a disgrace that all Rove's cleverness is being used by Bush to trick and mislead America.

Bagdad Summer

The New York Times has a "must read" this morning. It is well worth your time. I've posted it at www.marignyperks.com. Click on "Coffee Talk" and its the first post listed. Read it and post your comments about it.

Lazy Journalism

Here we go again. No sooner had President Bush commuted the sentence of Scooter Libby than the media launched into its usual, knee-jerk attempt to analyze the response to the decision in terms of right vs left.

Airwaves and news pages were quickly filled with talk of "outrage from the left," "criticism from the left," and how the commutation "will further drive the left crazy."

It's positively Pavlovian. Ring the issue bell, and reporters start to drool about right vs left. Even when the facts show that the Libby commutation -- like the war in Iraq, like the war on drugs, like global warming -- is not an issue that splits along right/left lines.

In a SurveyUSA poll taken immediately after the commutation was announced, 60 percent of those surveyed said they disagreed with the decision, including 35 percent of conservatives. And, in an earlier Time magazine/SRBI poll, 72 percent said they would disapprove of a pardon. So unless "the left" has recently had an incredible growth spurt, a lot of people on the so-called "right" are feeling outraged too.

Is it really that hard for the media to address this issue without the left/right crutch? Or, if journalists and pundits insist on hobbling along using that musty terminology, can they at least do a little research and see that there are plenty on "the right" who aren't exchanging high-fives over Libby dodging the prison bullet?

Can someone please alert the media: not every issue fits your cherished right/left paradigm. Indeed, that way of looking at the world is becoming less and less relevant -- and more and more absurd.

Its even worse when the media claims balance by presenting two extremists (one liberal and one conservative).

That's like claiming balance when standing with one foot in a bucket of boiling water and the other foot in a bucket of ice.

Vittermania, Part 2

There is more about the Vitter affair. I had been reading about Vitter's diaper fetish and now the AP is reporting it. There are two points to be made beside the obvious hypocrisy.

One is that he called the prostitute from the halls of Congress, on government time.

The other is that he characterized it as a sin and went on to say he had asked for and received forgiveness from his wife and God (wonder how he knows God forgave him) - thereby putting an end to it. I'm less concerned about his sins than his crimes and he also committed a crime.

I think there is more on the diaper fetish. Do you want to know?

Vittermania

Stories about David Vitter fly around the Internet - maybe there's some truth in them. I just looked at his website and there is nothing on it about his current troubles. I read that a former Democratic governor is on the prostitute's call list. Well, at least we know it wasn't Edwards. He's safely tucked away.

Vitter's troubles are our troubles. The same is true of Congressman Jefferson. We need strong leadership in Congress to help secure our fair federal aid for Katrina recovery. These two lost their influence and effectiveness in representing our interests. Did you know that New York after 9-11 and Florida after hurricane Andrew were both forgiven the 10% local match requirement to get FEMA funds. Louisiana has been refused forgiveness of the 10% match requirement. A community reeling from a natural disaster is in no position to come up with up front matching funds. We need strong and influential representation in Washington and these guys don't help. If we still had John Breaux and Robert Livingston we would be in a better position.

Tomorrow: How the media weakens our country.

The accumulation of little lies

I was talking with a conservative friend the other day and he casually mentioned that Saddam had kicked the weapon inspectors out of Iraq. This is a good example of the power of the little lie. Saddam never did kick them out. Bush did. Saddam, toward the end, completely cooperated and that was reported in the news at the time. So why did my friend get it so wrong? Its the power of the little lie.

This lie is one of many that were (and continue to be) repeated over and over again by the conservative echo chamber. The same lie, in the same words, and even in the same tone of voice is drummed into the heads of the American public. It becomes "conventional wisdom". The truth is reported at the time and then not repeated. There was no counter balancing propaganda effort and Fox News and other Bush supporters dominated the propaganda. The little lie is repeated over time while the truth is not.

When I pointed out the error of his statement, my friend just brushed it aside and went on. It didn't fit with his beliefs and attitudes and he didn't stop to examine it. The accumulation of little lies was so great it formed a firm, and irrational, belief for him. So what are we to do?

The answer is to question.

Time's Up!

I'm tired of spineless Democrats who won't push back when Bush acts like a political bully. I'm tired of members of both parties who let him get away with outright lies. I'm tired of reporters who meekly take whatever Bush hands out and don't dig for facts. I'm really tired of Fox acting like administration propaganda is news.


To be fair, things are getting better. But they are only getting better at the margins. I want to see Congress demanding answers from the Bush administration about the Iraq war and their illegal spying program, and not backing down until they get them. Cheney won't testify? Subpoena him. He won't come? Hold him in contempt of Congress and send over the police. And if that doesn't work, impeach the guy.

Bush and Chaney are risking the future of American and soiling our present.

Its time to stand up to them and not back down.

Don't pity Libby

The Bush pardon of Libby won't go away easily. Bush's reason is so transparently false that one wonders what the real reason might be. (The sentence was the normal one for the crime and others in the same circumstances as Libby served the time. The Supreme Court recently ruled on a case that was almost identical and upheld the sentence.) As an aside, I remember many times thinking that Bush's reason was false and wondering what the real reason might have been. My favorite was the original reason for his tax cut for the super rich: we had too much money in the treasury. Then he gave it away and we went into debt. His next reason for his tax cut was that we didn't have enough money in the treasury! The rich were going to get their tax cut no matter what. The same goofy reasoning was used in whipping up support for the (unnecessary) invasion of Iraq.

Before I get too sidetracked, back to Libby. Being kept out of jail and "taken care of" will assure that Libby will continue to keep his mouth shut. He knows what went on in Chaney's office and some of what went on in the Oval Office. Bush can't afford for Libby to tell what he knows. Libby's supporters are claiming that probation and the fine is punishment enough. I've heard them on TV loudly expressing pity for poor Libby for having to come up with the $250,000 for the fine. Nobody challenges them. The fact is that the fine is meaningless because he will certainly not be paying it himself. His legal defense fund, supported by the friends of the president and vice president, boasts a treasury of $5 million. He has been well taken care of.

I expect he'll quietly be appointed to a paid, do-nothing position a corporate board, be given consulting fees, and generally live a life of comfort in the bosom of the right wing.

Don't let them fool you into pity for Libby.

Bush's gift to trial lawyers

“By saying that the sentence was excessive, I wonder if Mr. Bush understood the ramifications of saying that,” said Ellen S. Podgor, who teaches criminal law at Stetson University in DeLand, Fla. “This is opening up a can of worms about federal sentencing.”

By yesterday morning, in fact, Mr. Bush’s arguments for keeping Mr. Libby out of prison had become an unexpected gift to defense lawyers around the country, who scrambled to make use of them in their own cases.

Indeed, Mr. Bush’s decision may have given birth to a new sort of legal document.
“I anticipate that we’re going to get a new motion called ‘the Libby motion,’ ” Professor Podgor said. “It will basically say, ‘My client should have got what Libby got, and here’s why.’ ”

Bush did not run his decision through his own Justice Dept., where there is a special section for just such actions. Not having that legal input; Bush simply blundered ahead.

Planet Chaney

Here's an update on the previous post:

Washington, D.C. House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel issued the following statement regarding his amendment to cut funding for the Office of the Vice President from the bill that funds the executive branch. The legislation -- the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill -- will be considered on the floor of the House of Representatives next week. "The Vice President has a choice to make. If he believes his legal case, his office has no business being funded as part of the executive branch. However, if he demands executive branch funding he cannot ignore executive branch rules. At the very least, the Vice President should be consistent. This amendment will ensure that the Vice President's funding is consistent with his legal arguments. I have worked closely with my colleagues on this amendment and will continue to pursue this measure in the coming days."

I'll be writing more about Planet Chaney in the next few days.