That's FAQ'd Up!

I'm piggybacking on others' fine work and observations today.

First up is Lloyd Grove's "Daily Lowdown" in the Daily News,which provides yet more evidence that President Bush is out of touch with the lives of ordinary Americans: [link]

GOP minds its Ps and FAQs

Millionaire Republicans who've been losing sleep over the meaning of life and other mysteries can relax.

The Bush-Cheney '04 campaign has just issued a helpful "Frequently Asked Questions" memo to its New York fund-raisers:

Question: "Can I use my personal aircraft for campaign business?"

Answer: "No, you may not use your personal aircraft for campaign business. Corporate aircraft may be used, but only if each person boarding the plane pays the equivalent of a first-class airplane ticket."

Q: "Can I have a fund-raising cocktail party for my friends at a private club or hotel and pay for the party?"

A: "No. You may have them come to your house and treat them up to $1,000 in expenses per adult in the household without it counting against your $2,000 contribution limit."

Q: "Can I use my executive assistant to help with my fund-raising activities?"

A: "Any person can volunteer to help. Employees may volunteer a maximum of 1 (one) hour per week during working hours and an unlimited amount outside of the office."

I'm glad that's all settled.

Second, and related, to Grove's report, is something that Bill Maher said in an HBO comedy special two years ago. Funny how it's still true today:

Republicans traditionally provided the motivation America needed because Republican philosophy is based on the fact that a tiny percentage of fat cats can convince zillions of people who could never be fat cats that they might. How else do you sell trickle down economics? How else does that sound good? They're practically saying "we're pissing on you"! They're saying "we have all the money. If we drop some, that's yours. Whatever we can't get out the door as we're stealing into the night, that would be your portion."

The New Republic responded to my letter to the Editor of September 12th (posted to the blog the same day). Below are their response and my own response to their response:

From: "Letters to the Editor"
Date: Mon Sep 29, 2003 12:30:14 PM America/New_York
To: "Daniel Labovitz"
Subject: RE: Letter to the Editor/TNR Primary Gets An "F"

thanks for the comments...you have a point, but the whole idea is that different TNR writers have different takes on the same events, and that's what we want to share with readers.

-----

From: Daniel Labovitz
Date: Tue Sep 29, 2003 8:57:09 PM America/New_York
To: letters@tnr.com
Subject: Fwd: Letter to the Editor/TNR Primary Gets An "F"

Thank you for getting back to me.

I get that this is opinion, really I do. I just think that the logical flaws in Joshua Kurlantzick's piece mean that the "F" that Howard Dean got was unfair on its face since Dean didn't propose to change US policy. And that the grade was particularly unfair in light of the fact that Joe Lieberman only got a "D" for intellectual dishonesty -- Dean didn't do something "wrong", but got a failing grade, while Lieberman did do something "wrong", and got a (minimally) passing grade.

As for the letter to the editor, students argue their grades all the time, and sometimes, when a cogent argument is made, the grade gets changed. At the very least, TNR should allow readers to see dissenting opinions (the web site doesn't appear to have a comments/letters to the editor section). That was really the point of the letter; I don't actually expect TNR to change the grade.

On the other hand, I give TNR some credit for responding at all, and responding with more than a form "thank you for your interest in our publication" letter.

Yours in democracy,
Daniel M. Labovitz

A pause from the political to ponder language:

An article from Vocabula review posits that perhaps we ought to legitimize in formal writing the informal practice of using "they" as a singular pronoun referring to sex-indefinite antecedents. [link] The author poses two sentences and asks what third-person reflexive pronoun readers would use to complete the sentences in speech versus in writing:

"Everyone saw me before I saw ____."

and

"It's annoying when someone constantly pats ______ on the back."

The first sentence demonstrates the absurdity of denying the singular "they (them)", since it would be unnatural to say "everyone saw me before I saw him", not to mention that that phrasing introduces an ambiguity in the sentence -- did everyone see me before I saw a specific, though unnamed, third person (the "him" in question), or did each person in the group see me before I saw that person?

The second sentence shows the implicit sexism in the use of "himself". It is annoying when someone pats himself on the back, but what about when someone pats herself on the back? Using "himself or herself" to fix the problem still sounds awkward, and the implicitly hyphenated "him- or herself" is no better. In common use, interestingly, the author noted that most respondents in her survey filled the blank with the seemingly incongruous "themself". While awkward looking, she noted, the majority of respondents seemed to think that it fit, the rules be damned.

One solution that the writer did not discuss, interestingly, was wholesale revision to both sentences ("They all saw me before I saw them" and "It's annoying when people pat themselves on their backs"). Revising the sentences to make them plural would preserve their meanings but avoid the gender problem at the same time.

This latter advice is the advice that I try to follow in my formal writing, at least until there is a consensus among linguists that is both gender-neutral and widely accepted.

Sure, it's the coward's way out, but better a gender-neutral coward than a sexist brave soul, right? Everyone prefers it that way, don't they doesn't he (ahh, screw it).

You heard it here first!

The lead editorial in today's New York Times expresses concern about "The Presidential Bubble". [link] In the editorial, the editors say that it's "worrisome when one of the most incurious men ever to occupy the White House takes pains to insist that he gets his inofmration on what the world is saying only in predigested bits from his appointees."

Gee, I seem to recall that I may have posted something about this...where was it...Oh yes, it was right here on this blog! In fact it was the post right below this one!

There's a great New Yorker cartoon of a boardroom full of men and one woman. The man at the head of the table is saying "That's a wonderful suggestion, Ms. Smith. Perhaps one of the men would like to make it?"

Now I know how she feels.

I recognize that the job of being President means that you end up living in a bubble, isolated by security and the competing demands of running the country. I understand as well that the President has to rely to some degree on his staff to filter things for him. But this excerpt from President Bush's interview with Brit Hume on Fox last night is frankly unsettling because it suggests that not only is President Bush living in his bubble, but that he prefers it that way:

HUME: How do you get your news?

BUSH: I get briefed by Andy Card and Condi in the morning. They come in and tell me. In all due respect, you've got a beautiful face and everything.

I glance at the headlines just to kind of a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves. But like Condoleezza, in her case, the national security adviser is getting her news directly from the participants on the world stage.

HUME: Has that been your practice since day one, or is that a practice that you've...

BUSH: Practice since day one.

HUME: Really?

BUSH: Yes. You know, look, I have great respect for the media. I mean, our society is a good, solid democracy because of a good, solid media. But I also understand that a lot of times there's opinions mixed in with news. And I...

HUME: I won't disagree with that, sir.

BUSH: I appreciate people's opinions, but I'm more interested in news. And the best way to get the news is from objective sources. And the most objective sources I have are people on my staff who tell me what's happening in the world.

Two thoughts ran through my head as I read this. One was a lyric from an Indigo Girls song, "Shine My Life Like a Light": "Well the world seems spent/and the President has no good idea who the masses are..." Pretty perceptive for two pinko-liberal lesbians, huh?

The second was of a photo op involving the first President Bush in 1991 or 1992, in which he is caught on camera marvelling at the scanner at the supermarket check-out counter. It was a clip that epitomized how out-of-touch he was with the ordinary American who, even by 1992, saw scanners in supermarkets all the time. Of course, the fact that he hadn't encountered scanners was at least understandable because the man had been ensconced in the White House since 1980, and probably hadn't been in a supermarket on his own since at least 1979, when he started campaigning for President.

But to deliberately avoid the news media that the other 250 million Americans see because you might be exposed to "opinions" lurking among the facts? That's inexcusable.

If it's a matter of time, well, okay, Presidents are busy people, but come on -- CNN Headline News repeats the top stories every half-hour. Alternatively, I'm sure that some low-level staffer could be assigned the job of assembling the half-dozen "must read" stories every day and giving copies to the President. Certainly, if I were President, I would look to the news media as a way of keeping my finger on the pulse of the country.

At the very least, is it too much to ask that our leader have a sense of what the news media is saying, if only as a check on what his advisors are telling him?

I shop at WalMart! I demand a seat on their Board!

Full disclosure: I am an employee of the New York Stock Exchange, Inc., but the views that I am expressing here are solely my own, have not been vetted with the Exchange or any of its officials, and do not in any way, shape or form, constitute the official or unofficial position of the New York Stock Exchange, Inc., or any persons affiliated with the Exchange other than me.

It has been suggested that the NYSE Board of Directors is hopelessly mired in conflicts of interest, and should be reconstituted. Currently, the Board has 12 of its 27 seats reserved for members of the securities industry. One proposal that has been floated is that these firms should not have a seat on the new Board, and that instead, the Board should have representatives of the "public investor" and listed companies only.

To which I say, say what?

Let us suppose we were talking about WalMart, instead of the New York Stock Exchange. Under the current system, WalMart is run by executives who serve at the pleasure of the Board of Directors (leave aside the issue of employment contracts for the moment). The Board, in turn, is elected by shareholders of the corporation. The shareholders are the owners of the corporation. See how easy that is? The owners of the corporation select a group of people who are stewards for the company, and those people pick the people who run the company. Notice that WalMart's customers aren't anywhere in the mix?

But surely, you say, the entire corporation is run for the benefit of the customer, right? And it's the customer who gets hurt if WalMart engages in anticompetitive behavior, right? So to be fair and protect the consumer, shouldn't the customer have a dominant say in the running of the company? Well, actually, no. If the customers have a beef with WalMart, they are free to take their business to a competitor (to vote with their dollars). Other redress can be found in any number of consumer protection statutes, the offices of the state and local authorities and in the press.

But what about WalMart's suppliers, you ask? Doesn't WalMart exist to give an outlet for suppliers to get their goods to customers? Doesn't that mean that WalMart should give its suppliers control of the Board? Of course not, for the same reason. Suppliers can choose not to do business with WalMart, or may seek redress through enforcement of laws.

Now consider that the Exchange is a not-for-profit entity that is owned by its 1,366 members, or "seat holders". These people and entities are already in the minority (12 of the 27 seats on the Board), but at least they have a seat at the table. Sound familiar? To suggest that these entities shouldn't have a seat at the table would make as much sense as suggesting that customers (public investors) and suppliers (listed companies) should dominate the board of WalMart.

Ah, but what about the regulatory aspect, you ask? Good question. In both the examples I posited, the customer or supplier who is aggrieved can complain to an independent authority for enforcement of the laws through civil or criminal penalties. At the Exchange, the order of the day is "self-regulation", which means that the members of the Exchange are responsible for policing themselves.

Admittedly, this is a difference, but is it one that justifies removing the owners of the business from the control of the business? After all, we're not relying on the Exchange members to police themselves just out of the goodness of their hearts -- it's mandated by statute, and is an essential part of the Exchange's status as a "self regulatory organziation". And even then, we don't simply leave the Exchange to regulate itself in a vacuum -- there is a process called "oversight" in which the SEC routinely reviews the self-regulatory apparatus of the Exchange (both preventative self-regulation and disciplinary action taken by the Exchange when it uncovers problems). What's more, integrity is part of the Exchange's brand, and therefore, effective self-regulation is powerfully in the interest of the owners of the Exchange, no matter how much they may grumble about it.

And besides, customers and suppliers retain the ultimate veto power over the Exchange: the ability not to do business there. There is no obligation that a listed company list on the Exchange; they could just as easily list on the Nasdaq. And most "public" investors (that is, individuals, not institutional investors) don't know or care where their orders are executed (the little known secret is that orders can be executed in any number of places, not just on the NYSE). And the investors who do know or care where their orders are executed still come to the NYSE for 8 trades out of 10. 94% of the time, the NYSE gives them the best price for their trade. (Parenthetically, if any market does not have the best price, it is obligated to forward the trade to the market that does have the best price. This is known as the "trade through" rule, and it prohibits the NYSE from executing a customer's trade at an inferior price).

Those facts should count for something in this debate, shouldn't they?

In response to my response to the TNR Primary, Gail wrote to ask the following hard questions:

"[I]n recent weeks I''ve been very concerned about [Howard Dean's] foreign policy positions, particularly on American policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and how to handle the Iraq mess that President Bush and his cronies have gotten us into. Reading these pieces, and following the links to/on Dean''s web-site has been somewhat reassuring, though some questions remain, and here''s where I''d like to hear your thoughts as an unabashed Dean supporter. A) Given that Dean''s official statements and apparent position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are pretty nuanced and in accordance with at least stated, if not actual, current US policy, what''s with the rather flat-footed comment (and let''s be honest, even if his fornal position is nuanced, his off-the-cuff statement was flat-footed) Dean made in New Mexico? Which Dean should I be listening to? B) I think Dean was absolutely correct in his opposition to the Iraq war. I think he''s further correct that those candidates who voted for the war resolution and who are now expressing suprise and/or concern regarding Administration policy and how the war actually turned out (lack of international support, insufficient planning for the aftermath, etc.) are either disengenuous, or weren''t paying sufficient attention last fall, or both. But...we''re there now, and to leave things as they are would disastrous. I need to hear more about what Dean proposes to do now. He said to the Counsel on Foreign Relations in June that he''d put in more troops - where will he take them from? Will he bring home the reservists? How will he pay for those troops? He wants to bring in other countries - good idea, but what will it take to get them on board? I''d like to think that being asked by someone who isn''t George Bush (or working on behalf of same) will go a long way, but will it go far enough?

Okay, let's set some parameters here. First of all, I don't think of myself as an "unabashed" Dean supporter. Thus far, Dean has been the candidate with whom I have most identified, in part because he is not from the part of the Democratic party that was afraid to voice any kind of loyal opposition after 2000, and that refused to stand for anything in the 2002 elections. To me, a vote for Dean is as much a vote against the Democratic status quo as a vote for Dean.

[This is not to say that I am an "angry" Democrat. Rather, I feel betrayed by the likes of Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt, and am tired of the right wing onslaught against the Constitution. For me, it's not so much about the economy as it is about wiping the smug smiles off the faces of priggish conservatives who don't give a damn about anyone but themselves and people who look and talk like them. Okay, maybe I'm a little angry, but I like to think it's in a rational and persuasive way.]

Anyway, the other parameter is that I too am somewhat troubled by the amateur mistakes of the Dean campaign. Yes, every campaign goes through this process, but it's painful to watch. I say this because I think it's understandable that Gov. Dean's comments in New Mexico came off as "flat footed". Having said that, I don't think that they were flat footed, but I see where you're coming from. In an ideal world, he would have given the more nuanced answer, but sometimes politics doesn't work that way. Given that fact, I personally don't think we should let the perfect become the enemy of the good. In other words, listen to the nuanced Dean answer, not the soundbite.

As an aside, I am curious why Dean's position isn't too pro Israel to you. One of Dean's lead advisors in this area is the former head of AIPAC, which has taken a pro-Sharon stance. For Dean's own part, when questioned whether his position was closer to Peace Now's or AIPAC's, Dean said AIPAC's. Of course, Dean has moderated the AIPAC position somewhat, but still, that's a fairly hard line to be taking.

As a second aside, since you asked my opinion, let me say that I have half a mind that says Dean's off-the-cuff position may have been the right approach notwithstanding his more nuanced position. The fact is that a two-state solution is probably the only morally defensible and politically feasible solution: it satisfies the Arab and Palestinian need for self-determination; and it gets Israel out of the apartheid business, which, to a Jewish state, is ultimately unsustainable. And to get to the two-state solution, it is true that Israel will have to withdraw protection for some settlements, while the Palestinians have to resolve the terrorism in their midst. None of that will happen on its own, however; somebody has to step up and broker the deal. What's more, it's not going to be the United Nations, which is captive to Arab and pan-Islamic interests, and it won't be Europe, which has historically been more supportive of the surrounding Arab states. That leaves the United States. The fortunate or unfortunate result of that is that we have to be perceived by both sides as being even-handed. For more on this line of reasoning, I refer you to a recent article in The Nation. [link]

But I digress.

The Iraq question, to me, is more difficult. I think that Dean is pandering here, just a bit. You're correct -- we're in this mess, and regardless of how we got here, we can't just declare victory and go home. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something. It seemed to me that in the second debate, when Dean said he would advocate bringing our troops home, he must have been reading from Dennis Kucinich's cue cards. But whatever. He said it, and I think he was wrong. For the moment, I can live with that cognitive dissonance, however, because I think, again, the more nuanced answers are right -- we need to internationalize our presence in Iraq, particularly with Arab troops, and we need to significantly broaden the base of support. Probably, that means significantly increasing our presence in Iraq in the short term. To answer your direct question, no, I don't know where Dean proposes to find those extra troops, or what he plans to do about reservists, but I assume we'll hear more about that as the campaign progresses.

Unsatisfying answers, probably, but hey, it's fourteen months before the general election and six months before the California primary. There's still time for him to clarify his positions.

Mmmm...Onion!

The following news item was found in The Onion [link]. I'm sure that right now, a Bush staffer is saying to himself, "why didn't we think of that". Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure that Rep. Tom DeLay has already manipulated House rules to make this law...

Revised Patriot Act Will Make It Illegal To Read Patriot Act

WASHINGTON, DC—President Bush spoke out Monday in support of a revised version of the 2001 USA Patriot Act that would make it illegal to read the USA Patriot Act. "Under current federal law, there are unreasonable obstacles to investigating and prosecuting acts of terrorism, including the public's access to information about how the federal police will investigate and prosecute acts of terrorism," Bush said at a press conference Monday. "For the sake of the American people, I call on Congress to pass this important law prohibiting access to itself." Bush also proposed extending the rights of states to impose the death penalty "in the wake of Sept. 11 and stuff."

[This is a copy of a letter to the Editors of The New Republic regarding their "TNR Primary". Each day, a team of five columnists grade the Democratic candidates on their performances. The candidate with the highest GPA at the end of the primary will win special mention in the magazine's "endorsement issue" in February. As you'll see below, however, the project isn't without its problems]

To the Editors:

Candidate: TNR Primary
Category: Intellectual Honesty
Grade: F

On the one hand, the TNR Primary gave Howard Dean an "F" in Foreign Policy
because of Dean's statements about Israel (Joshua Kurlantzick, "Say What?", 9/9/03). Apparently, Kurlantzick finds in Dean's statements that the U.S. should not "take sides" and should be "even handed" a "precipitous break with previous policy." As Kurlantzick sees it, Dean fails to recognize that the U.S. "has to take sides".

On the other hand, the same day, the TNR Primary gave Joe Lieberman only a "D" in Intellectual Honesty for taking the same Dean quotes "out of context" (Clay Risen, "Stretching", 9/9/03). According to Risen, Lieberman's interpretation (and Kurlantzick's) is "a big stretch." As Risen points out, Dean's actual position is that in order to have peace, the Palestinians must crack down on terror and get serious about demcracy, while Israel is going to have to dismantle some settlements and help improve the Palestinian quality of life. Even Lieberman agrees with that. What's more, says Risen, "[i]f that's not a restatement of current U.S. policy, it's hard to think what is."

So which is it? Did Dean propose a change in U.S. policy or not? And if he didn't, isn't it true then that Lieberman manufactured a disingenous "gotcha" issue? I think the answer is found in the quality of the reporters' essays: note that Risen did his homework to find out what Dean's actual position was, whereas Kurlantzick didn't. For that reason alone (though there are many others), I'm more inclined to credit Risen's interpretation, and to recommend that Dean's "F" be erased. You might want to make Kurlantzick write "I will do better research" a hundred times on the blackboard as well.

In any event, I give the TNR Primary an F for its role in the mess.

[I might have added that if TNR left both standing in the name of differing points of view, parity at least would suggest that each side get the same grade; as it is, Lieberman is getting a pass, while Dean fails. That seems unfair, given that the grades come down to two sides of the same issue.]

Donald Rumsfeld lays bare just how scary the Bush Administration can be when it comes to inconvenient concepts like the "rule of law". According to Rummy, it is unlikely that any of the "enemy combatants" being held at Guantanamo Bay will be tried before the end of the "War on Terror", which may itself stretch for decades. Actually, we apparently don't care whether they're innocent or not, Rummy says:

"Our interest is in not trying them and letting them out. Our interest is in -- during this global war on terror -- keeping them off the streets, and so that's what's taking place." [link]

Stunning. Of course, wiser men than I have considered this argument, and found it to be tantamount to tyrrany. Some of them, I'm told, even had a hand in writing a little document known as the Constitution of the United States of America, which used to prescribe what our government could and couldn't do. Here's what one of them (Alexander Hamilton) had to say:

"The observations of the judicious Blackstone, in reference to [the practice of arbitrary imprisonments] are worthy of recital: 'To bereave a man of life [says he] or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefor a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.'" -- Federalist 84 (quoting Blackstone's Commentaries, Vol. 1, p. 136).

Closure, part II

September 11, 2001 was about the swirling and crawling and stopping of time. Only two points are fixed in my memory: 8:48 a.m., when I heard that a plane had hit the World Trade; and 10:03, when I experienced the South Tower collapsing three blocks away, and ducked into a sandwich shop to escape the dust. How long I spent waiting for the black cloud to pass, I couldn't tell you. Did Tower 1 collapse while I was holed up or after I had started my escape uptown? I don't know. How long did it take to get home? Same answer. What did I do the rest of my day? No clue.

September 11, 2002 was about defiant normalcy. I came to work and lived as normal a life as I could. It was the best way to show that no, the terrorists hadn't won.

Today, it was about sounds. As I walked down Church Street toward the site of the former WTC, I could hear the monotone naming of the dead. A bell tolled in slow measured beats on Barclay Street, [DONG] rung by a firefighter in polyester dress blues, [DONG] white gloves that were too small, and a white hat [DONG] perched precariously on his head. The uniform looked slightly tattered, [DONG] like it had been used far too many times this year and last year, [DONG] and the man inside the uniform looked slightly tattered too. [DONG] Though he was strong, though his hands were big and manly, he looked tired, [DONG] as though pulling the rope that led to the clapper that rang the bell to commemorate the dead [DONG] was draining whatever reserves he had left. We made eye contact as I walked by [DONG], and he held out his hand to me.

"Ring the bell, brother?"

I stopped and looked at him and then at the huge, silvery bell, which was hung from a black scaffold sitting on the ground. I hadn't paid much attention to it as it was ringing but I now saw that it had been polished recently, and whoever had done it had made small sweeping circles on the last pass with the cloth. It would have taken hours at that rate. "Yes," I said.

I took the rope from him. It was thick and scratchy, and heavier than I expected. I gave it a quick tug, self-conscious that I had broken the gonging rhythm. DONG. The clapper moved easily. Satisfied, I raised my right hand to shake the fireman's hand.

"Again," he said.

So I pulled it again. DONG.

"Again."

DONG.

I pulled the rope four more times, until my pulls had reset the rhythm of the bell. It was time for me to go.

"Thank you, brother." The fireman had reclaimed the rope and had made the bell clang again, but was looking me straight in the eye. He looked haunted.

I took his hand, and mumbled, "Thank you."

I wished I had something more profound to say. There was something about that look, about the sound of the bell, about the magnitude of the day that seemed to call for it, but I couldn't think of anything. But I think that the fireman understood, and maybe that was why he had invited me to ring the bell -- after all the memorials and prayers and funerals, he too had run out of things to say. All that was left was to toll the bell, slowly and mournfully and over and over again, for all the world to hear.

Here's a surprise -- an article in the Weekly Standard that is actually balanced (okay, only somewhat balanced, but a nice surprise anyway). [link]

The article displays the typical Republican contempt for things like giving children health care and making sure that they have adequate schooling, but on the whole, the article takes a respectful tone. On the former, columnist Stephen Moore called Dean's health care plan "dimwitted", notwithstanding the fact that it actually works and makes healthcare available to children. And on Act 60 (the school funding law), Moore neglects to mention a salient fact: Act 60 was not a "cockeyed" liberal plan that Dean cooked up because he felt like it, but a response to a mandate from the Vermont Supreme Court ordering the government to overhaul education funding in the state.

On the latter (the respectful tone), the article compares Dean favorably to Bill Clinton ("without the skirt chasing"), and suggests that if Dean can tack back toward the center from his somewhat left-of-center position in the primary (obviously, I'm paraphrasing there), he would be a serious threat to President Bush.

I think this article suggests that conservatives may be feeling somewhat queasy as we roll toward November 2004. That makes me happy.

So the Democratic candidates' debate on Fox News ends, and is immediately followed by the following "fair and balanced" panel, moderated by Tony Snow: Fred Barnes, editor of the Weekly Standard; Mort Kondrake, opinion columnist for Roll Call; and Ceci Connelly. Now, I'm not sayin' that the panel had a distinct rightward tilt, but I did an extremely unscientific poll (I googled the names) to figure out where on the political spectrum each of the panelists fell.

Barnes was easy -- just read any issue of the Weekly Standard, and you'll see that he's right wing. [link]

Kondrake wasn't much harder -- here's a link to one site that describes Kondrake as a "pundit with something worthwhile to say"; the others in that category include Rush Limbaugh, Chris Matthews, William F. Buckley and George Will. [link] Right wing.

And then there was Ceci Connelly. She was harder to pin down, but again, here's a left-wing website that calls her "mentally unstable"; if the left doesn't recognize her, she obviously can't be representing the left on the panel. [link]

So there you have it -- a "fair and balanced" panel consisting of two hardcore and one softcore right wingers.

Wow. [link]

There has been a lot said about the EPA and their 9/11 lies, and there has been a lot said about President Bush and his State of the Union lies, but there has been very little that captures the outrage the way that Jimmy Breslin does.

Read it. Think hard about why lying about a blowjob gets you impeached but lying about pretty much everything is patriotic. And then vote your conscience.

Color Me Confused

Let's start with why, two years after the USA Patriot Act became the law of the land, we now have a lobbying effort by the Attorney General to rally support of the law. Shouldn't that have been part of the program when we were considering whether to pass the law in the first place?

But let's assume that there's actually something to discuss here. One would think, therefore, that Mr. Ashcroft would solicit views both for and against, and then make the case why the "for" outweighed the "against". It would be a triumph of democracy.

Alas, that's not his purpose. As David Israelite, John Ashcroft's deputy chief of staff, tells us, "He's not going on the road to debate the Patriot Act as much as to inform the American public about what it is and what it isn't, because there are a lot of misconceptions out there." [link]

Okay, so are we going to try to persuade people that the misconceptions are just that -- misconceptions? Actually, Mr. Israelite dismisses that kind of persuasion as unworthy of further discussion: "There are a lot of editorial boards and others who are very liberal on these types of issues, and they're not going to agree with us no matter what the level of debate is."

So if I understand the drill, John Ashcroft is attempting to rally support for a 342-page law that passed two years ago in hurry-up mode, though without debating the merits of that law. Instead, he is going around the country dispelling misconceptions about it, unless they're misconceptions held by liberals who wouldn't agree with him anyway. Wouldn't it be easier just to show people the U.S. Code and be done with it? After all, the best way to dispel misconception would be turn to the original text of the law, right?

But let's dispense with the idiocy of thinking that you can drum up support for something without "debating" its merits -- that's called "cheerleading" and it's not usually a verb that is positively associated with high-minded civic purpose. Instead, let's go right to heart of the issue: is the problem really that the opponents of the USA Patriot Act are "liberals"?

It's old news when Republicans demonize the media (that is, "editorial boards"). But the wrinkle is these mysterious "others" that Mr. Israelite disses as "very liberal". Who are they?

Well, how about the 3 state legislatures and 157 local legislative bodies that have passed resolutions objecting to the law? But maybe those are all in the blue states, so maybe they are liberal.

Then how about Rep. C.L. Otter, a member of Congress from Idaho who is . . . a Republican? Mr. Otter sponsored legislation that would repeal a section of the Patriot Act that authorized secret executing of search warrants and delaying notification to the subject of the warrant until well after the fact. Guess what? The measure passed the Republican-controlled House by a vote of 309-118. So do Mr. Ashcroft and his staff think that the Congress is also "very liberal"? Maybe, though that would surprise me.

OK, but what about Republican stalwarts? Surely, a former aide to Sen. Strom Thurmond would qualify as sufficiently "right thinking" as to merit debate about "misconceptions", yes? Especially one who wrote a book called "The Dark Side of Liberalism"? Well, it turns out not to be; Phil Kent, the former aide and author, criticized the Bush Administration for not addressing people's concerns that the it may be "overreaching in its fight against terrorism" (as the Times put it). Kent had this to say about the Patriot Act: "The fact is, we shouldn't be making suspects out of 280 million Americans."

The fact is, also, that Mr. Israelite's statements typify the contempt that Mr. Ashcroft and other members have for people who disagree with them. Remember Ashcroft's warning that people who dissented against the USA Patriot Act were "aid[ing] terrorists"? [link]Or his boss's statement that "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists"? [link] Or how about Donald Rumsfeld's statement yesterday that dissenters about our continued presence in Iraq hearten our enemies to strengthen their resistance? [link].

Sadly, that contempt seems to permeate the Republican Party even beyond the leadership. For example, Mr. Ashcroft has spoken almost exclusively to invitation-only groups of police officers and law enforcement types. Ordinary citizens are not invited, and apparently, neither are the local print media. But at the same time, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee told the Times that "He [Ashcroft] wants to get his message across directly to the voters, and the more he can do that without tangling with folks along the way, the better."

Excuse me, but how is it "getting his message across directly to the voters" when the only people he is speaking to are invitation-only crowds who are already (for the most part) not only converted to the cause, but also highly unlikely to voice even the slightest dissent? More importantly, who are the "folks" and what exactly does it mean not to "tangle" with them, anyway? And isn't "tangling with folks along the way" the process by which democracy happens?

I find it hard to believe that Republicans are really saying that it's "better" not to engage the American people directly, and stick only to friendly crowds. But that's where the evidence points. And it strikes me that can't be described as anything but contempt for the average citizen. Moreover, it sounds un-American.

Yet somehow it's unpatriotic to say so? Color me confused.

Molly Ivins has a very disturbing compilation of quotes from President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other senior Bush administration officials over the past year about Iraq's certain store of weapons of mass destruction. [link]

To which, all I can say is "Liar liar, pants on fire!" I can only hope that they get what they so richly deserve -- one way bus tickets back to Texas and Wyoming in January 2005, where I hope that they brood and spend sleepless nights endlessly reliving their failures, seeing all the should haves and could haves, and generally being miserable.

It would appear that the times, they are a changin'...

During the Congressional recess, Senators and Representatives went home and heard from their constituents. The Washington Post reports on what the members of Congress are saying that they heard. [link]

Here's a teaser, from Sen. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah): "Mainly, people want reassurance that the administration knows what it's doing, that things are going better than CNN would have us believe."

What's fascinating about this article is not just that Americans are telling their representatives what's on their minds, but also that Republicans are going on record being critical of the President (even if only modestly).

Not much more to say here, except "It's about time!"

Larry Kudlow writes that it's time for the President to start debunking Howard Dean. To which I say, "Right wing crank, debunk thyself." [link]

Kudlow issues a rousing call-to-arms for the "Bushies" (his term, not mine) to counter Dean's popularity after a "shocking" Zogby poll showed Dean leading Sen. John Kerry 38% to 17% in New Hampshire. The tone of his call-to-arms suggests that maybe the Republicans are afraid of Dean (notwithstanding Karl Rove's supposed encouragement that "Yeah, that's the one we want). After all, Kudlow doesn't demean Dean with the "unelectable" crap, but rather, derides him as a "Ted Kennedyesque" liberal who must be stopped.

So what is a Bushie to do? Kudlow's response is to try to discredit Dean on the issues. So I say, let's discredit Kudlow, shall we?

Point 1: The Liberal Media Rehash

Kudlow says that there is clearly a media bias against President Bush because the day after Dr. Dean's "successful" rally in Bryant Park, the New York Times ran a large color photo of Dr. Dean above the fold, while a story about President Bush's speech to the VFW convention ran below the Dean story, and had no picture.

First, let's deal in some basic facts: President Bush did not address the VFW convention in San Antonio; he addressed the American Legion convention in St. Louis. [link] It's a minor point, but I think that it's not too much to expect a writer for the National Review to get these kinds of basic facts right.

Second, although the New York Times has a national audience, it's still a New York newspaper. Arguably, the Dean event was more "newsworthy" to a New York audience than the President's speech. For one thing, the Dean event took place in New York City, practically within spitting distance of the Times' offices, while the President's speech took place in San Antonio (if you are inclined to listen to Kudlow) or St. Louis (if you are inclined to listen to the truth). But more importantly, the Dean story just sounds more newsworthy on its face: in 9-candidate primary field, one candidate gets 10,000 New Yorkers to turn out at 8:30 on a Tuesday night in August, five months before the first primary vote will be cast in two states that aren't New York, and fifteen months before the general election. In comparison, the President, who speaks to lots of groups about lots of things, gave a speech in which he defended his policy in Iraq.

Not only that, but it's not like the Times buried the Bush story among the death notices on page B14 -- they did put it on the front page of the paper, which suggests the relative importance the Times' editors placed on the story.

Finally, Kudlow's criticism is selective, based on my admittedly unscientific glance at today's paper. To paraphrase Kudlow, this morning, "the New York Times saw fit to run a huge frontpage story with a color picture of the [President]. Meanwhile, a story on [the Democratic candidates speeches on Labor Day] — where [they] emphasized [their differences with the President] — was placed [on Page A21]."

Put it all together -- a newsworthy local event gets top coverage, but the President's speech at a convention also gets prominent page 1 coverage the same day, with similar, but opposite, treatment of the same politicians on another day -- and I don't see the media bias.

But let's not get bogged down in this -- after all, it's hardly Kudlow's main point.

Point 2 -- The Economy, it is a Changing

One of Kudlow's main points is that the economy is improving, but that Bush's advisors haven't been proactive in promoting it. To give his argument gravitas, he cites the Congressional Budget Office projections on the deficit:

But the new Congressional Budget Office estimates show a huge drop in projected deficits beginning in 2005 and extending for the next eight years. By 2010 the deficit is projected to be less than 2 percent of GDP. By 2013 the CBO estimates a $211 billion surplus.

Sounds like good news, right? Well, after the VFW/American Legion mixup, I thought I should check some of Kudlow's facts. So I went to the CBO report that Kudlow is citing to (at least I think it's the same report, since he doesn't bother to reference his sources). [link] Know what I found? That Kudlow is lying with statistics. Can you imagine?

Let me explain. The CBO does indeed predict that deficits will decline from their peak in 2004 and that we will have a surplus starting in 2012. So Kudlow's statements are correct, right? Well, not exactly. Here are some of the caveats that the CBO points out in its report.

Caveat #1: CBO estimate is made "under the assumption (mandated by statute) that current laws and policies remain the same". In other words, the CBO is predicting that if Congress does nothing between now and 2012, we'll have a budget surplus. (Insert your own joke here)

Caveat #2: As a result of CBO Caveat #1, "CBO's baseline projections show deficits that diminish and then give way to surpluses near the end of the 2004-2013 period--under the assumption that no policy changes occur. In particular, the baseline assumes that the major tax provisions of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) will expire as scheduled in 2010." In other words, in order to have a surplus starting in 2012, the Republicans would have to let the Bush tax cuts expire and not reauthorize them. Yep, that means that to get a surplus, the Republicans would have to reinstate the dreaded "death tax". Anyone want to take bets that EGTRRA won't be reauthorized?

Caveat #3: Still related to CBO Caveat #1, "the baseline does not include possible policy changes such as the introduction of a prescription drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries." In other words, even though we know that some kind of prescription drug benefit reform is coming, the CBO can't take it into account, and Larry Kudlow won't think about it either.

Caveat #4: In order to get to Kudlow's projected surplus of $211 billion 2013, you have to include the Social Security surplus and the net cash flows of the Postal Service (I swear, I didn't make that up), which comprise the "off-budget surplus" (as opposed to the "on-budget deficits). For the record, the off-budget surplus is not something within the control of the President or the Congress, whereas the on-budget deficit is. So, if you look just at the on-budget deficit numbers, you see that the deficits are predicted to exceed $100 million even in 2013.

And last, but certainly not least, Caveat #5: "Actual budget totals...will almost certainly differ from those baseline projections. By statute, CBO's baseline must estimate the future paths of federal revenues and spending under current laws and policies. The baseline is therefore not intended to be a prediction of future budgetary outcomes; instead, it is meant to serve as a neutral benchmark that lawmakers can use to measure the effects of proposed changes to taxes and spending."

Now, here are some things that the CBO said that Larrry Kudlow didn't see fit to tell us about:

CBO Finding #1: Although Kudlow says that the projected surplus in 2013 is $211 billion, that number is misleading because it is only the "gross" amount. According to the CBO, "[d]eficits are projected to total $1.4 trillion between 2004 and 2008; the following five years show a small net surplus of less than $50 billion." (emphasis added)

CBO Finding #2: After 13 years, revenues as a percentage of GDP will still be less than when President Clinton left office, again, assuming that Bush's tax cuts are allowed to expire in 2010: Revenues have slid from a peak of 20.8 percent of GDP in 2000 to 16.5 percent this year and are anticipated to drop again next year, to 16.2 percent. From that point on, the trend reverses, as projected economic growth pushes revenues in the baseline up from 17.4 percent of GDP in 2005 to 18.7 percent in 2010. Under current laws and policies, revenues are projected to climb more rapidly thereafter because of the expiration of EGTRRA, reaching 20.5 percent of GDP in 2013.

CBO Finding #3: This one speaks for itself: "Since CBO last issued baseline projections in March, the budget outlook has worsened substantially. Half a year ago, CBO estimated that the deficit for 2003 would total $246 billion, the deficit for 2004 would decline slightly to $200 billion, and the cumulative total for the 2004-2013 period would be a surplus of $891 billion. Now, CBO's estimate for this year's deficit has risen by $155 billion and for next year's by $280 billion. For the 10-year period from 2004 through 2013, projected deficits have increased and projected surpluses have decreased by a total of nearly $2.3 trillion."

CBO Finding #4: This one also speaks for itself: "CBO does not anticipate a quick reduction in the unemployment rate from its current level...CBO expects that the unemployment rate will average 6.2 percent for calendar years 2003 and 2004. In part, the sustained high rate of unemployment reflects caution on the part of employers, who--if they follow recent patterns--are not likely to resume hiring immediately as demand begins to grow. In part, it also reflects the likelihood that people who have been discouraged in their job searches by the economic weakness of the past few years are now likely to resume them--and be tallied among the unemployed."

So Kudlow's point, that even the non-partisan CBO agrees that Bush's economic policies are good for the economy, turns out to be based on so many assumptions that it's meaningless. Nevertheless, Kudlow confidently states that "the CBO underscores the point that slumping economic growth is the largest source of the problem and recovering growth is the largest source of the solution." I'm not sure where he gets that interpretation, but one more quote from the CBO ought to tell you whether the CBO agrees with Kudlow's interpretation: "CBO estimates that current tax and spending policies would produce steadily declining deficits after 2004, which would change to surpluses for 2012 and 2013 -- largely because of increases in revenues from the scheduled expiration of the major tax-cut provisions enacted in 2001." (emphasis added). In other words, growth isn't the solution -- the expiration of the Bush tax cuts is.

Point 3 -- Ted Kennedy Giveth, Ted Kennedy Taketh Away

Kudlow suggests that on health care and prescription drugs, it makes sense to link Gov. Dean with Sen. Edward Kennedy. Specifically, Kudlow says: "Linking Dean to Sen. Kennedy mades sense -- not only on health care but also on taxes and war. The Vermont liberal is very much in Kennedy's far-out orbit."

This is the same Ted Kennedy who helped Bush pass his education initiative in 2001 [link] and who helped Bush push a prescription drug plan earlier this summer, right? [link] Ted Kennedy signs on to two of the Bush campaign's signature issues for 2004, but yet has a "far out orbit"? Sounds inconsistent to me...

Point 4 -- Pot Calls Kettle Black

By far the kicker of Kudlow's article is this statement: "As for foreign policy, Dean would destroy American credibility for at least the next fifty years..." Right, because the Bush foreign policy has so clearly enhanced American credibility. Let's see...unilaterally pulling out of the Kyoto Accords, unilaterally pulling out of the international war crimes criminal court, unilaterally pulling out of the ABM treaty, mischaracterizing and distorting intelligence data to justify a war in Iraq, denigrating NATO allies...and the list goes on.

* * *

I'd like to be able to ignore the likes of Larry Kudlow, but when conservatives lie, I'm with Al Franken -- the only way to respond with truth. More later.