Food for thought: tonight's debates

A companion piece for tonight's debate: some quotes from the last first presidential debate, October 3, 2000. In some places, I've added some more recent quotes to add context; the rest should speak for themselves.

Bush: [Al Gore is] trying to scare people in the voting booth.

Gore: The main issue is whether or not the Roe v. Wade decision is going to be overturned. … It is important because the next president is going to appoint three and maybe even four justices of the Supreme Court.
"[O]ver the next four years the President of the United States will appoint as many as four Supreme Court justices." – John Kerry, September 9, 2004

Bush: I believe that the judges... ought to look at the Constitution as sacred.
"[O]ur nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America." – George W Bush, February 24, 2004

MODERATOR: How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?
BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not ... our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. ... Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. ... Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. ... And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. ... [Gore] believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. ... Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we're overextended in too many places. ... I don't want to be the world's policeman, I want to be the world's peacemaker by having a military of high morale and a military that is well-equipped. ... [I]f we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that.

BUSH: [Gore] is going to grow the federal government in the largest increase since Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1965. ... We're talking about adding to or increasing 200 programs, 20,000 new bureaucrats. ... [T]he surest way to bust this economy is to increase the role and size of the federal budget.
"[A] recent study by New York University and the Brookings Institution shows there are 1 million more actual government workers today than in 1999. ... And it's not just the size — the cost of government is also up. ... [T]he fastest growth is in jobs, not spending related to defense and terrorism." - Jake Tapper, ABC News, 9/22/04

BUSH: I think the economy has meant more for the Gore and Clinton folks than the Gore and Clinton folks have meant for the economy. I think most of the economic growth that has taken place is a result of ingenuity and hard work and entrepreneurship and that's the role of government to encourage that.
"[T]he economy is moving in the right direction because of the action that we have taken." – Bush's Press Secretary Scott McClellan, November 11, 2003.

BUSH: I understand the limited role of the federal government, but it could be a constructive role when it comes to reform, by insisting that there be a strong accountability systems.

Keep especially that last bit, about accountability, in mind tonight.

Fact check my balls...

I'm getting a little discouraged by factcheck.org. They do some good work but really seem to stop short of fully exploring the issues. Here, they debunk the implication in a John Kerry ad that Dick Cheney had a financial interest in Halliburton while serving as veep. Basically, it offers evidence that Cheney had his salary and bonuses stretched out, and got most of what he was owed before he was sworn into office. The measly rest (which could pay off my credit card debt an college loans ten times over), as it says, was really just salary deferred a while to save him on his taxes. (I'm really glad that loophole exists, by the way.) But he earned it before coming to office, and even took out an insurance policy so that even if Halliburton went under, he'd still get his money -- so he could say that he had nothing directly to gain or lose by the success or even utter failure of the company. (Of course, if he asked his old friends and connections throughout the industry to craft, say, the policies that would be regulating them, then one might think that Halliburton gained plenty from Cheney in return for their political support and backing of his campaign.)

The interesting part is the rest of what Cheney gets, something in the ballpark of $8 million in stock options. Of course, if the company does well, the stocks are worth even more. The web site absolves him of responsibility because it points out that he signed a legal agreement to disburse any after-tax profits made from the sale of the stocks to charity.

It's great that he's giving his money to charity. However, who says that having a financial interest in something required that a person had to gain from it and not spend the money right away? Is there a set time period that the person must hold onto the cash before it can be considered "gained?" Is it only unethical if the money is spent on material goods or services? (A free-marketer like Cheney would never try to argue that point.) Is he insulated from attacks because he has a broker make the decision on when exactly to sell the stocks? Cheney chose where the $8 million goes. Whether it were to wind up in his pocket to be spent later, recycled into the market, or donated to charity, and whether he's made up his mind what to do with it before he gets the money or afterwards, it's still unethical. Just because the money will be spent as soon as it's made doesn't mean he can get no benefit from Halliburton doing well and those stocks going up.

Let's take a deeper look at his charities. One of the charities is a cardiac institute named after -- you guessed it -- Richard B. Cheney. Another is Capital Partners for Education , described on factcheck.org and the charity's web site as giving financial aid for students to attend private and religious schools. (A quick glance at the list of schools shows that half are religious.) I'm not bringing this up to doubt the helpfulness of these charities or to cast aspersions onto Cheney's motives -- I can believe that he truly feels these are important causes. But one could still say he "gains" by seeing an institution named after oneself succeed. And liberal folk like me could object to choosing to spend money sending poor D.C. kids to religious schools while the rest of the poor D.C. kids just suffer because of policy failures at the highest levels -- how about spreading the money around in a way that benefits all kids, buying books for all the school children without a rich benefactor? Certainly this is nitpicking and unfair, but my point remains: he chose where the money went, on some level he may be benefiting from the use of this money.

That's a benefit of being rich, you get to fund the things you think are worthy of being funded. Most of us don't have $8 mil to throw around, and if we did we wouldn't necessarily choose the same charities as Cheney. The choice of how to spend your money is the benefit of having more than you need, and whether it was ultimately used for good or ill purposes, it was still a conflict of interests to hold stock in Halliburton. He could've sold it all prior to become V.P., given the money to charity then, and therefore the places he liked would have had no direct gain from Halliburton's success or failure during the Bush-Cheney administration. (This wouldn't change the fact that he'd worked there a while, made friends, strengthened contacts with the industry, and no doubt saw things more readily from their point of view when he helped craft policy. But then, almost half the voting populace knew that and supported him for office regardless.) Instead, he chose to link the futures of the institutions he cared about with the success of a company he had the job overseeing.

Bitchens

So did anyone else notice that Christopher Hitchens ("Flirting With Disaster", September 27) read a bit much into this Teresa Heinz Kerry quote?

"I wouldn't be surprised if he appeared in the next month." Teresa Heinz Kerry to the Phoenix Business Journal, referring to a possible capture of Osama bin Laden before Election Day.

When I read that, my thought process is simply that the caption ought to say, "Teresa Heinz Kerry, on why she will never, ever be nominated to run for public office."

Hitchens goes on to say that he's talked to numerous other liberals who are secretly hoping that disaster strikes in order to embarrass the president. But there's a reason no politician goes on the record saying such things: it's the sort of off-handed hyperbole that plenty of partisans regularly grumble about behind the scenes. I am certain that there have been some Republicans out there making flippant comments like, "If al Qaeda hits us again, we've got four more years." It's not that the really hope for the deaths of more Americans, it's that they're really, really invested in being correct.

I don't know the context (though neither, clearly, does Hitchens), but Heinz Kerry's quote seems to me to reflect more on her low regard for the Bush administration than anything else. I'll excuse her, as she's not a politician, for being careless in her verbiage. At the same time, she didn't say that she suspected it was the case.

As I enter her words into Google, it's interesting where it primarily pops up: The Washington Times, RightNation.us, The New York Post… could it be that Hitchens is jumping on the conservative bandwagon in pushing this insipid quote into the daylight?

I happen to know that this is not an instance of loose lips. She has heard that very remark being made by senior Democrats, and—which is worse—she has not heard anyone in her circle respond to it by saying, "Don't be so bloody stupid."… Since then, I've heard it said seriously or semiseriously, by responsible and liberal people who ought to know better, all over the place.

It says so much for his reputation that a man I just saw on television the other day defending the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth allegations (a la Bob Dole) is criticizing Michael Moore-esque reactionaries and unnamed Democratic Party leaders desperate to win power for muttering indefensible allegations behind the scenes. (Aside: I agree, and have said in the past, that Kerry deserves some slack for making those aspects of his record a focus of his campaign. I disagree that his "asking for it" demands more responsibility than those who appear to be slandering him, but some responsibility does lie with Kerry for asking voters to focus on image over substance.)

Will whore for promises

Dear Mr. Lindorff,

I just read your article "Keep the Protest Signs at the Ready: A Progressive Case for Voting for (Gag) Kerry?" and wanted to thank you for writing it. It is imperative, as you say, that "[w]e progressives need to consider voting for John Kerry." As a former Democrat (and I mean I was a registered Democrat until about a week ago) and avowed progressive, I completely understand your line of reasoning. However, don't undersell the "nothing but a protest vote" argument for Nader.

Your underlying point is dead-on: who we vote for on November 2 is much less important that what we do starting November 3. I have offered to whore myself – yes, sell out my Nader vote and switch to Kerry – for promises from progressive Democrats. I have begun asking them to name organizations they intend to donate to or get involved with once the election is over. I have engaged them in debate after debate on progressive topics and, despite overwhelming agreement about what "should be done" or what we could hope for "in a perfect world," I have heard little commitment to anything beyond the election. They have no intention of reacting when a President John Kerry further entangles us in Iraq, ignores reforming the most disgusting portions of the Patriot Act, or refuses to dent the military budget. I am truly willing to hold my nose and vote for Kerry if there is some promise that progressive Democrats will join me in pressuring Kerry to do the right thing thereafter.

While of course this is subjective and based entirely on my personal experience, I get no promises of help or support. No one will make a commitment to anything, even though it would mean an extra vote for Kerry. (Furthermore, I might be persuaded to actively join the Kerry campaign if I felt there was a widespread interest in pushing Kerry leftward beyond the elections.) Of the small army of people I know who tell me things like "I believe in almost everything Nader says," "I voted for Nader in 2000," and "I wish Nader had run inside the Democratic Party," none are really willing to push for what they would consider a better world. In short, they're all talk, and as you say, talk is cheap.

This is why a "protest vote" has again become a viable option. It's not about "withdrawing our votes from the sell-out Democrats" as a pressure tactic, it's saying that Democrats have taken advantage of the fact that progressives of all parties have either stayed home or held their noses in the recent past. In my experience, Democrats – particularly older Democrats, who have passively watched their party drift rightward – tend to have a difficult time with the notion that "insert name here" Democratic candidate doesn't automatically represent the aspirations of the left. So I'm faced with the reality that while there is very little chance of me getting what I want if I vote for what I want, there's even less if I don't.

The "very small statement" I make with my vote is roughly equivalent to that of everyone else (Jim Holt in this weekend's New York Times magazine estimated the "probability that you could affect the election [on the order of] .00000001"), even taking into account electoral college considerations. Keep in mind that every vote is a statement; an election is supposed to operate like a snapshot of opinions (for those who bother to volunteer them) at a given time. Hopefully, after this election, the "progressive movement" – be it inside the Democratic or Green parties, or independent of both – will continue to grow and will be reflected in future polls as its own force. More likely, though, is that one or both of the major parties will wise up eventually and steal the key elements of the growing movement. If a variety of left parties prove capable of drawing ever-larger voter totals, the definition of "electability" will have to shift, and if that's truly what partisan Democrats care about, then they'll have their Kucinich and eat it too, someday.

In the mean time, the real differences will be made in the trenches. More of the people who are currently sitting on the sidelines need to be convinced of the importance of their opinion and the difference their activity can make – and few would contest that Nader's historically in a better position to make that argument than Kerry. The left, following the lead of the Democrats, has been in retreat mode for years. Voting for Kerry or Nader and then forgetting about politics for another four years ultimately won't make a dime's worth of difference; the real message we should all be sending is organizing for beyond the elections. Which is why, as I say, you have done a great service with your article.

Fact Check my ass...

To the editor:

I want to thank you for your analysis of the claims in a commercial about right-wing support for Ralph Nader ("Radio Ad Attacks Nader Over GOP Support," 07.14.2004 - modified: 08.10.2004). However, I would've liked to see (and as similar allegations still abound, I yet hope to see) a challenge to the underlying claim in the ad, mostly uncontested by either mainstream Democrats or Republicans, that "the right wing knows that helping Ralph Nader helps George Bush." (Emphasis added.) This so-called knowledge is little more than strategy or adage, like saying "When a president is up for reelection, it's a referendum on the incumbent." It could be argued that Mr. Nader's past and present campaigns have brought issues to the forefront that benefit the Democratic contender – it might even be said that Nader's run in 2000 influenced Democrats to run a better campaign (or candidate) this year than they would have otherwise. These intangibles are by definition unquantifiable, but the limited scope statement from the ad is, too.

BUSH FLIP FLOP!

FLIP FLOP! FLIP FLOP! HEY EVERYBODY! OMG! I KAN'T FRIGGIN BELIEVE IT! I am totally going to ejaculate. The guy who makes fun of the other guy for doing a thing did a thing! Bush Switches His View of Putin's Russia. WOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Right for the left?

The following is a response to "True conservatives would back Kerry" (Robert Scheer, Tikkun.org, 09.21.2004 ):

To the editor:

Robert Scheer makes a strong case against George W. Bush and succeeds in framing his faults in terms of conservatism, but fails to articulate why John Kerry would be any better. Scheer describes Kerry denouncing Bush, but offering no superior vision. As representative of the "anybody but Bush" mob, he is so blinded by fear that he fails to recognize why conservatives wouldn't immediately jump on their bandwagon.

Many conservatives know Ralph Nader is a much better alternative than Kerry to Bush. Nader was against ceding Congressional authority over the Iraq war, has argued against anti-capitalist corporate welfare and the misguided federalist No Child Left Behind Act, and supports American sovereignty in trade agreements. He seeks to balance the budget in part by cutting out Pentagon waste, an idea Kerry won't touch with a ten-foot "poll." There are differences, but conservatives share more ideological common ground with Nader than Kerry, and with Nader a much clearer message could be sent to ruling Republicans.

For conservatives tired of presidents subject to the political constraints of so-called popular opinion, a vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush.

A Contract with America, broken

Monday will mark the tenth anniversary of the Republican "Contract with America," which promised a laundry list of reforms within 100 days of Republicans taking control of the Congress. I'm sure people noted this 10 years ago, but looking at the 10 pieces of proposed legislation, the only one that never made it out of the House was The Citizen Legislature Act – the one that proposed term limits for both houses of congress. The ones that cut taxes, attacked social programs, sanctioned UN bullying, and protected corporations somehow made it through. The one aspect that would have required self-sacrifice, the one element that was probably most endearing to liberal and conservative voters alike, somehow didn't make it through.

I think it's expecting too much of both Republicans and Democrats to moderate themselves. They can't curb federal spending for fear of voter backlash, but they can't raise taxes for the same reason. They refuse to limit their terms out of unwillingness to cede power, but they actively redistrict to strengthen incumbents so that unhappy voters have a more difficult time overthrowing a failing leader. A responsible leader would have seized the moment after 9/11 not to settle old scores (and squander support in the process), but to level with Americans. Perhaps such a leader might have said to us that it was the time for personal sacrifice, and time to recognize the new state of the world. He or she would begin making a dent in our military budget by cutting Cold War-era programs, closing bases in allied nations, refocusing the military on peacekeeping missions under the auspices of international command. Instead of targeting rogue states with inadequate plans for the day after, he or she would have focused on the difficult work of decimating the causes of terrorism – poverty, miseducation, lack of governmental representation, etc. – and aimed to spread human rights globally.

The hypocrisy of recent leadership is evident. When a Democrat or Republican talks about American sovereignty, what he or she means is that American troops – already facing the brunt of attacks abroad for our misguided foreign policy – should always retain the right to flaunt international opinion for what we deem is right. (Of course, it should be evident now that Americans are more easily misled by our leadership than the U.N.) We should never submit American soldiers to what could be politically-motivated prosecution for war crimes. Why? Because there is something unique in America, the people, the wise, just, infallible, pandered-to people.

At the same time as we sacrifice all mechanisms for recognizing political dissent even from allies in the name of American sovereignty, that word doesn't come up much when Republicans or Democrats discuss trade treaties like NAFTA or joining the WTO. The understanding we must take away from these politicians is that America has not only the right to govern itself but anyone else it deems necessary; at the same time, perverted corporatized capitalism trumps Americanism. People aren't blowing up McDonald's in Indonesia and elsewhere because they hate greasy burgers or American-style democracy; it's the same underlying reason people in Chicago protest when a Wal-Mart moves into their community.

The leaders who support these policies are the ones who have left us vulnerable to attack and helped incite violence worldwide against the West. It's time for a new contract with America, and I doubt it will come from politicians in the two biggest parties.

Kerry to voters: stay home

To the editor:

It amazes me how often statements like “Democrats [are] worried that Nader’s spot on the ballot could siphon votes away from Kerry” (as in “Purple People Watch,” The American Prospect Staff, 09.17.04) find their way into print unchallenged. The assertion that if Nader were to vanish from the polls, Kerry would gain his votes are based solely on Democratic gripes stemming from the 2000 election fallout. Unfortunately, poll after poll shows that the majority of Nader voters prefer sitting out to voting for the “lesser of two evils.”

Most reporting represents only the Democratic position, not the Naderite response – but many of us are used to this after four years. A fresh frustration are the discussions of “Democrats… challeng[ing] Nader’s candidacy” without mention of the unseemly tactics some Democrats have resorted to including but not limited to intimidation of volunteers, frivolous litigation (designed to overwhelm the comparatively small budget of Nader’s campaign), and spreading false allegations. The Democrats have made it clear this election will not be about ideas or leadership, the things people decide on when voting. It will be about spin and strategy, the things that keep people home on Election Day.

Letter to Editor: Albuquerque Journal

At what point does opinion become fact? Dan McKay was right in his article "State Judge Rules Nader Ineligible For N.M. Ballot" when he wrote, "Some Democrats fear Nader's candidacy could help President George W. Bush." While I'm sure those particular Democrats appreciate their position being cited in defense of their lawsuit, it would have been nice to read some representation of the Ralph Nader campaign's contrary assertions.

This lawsuit is not an isolated incident; well-funded Democrats are challenging Nader (and his budget, severely limited by his refusal to accept corporate and PAC money) in many states in attempt to shore up support -- with the intended effect of denying millions of voters the right to choose. Sadly, all-too-common reports like McKay's stop short of investigating the real issues at stake.

Kerry's nightmare

I wonder: will it wake John Kerry, one night in the near future, when his handlers are gone and his advisors have disappeared, how close he came to the presidency? It's not very likely that he'll ever see the error of his ways, but imagine with me a scenario whereby Kerry comes to the realization that he's jeopardized not just his entire campaign but the near future of the nation on a strategy, when he could've been presenting an alternate vision for the future and coasting into the Oval Office.

This is no justification of the political opponents telling what are most likely despicable lies, but ultimately, even Kerry must realize at some point that by insisting on focusing his candidacy on character traits rather than ideas, style over substance, a war of the past rather than the peace of the future, and probably some other contrasting metaphors too, he set himself up for the fall. Certainly Kerry was not a perfectly virtuous, politically prescient idol before, but nonetheless at some point he made a conscious decision to run what he must be convinced is the only way to run a modern campaign: on the cusp of a bubble. When your campaign hinges on a façade, it's easy for some mudslingers with funding to bring you down.

A moment of context

Wayne Barrett, in "The Ad That Beats Bush" (Village Voice, Sep 14), pointed out that a Kerry attack ad on Bush for failing to capture bin Laden would refocus the campaign on Bush's failures in office:

With all its metered focus groups, the Kerry campaign remains blind to the core weakness of the Bush campaign... the abject failure of the Bush team to make America safer—either by corralling the killers or raising the defenses... No one better embodies the dismal three-year Bush record on terror than bin Laden and Zawahiri, who resurfaced in a new tape just last week looking healthy and threatening.

It makes all the sense in the world that the Bush convention—with a hundred references in major speeches to terror and 69 to Iraq or Hussein—mentioned Osama just once, and then only to blame him on Bill Clinton. What makes no sense is that bin Laden was never mentioned in Kerry's Boston show.

This meshes with some points raised by Tom Regan in "Annan: Invasion of Iraq 'illegal'", Christian Science Monitor. He quotes from Don Rumsfeld:

The Taliban regime is gone. Those still not killed or captured are on the run. ... Saddam Hussein's regime is finished. His sons are dead. He's in a prison cell, where he awaits the justice of the Iraqi people, which he will soon face. Libya has said now that it is renouncing its illicit weapons programs, and it says it will cooperate with the efforts to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction and that it's seeking to reenter the community of civilized nations.

So the Republican party line is, apparently, "We are excellent at removing threats from countries with easy targets and weak militaries, but will not talk about our failures with stateless enemies." This is consistent with Bush's "with us or against us"/"states that harbor terrorists are as bad terrorists" rhetoric. Isn't this logic leading us to a dead end? Aside from the question of helping to rebuild what we decimate (and taking that into consideration before destroying shit), Democrats have a legitimate point in saying, nuance free, "Even if Bush's intentions behind prosecuting the war were correct, his failure should be obvious." I'd personally like to see the corollary that his intentions were also misguided, but I don't expect to see that from a prominent Democrat anytime soon.

So why isn't Kerry putting such an obvious flaw of Bush's at the top of his list of failures? I can think of a few reasons:

1. It's all strategy. Kerry doesn't want to blow his load too early – if things remain close and he waits until the run-up to the election, when even more people will be paying attention, he'll get more traction out of it. Seeing as Kerry recently made some serious changes in his campaign staff out of displeasure with the state of his campaign, however, I find this unlikely.

2. Kerry figures there's still a chance Bush will nab bin Laden and Zawahiri before the election; if he calls Bush on this now and gets refuted, he's toast. (Of course, if Bush nabs those two, Kerry's probably toast anyway.)

3. Kerry would have proceeded in a similar manner to Bush, and has too much character to attack Bush on an issue he honestly agreed with. I find this difficult to swallow on any level.

4. Kerry's campaign hasn't thought of it yet.

5. Kerry won't seriously consider using it until it gains some traction elsewhere.

My guess, if it could only be one of these, would be #5. Judging by his lifting of successful rhetoric from his opponents (Dean, Gephardt, Edwards) during the primaries, and his wait and see attitude about which spitballs stick when slung from his coalition of the scummy 527's, it's most likely that Kerry's people are unwilling to touch something – even something that they agree with – until someone else says it, takes the heat for it, but gets a good response.

Ah Democrats, isn't it great to have someone at the helm who will stand up for what's right regardless of the political cost? No? It's better to implicitly encourage other people to play dirty, fabricate character assassinations, and explode loopholes in campaign finance laws? Oh. Well, doesn't that make you as bad as the other guy?

Hooray for Democrats

Ralph Nader notes: "Hand it to the Democrats to keep some costs down, though. A contractor they hired in Michigan to make phone calls to check the validity of our tens of thousands of signatures outsourced the work to India. "

Rumsfeld: U.S. aids terrorists

Rowan Scarborough, from The Washington Times, reports in "Rumsfeld: Iran aids rebels":

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld charged yesterday that Iran is fueling the deadly insurgency in Iraq with money and fighters.... Iran] has shown behavior that Mr. Rumsfeld said is "not part of the civilized world."...

Mr. Rumsfeld repeatedly has accused Iran of "meddling" in Iraqi affairs... Mr. Rumsfeld said, "They have put people in there. They have put money in there.

"By 'they,' I'm not going to say which element of the government or whether it's even known to the government. But money has come in from Iran. People have come in from Iran."

So, let me get this straight: If some unspecified person inside or from a country does something to aid an enemy of ours, then the country ought to be internationally condemned. OK, got it.

Therefore, according to the Washington Times's interpretation of the Rumsfeld/neocon doctrine, Spc. Ryan Anderson proves that America is America's enemy and should be condemned internationally. Same with Britain in the case of Richard Reid, the "Shoe Bomber"; Saudi Arabia and others for the WTC attack, etc.

Forgive me for taking this out of context, but that's my point -- that's exactly what the WT is doing. No one ever claimed they were nonpartisan, but couldn't they at least try to appear evenhanded? If the paper more or less got his point correct, though, it's a scary look into the mind of Don Rumsfeld. This is the same sort of evidence we were presented with about the Iraq invasion -- Saddam's "aiding" terrorists, we were told. It's probably true that Hussein's regime was sending checks out to families of Palestinian suicide bombers, and that some well-known terrorists had managed to sneak into Iraq and live under the radar (how hard could that have been in a state whose military was crippled by U.N. sanctions?). But the administration blurred this connection and abuses it to this day. This is no war on terror: even by the administration's definitions, Hamas and Chechen rebels are terrorists who attack regularly in other parts of the world, but we're not "taking the fight to them" in order to keep America safe.

And that's assuming we accept the administration's definition of terrorism. What if I say bulldozing houses, as the Israeli military has done, constitutes terrorism? What if I say torturing prisoners or detaining them without trial, outside of the Geneva conventions, is terrorism? What if I say that financially supporting Egypt while the government locks up pro-democratic writers is state-sponsored terrorism? No, the Bush administration (and most pro-Kerry Democrats) are fond of mischaracterizing terrorism to their advantage. Terrorism is probably the ugliest way of fighting war, but let's face it: terrorism is probably just the last in a progression of "dirty" fighting tactics that runs through guerilla warfare, atomic weapons, the machine gun, American revolutionaries hiding behind trees....

Bush was right:

Lauer: Do you really think we can win this war on terror in the next four years?

President Bush: I have never said we can win it in four years.

Lauer: So I’m just saying can we win it? Do you see that?

President Bush: I don’t think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world — let's put it that way.

Well, folks, throw out your "Bush is a moron" mantras. He just hit the nail on the head. The problem is that what he's said is the right thing to do isn't Bush's plan, or at least, he's going about international policy in a way that's not making terrorism less acceptable. His slip may have been off-message, but the left has to believe now that Bush is a reasonable person making terrible choices. That might make it a bit harder for demonizing Democrats to paint Bush as evil incarnate (although it does actually fit with John Kerry's "W is for wrong" spiel -- and not to get off-topic, but when this whole election's over, wouldn't you like to see John Kerry put together a children's first A-B-C's book?), but it must push everyone to gauge a potential elected leader on his background and his beliefs rather than his "message."

If I had any faith that Bush could pursue good solutions to the problem as he points it out, he might actually get my vote. But at least I can rest a little easier knowing that he does have a pseudo-reasonable worldview. Up until now, I was just afraid he really thought there was a way to win, a finite number of terrorists to destroy, then plant an American flag and go home.

The next step is for Bush to break free from his handlers and wormtongues altogether and think to himself, "Perhaps military installation of democracy is a flawed plan... let's take the American face off of the Iraqi occupation, redeem ourselves by acting as a fair broker in Israel and Palestine, cut failed missile systems and other pork from the defense budget, use a chunk of the money to spread democratic ideas in the west, and try to reduce poverty and miseducation worldwide. And if it's appropriate, once the federal debt's been paid down, send a little tax cut home."

Slate -- fair and balanced?

I'm a pretty frequent reader of Slate. Now, I've never felt they were middle-of-the-road (most of what's published is relatively liberal in nature), but I did think they were relatively even-handed.

Throw that one out the window.

I'm surprised how critical they're being of the Republican convention -- almost as critical as me. By comparison, they almost softballed the Democrats.

Here are some noted from Bill Saletan's blog at the end of July:

In 2000, when Al Gore was debating Bill Bradley, my wife told me that the less she had to look at Gore, the easier it would be to vote for him... I wondered how he ever got the nomination. Tonight he reminds me. He reminds us all. He electrifies the convention with the most powerful speech of the evening... Gore carries a hammer...

The crowd erupts as [Jimmy] Carter accuses Bush of "a virtually unbroken series of mistakes and miscalculations" since Sept. 11. Capitalizing on his saintly reputation, Carter scolds Bush for selling America's soul, betraying "freedom and justice" in the choice and conduct of a preemptive war.... What a sweet old man, if you're not a Republican.

I thought Gore's speech was terrific and well-received. But his reception was nothing like Hillary [Clinton]'s.... The place goes nuts as Bill [Clinton] strides forward. You have to see him standing where lesser mortals have stood—in this case at the podium 100 feet from me—to appreciate what an imposing figure he cuts. The frost that has covered his hair since he left office accentuates the effect. In the arena, far more so than on the TV screen, he looks so majestic you almost can't believe the trashy, pointless, inconsequential way in which he disgraced his office.... All speeches at this convention are supposed to be positive, or at least to look positive. Clinton illustrates the difference. He promises "a positive campaign," unlike the nasty, negative campaign Republicans are running.... The other thing Clinton represents is the intelligence Bush lacks.

... Next comes Jim Rassman, the green beret Kerry saved in Vietnam, followed by former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland, a triple amputee. They describe how Kerry risked his life for his country and his comrades. "Ladies and gentlemen, there is no greater act of patriotism than that," says Cleland, driving the point home with his one remaining arm.... Even at a political convention, some things are so true and profound that nothing more can be said about them.

And there's more (like effusing praise for Dennis Kucinich, much to my pleasant surprise). To be fair, Saletan does rightfully point out some of the more vapid points, such as the dwelling on the "house divided" rhetoric and the meaningless of it all.

Compare that with his blog from this week:

[Arnold] Schwarzenegger begins by recalling his childhood in Austria, then under partial Soviet occupation.... He describes the joy and pride of finding freedom in America. Like so many passages in this beautiful speech, the story brims with Reaganesque reverence.... I'm a sucker for this stuff.... I agree with every one of these things. I can see myself as a Schwarzenegger Republican. But I can't vote for Bush.... Schwarzenegger resorts to the very unconservative tactic of inventing excuses.... Same goes for Bush's Iraq policy.... It's a complete failure. Unable to defend the policy, Schwarzenegger defends Bush as "a man of inner strength. He is a leader who doesn't flinch, who doesn't waver, who does not back down."... The only way to stop such a president is to vote him out of office. Fortunately, an election is coming.

We have a new contender for Most Revolting Politician in America. Kerry Healey, the lieutenant governor of Massachusetts...

And on it goes. Saletan also wrote two really tought pieces on how the Republican slander machine has made "Opposing Bush becomes unpatriotic" and the false heroism Republicans ascribe to him for his post-9/11 actions. (Call me crazy, but that's the sort of completely defendable statement that could've gotten a TV show cancelled two years ago.)

Look at "Lies, Damned Lies, and Convention Speeches: Setting Kerry's record right—again." by Fred Kaplan. I think the title kind of says it all. Kaplan was silent during the Democratic convention.

Compare Mr. Almost-Was in "The Deaniacs Live!" by Chris Suellentrop with Mr. Two Heartbeats From The Presidency in "Dennis Hastert on Dope" by Jack Shafer.

Or Surfergirl's analysis of some Chris Matthews moments: she points out him sticking it to Rick Santorum the other night, asking "Is this a cross-dressing convention?" And while she did discuss some of his more probing and off-the-wall subject matter last month, she brings this up:

During last night's pregame show, Matthews conducted a surprisingly in-depth 10-minute interview with Ben Affleck, whose frat-boy screen demeanor belies a sharp eye for current affairs. Matthews himself seemed stunned, even subdued, by the chops of his celebrity interlocutor, closing with the awestruck benediction: "You have a stunningly developed political mind, and I fear you."

Perhaps this last passage says more about Matthews, but there's definitely an overall theme. So is the coverage biased, or are Republicans that much worse? Of course, Nader supporters like myself might guess it's a little of both and mention that the competition shouldn't be for which candidate is least worst. But then, we're just sooo naive, aren't we?

Rock show

I missed out on Q and Not U the last time they were in the area a few months ago, for a few reasons. I'd seen a Cake show the night before, the Q show was on a weeknight, no one would go with me, and I was broke. But I regretted missing it ever since. (I have a weird history with this band: a friend introduced me to their music a few years ago and I wasn't entirely impressed. I went with him to one of their shows back when they were still a four-piece -- summer 2001-ish -- and while I liked the energy, I didn't know any of the songs and I really didn't give on the crowd. A year later, I downloaded a few songs and liked them enough to get the albums, and have been hooked ever since.) So I was determined that the next time they came through, I would be there.

Sure enough, about a week ago, I found out they would be playing as part of the RNC protest. Naturally, all of the former conditions popped back up: I'm still broke, nobody else wanted to go, I was out late Tuesday, and would figured I'd be dragging today at work. But I bought a ticket anyway and I'm glad I did.

To call this show an anti-Republican convention event was sort of lame. The first three bands said next nothing, including their own names. Finally, halfway through their set, one of Q's vocalists (Christopher Richards) said, "We all know why we're here." I really thought he was going to leave it at that -- God damn obscure-ass indie rock folk, I thought. But then he said something about us being invaded by Bush, while they (being from D.C.) have to deal with him all the time -- or half the time, considering Bush's vacation schedule. I don't know, perhaps it was unrealistic to expect the level discourse I'd gotten the previous night, but as I mentioned in a recent conversation with a friend of mine regarding Fahrenheit 911, I'd much rather have people well-educated on the issues agree with my perspective than people who sloganeer for "my side." But again, it's a rock show, raise the bar at your own risk. I guess they raised money for something.

The music itself was a mixed bag. The acts got increasingly interesting as the evening went on, and for that reason I won't much discuss the first two bands. Suffice to say, I was more impressed by the Devo DVD they played when the show was supposed to be starting around 8. The third act was called Shy Child, which I just now figured out by doing some research, because they never bothered introducing themselves. I must say, for a two piece outfit they produced a lot of sound. Nate Smith, the drummer, was pretty tight. Didn't need to see him topless though. But the real show was Pete Cafarella, who played a Roland keytar. Now I ought to say that A) keytars are inherently dorky and remind me of 80's bands like Supertramp -- who may or may not have actually used keytars; B) I have always felt that one cannot rock without at least one guitar; and C) bands who play songs that sound very similar to one another turn me off in a big way. Regardless, Shy Child rocked ass. I had a rare to desire to shake my ass during their set, which you'll be glad to know I resisted, partially out of goonish self-consciousness and partially because by this point everyone had pushed near my spot and were all up in my grill. To be fair, only the first three songs really sounded alike, but as I said, they were all good. I may have to grab one of their albums off of Amazon, when I have cash again.

Q and Not U still topped them, though. It's always nice to see a band that enjoys what they're doing. Again, some of my long-held rules were shattered: for example, A) when men start balding they look stupid jumping around on stage; B) there's no point in listening if you can't make out the lyrics; etc. It's hard to pick favorites, but I think I've enjoyed the two songs off of their single even more than their earlier stuff. So I was worried they'd blown their load when they played them both within the first four songs. But then they went on to rip through some of my other favorites from their previous albums, and mixed in some new material from their upcoming record, and all was well. I liked the way they kept the groove going between songs, despite technical glitches (keyboard stand problems) and multiple instrument switches. If I'm ever in a band again, I want to be able to keep the set moving like that -- no dead time for people to lose their energy.

And this was an energetic crowd -- a pseudo-mosh pit broke out near me, much to my annoyance, about two songs in. I resisted the urge to break some scrawny emo asses over my knee because I was rather concerned about my glasses getting crushed. And damn, it really was the skinniest audience I'd ever seen, like a Vegans Against Vegetables convention.

So yes, I ambled in the door after two and then dragged myself up this morning to get on the bus. And Bush hasn't been dethrones yet. But at least I had a good time.

Anti-War Counter-Convention

Last night I attended that Campus Anti-War Counter-Convention at Columbia University. I've never seen Ralph Nader speak in person and I seldom have the opportunity to meet new progressives in a venue conducive to political conversation, so I knew I couldn't miss it.

Before I forget, I owe some guy a dollar for the copy of Socialist Worker I took off his hands -- guy, if you're out there, drop me a line and I'll send you a check. I was chit-chatting with this very pro-Nader socialist (which I thought was strange, since I'm pretty sure the Socialist Workers are running their own candidate who's actually, you know, a socialist) while waiting on line, and he told me there was a good article on the Nader/Cobb Green split (was the guy unaware of the irony? I don't know) and they were asking for $1 donations since the paper doesn't have any ads. All I had was a five and the guy didn't have any change. Damn, socialists are bad with money.

Anyway, moving onto the convention itself: the panel of speakers, not all of whom were even anti-war, talked about various angles on our so-called war on terror, specifically Iraq. At the end they took a few questions, but as the speakers all ran long (I was almost glad John Conyers didn't show up!), this section was relatively short. Though Nader had mostly avoided talking about his campaign during his speech, he did have the opportunity to field a few questions on that topic and make some good points to some frightened Kerry backers regarding Democrats' and Republicans' "dirty tricks." In response to someone who asked him how he felt about Republicans trying to get him on the ballot: "They're doing a terrible job." He also said that his campaign has rejected signatures brought to him by Republicans.

None of this takes away from what is, to me, a bigger point, which Nader has all but dropped from his public speeches: he's got a legitimate pull on certain conservatives, and last night was an apt demonstration of just that. Dr. Robert Dickson Crane, a life-long Republican and "paleoconservative" who has worked in both the Nixon and Reagan administrations, gave an important speech (though a little too long and a little too dry) that fell in lock-step with several Nader's points. He and Nader agreed, for one, about the Stalinist structure Paul Bremmer left for the burgeoning Iraqi government -- and the man knows Stalinist structure, having twice escaped from Soviet gulags. (Aside: after escaping the first time, why didn't he escape the country? File that under hindsight...) Crane drew fearful similarities between the Hussein regime and the occupation, although I think he unfairly neglected to mention the degrees of difference. He and Nader also agreed, as I recall, that John Kerry's policies on Iraq are not distinguished much from George W. Bush's.

But the single issue that it seemed all 7 of the speakers agreed upon was that America has, since 9/11 and prior, failed to critically examine the causes of terrorism and what our policies have done to encourage it. I was glad that Crane and Nader addressed the definition of "terrorism"; as Crane pointed out, the word is a virtually meaningless political football. Nader pulled out what might be described as his boilerplate material regarding Israel and Palestine, with one small change: he didn't refer to Ariel Sharon as a puppeteer; I forget his exact phrasing but it seemed clear to me that he was determined not to drop the larger point regarding America's explicit support for the worst elements of Israeli government, but not the best. Meanwhile, he seemed to be conceding that the "puppet" talk was feeding into the age-old stereotype of Jews running everything behind the scenes. I'm glad that Nader decided to drop the divisive language since, as he points out, the second-most supportive people in America behind a Palestinian state beside Arabs, are Jews. Take that, ADL!

Anisa Abd el fattah, an earlier speaker, continuously pushed for an examination of American actions and inactions prior to the Bush administration. Her presentation was a bit aimless, but her themes were consistent: She pointed to atrocities committed in Muslim countries without reproach, she pointed out the damage done by U.N. sanctions in Iraq during the 90's (she kept coming back to the curable diseases, like pneumonias and colds, that killed thousands of children), and she said that she believed the Iraq war was necessary to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime.

In her descriptions of the suffering of Muslim women and children, she provided a stark contrast to speakers like Adele Welty, mother of a firefighter who was among the first to die during the collapse of the Twin Towers. Welty's speech was probably the most moving, as she seemed to be constructively channeling her grief into something so positive: the hope for a world where no one will need to suffer like she has. In comparing these two outlooks, Welty's view held more appeal to me personally, but I think Abd el fattah's emphasis on examining the roots of Muslim-American anger was one of the more thought-provoking ideas of the evening.

All told, this was a great experience, despite the Kerryite stragglers whose occasional outburst of sloganeering can be excused when one realized they had nothing else to fall back on.