September 2002 - weblog posts

9/9/2002; 9:55:54 PM: Quick week in review
Last week, I got linked to first by atrios at Eschaton, then I got linked by Scott Rosenberg.  I got 12 comments last week, and I don't have time right now to try to reply to them.

In terms of readership, I got 973 hits last week and overall, I am 20th on the Salon blog list with 2,620 page reads.

9/9/2002; 7:46:39 PM: The Houston Chronicle Sucks!
I was down in Houston this weekend and I must say that the A section (the front page and the rest of the first section of pages) is the worst I have ever seen in a newspaper. About 80% of it is ads. There is far too many small articles or briefs and not enough real articles. It only takes 10 minutes to read the whole thing cover-to-cover. This front page story on the task force members probing Enron is a total fluff piece with lots of details about the background of the three lead task force members (which I don't really care about) and very little about the progress the task force has made on Enron (which I care about).

9/9/2002; 5:56:22 PM:

What's wrong with this picture?
From msnbc.com:
PRESIDENT MISSTATES ‘FACTS’
In his meeting with Blair, Bush cited a satellite photograph and a report by the U.N. atomic energy agency as evidence of Iraq’s impending rearmament. However, in response to a report by NBC News, a senior administration official acknowledged Saturday night that the U.N. report drew no such conclusion, and a spokesman for the U.N. agency said the photograph had been misinterpreted.

One president lies about having sex and he is ripped in editorials and impeached.

Another president lies in an attempt to start a war and it is buried in the middle of the news story.

9/6/2002; 7:05:55 AM:

A Good Robert Novak Piece!
This piece talks about how the stupid policies of Dubya's administration has forced up oil prices, which, in turn, has badly hurt the economy.

He does drop the ball in the last paragraph, "Instead, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer called for passage of the Bush-backed energy bill to expand domestic oil drilling -- including the proposal for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). That is not going happen in the Democratic-controlled Senate, leaving Republicans to hope that the worried airline company executive is not much of a political prophet."  If drilling in the ANWR was passed tomorrow, it would be years before it would produce any oil.

This will be my last post until at least Monday night.

9/6/2002; 7:05:05 AM: Clinton's approval rating versus Dubya's
While I was looking for some polls of Clinton's approval rating split by party, I found a link to a Gallup story (which you have to pay to see) that stated that in April, 2002 Clinton's retrospective job approval rate was at 51%. I wonder if currently Clinton's retrospective job approval rate is near or better than Dubya's.

9/5/2002; 9:50:47 PM:

Gore did run a bad campaign...in February, 1999
I was looking on the web for some polls of Clinton's approval rating split by party, when I came across some polls on Bush vs Gore in 1999. Here are the numbers:

If Vice President Al Gore were the Democratic Party's candidate and Texas Governor George W. Bush were the Republican Party's candidate, who would you be more likely to vote for?
Date	Al Gore	George W. Bush	No opinion
Now	41%	56%	3%
April 30-May 2	40%	56%	4%
April 13-14	38%	59%	3%
March 12-14	41%	56%	3%
March 5-7	41%	56%	3%
Feb. 19-21	43%	54%	3%
Jan. 8-10	47%	48%	5%

9/5/2002; 6:55:17 AM: Curious story in the Dallas Morning News
A group that Texas Republican leaders created to register new voters is instead running attack ad against the Texas Democrat candidate for Senator, Ron Kirk, says the DMN.  Texas Victory 2002 has run 2 radio attack ads and 2 TV attack ads.  Why use a group created for a noble purpose for a base one?  Does the Texas Republican party need to raid its funds?  Or do the Republicans don't want negative ads associated with the Republican Senate candidate so they are using a fake front group?

9/4/2002; 9:48:20 PM: I am trying to snaz up my blog
I have added on the right an archive link for August. I also am trying to add a "Best Post" section, but it didn't work the first time I tried it.

9/4/2002; 9:34:48 PM: MWO has a piece about Bill Clinton, which reminded of this piece I wrote back in January, 2001:
Last week, there were lots of Bill Clinton retrospectives and there were lots of stories on Clinton's plea bargain. Every mainstream retrospective I read expressed disappointment with Clinton in that he was unable to do as much as he should have because of his scandals. In the plea bargain stories, they announced that Clinton agreed to a fine, to admitting to giving false statements and to losing his law license for 5 years, and in return the independent counsel investigation of him would come to an end.

What I thought odd was that nobody made the obvious connection between the two. Clinton was indeed constantly hobbled by scandals - Whitewater, the Madison S&L, Hillary's cattle futures, Filegate, murder allegations concerning Vince Foster, Travelgate, the Buddhist temple fundraiser, Chinagate, etc., etc. There of course was the impeachment based upon charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. But what became of all the non-Monica scandals? All of those scandals that so hobbled Clinton for the first five years of his presidency? They all came to nothing because there was nothing to them to begin with. As for the Monica scandal, what Clinton agreed to is comparable to Bush admitting that he had left his DWI conviction off a mortgage application. It is no where near level of "high crime" that would justify impeachment.

The retrospectives I read implied that the scandals were all Clinton's fault, but if there was nothing to the scandals, how can they be Clinton's fault? During the Clinton years, we saw an unprecedented opposition by accusation and investigation. The Republicans knew that Clinton's programs were popular, so rather than oppose the programs, they smeared Clinton. And it worked wonderfully for them - they energized their base, seized control of the House and Senate for the first time in 40 years, and put a weak candidate into the White House. Despite talking so much about honor, character and integrity, they climbed into power primarily on lies and misstatements.

So why didn't the retrospectives mention that there was no verified substance to virtually all of those scandals? Because that would mean discussing how the media was a willing accomplice to the Republican smears. The media breathless put new accusations on page 1, but buried their disproving. "The Hunting of the President" does a great job of documenting how the media stretched the truth almost as much as the Republicans. Now, I think the media wants to blame Clinton for their embarrassing performance and move on.

To cover up their misdeeds, the media has adopted a curious attitude - Clinton is indeed slightly guilty of one of the accusations, so all the rest are justified. The Daily Howler picked up this attitude towards Clinton's Gennifer Flowers testimony. Despite the glaring holes in Flowers' story and despite that Clinton's testimony didn't support any of the accusations Flowers had made, we had commentators saying on TV, "The president said Gennifer Flowers was not telling the truth; we now know she was." By taking that attitude, the media is covering up how little truth there was in the Republicans' accusations.

I sadly agree with all the right wing pundits who say an unprecedented amount of immoral actions occurred in Washington over that last 8 years. Too bad no one in the mainstream media has the courage to say that the immoral actions were not done by Clinton, but to Clinton.

9/4/2002; 7:07:37 AM:

Ann Coulter - White is Black, Up is Down
I know that finding errors in Ann Coulter's stuff is like shooting fish in a barrel.  Still, it is amazing that someone who writes such obvious errors can get published.  From her latest piece of nonsense on how "liberals never reciprocate the love conservatives keep sending their way":
After the dignified staff of the dignified former president trashed the White House on their dignified exit, Bush downplayed the property damage, saying: "There might have been a prank or two. Maybe somebody put a cartoon on the wall, but that's OK." Anyone who knew anyone moving into the Bush White House knew that it was more than a "prank or two." But instead of stopping while they were ahead, pocketing Bush's gracefulness and moving on, the Democrats aggressively attacked Republicans for having falsely accused the Clinton staff of trashing the White House. They cited Bush's magnanimity as evidence that this was a lie. Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., demanded an apology from the White House. USA Today ran a snippy article titled "Ex-Clinton staffers on vandalism: Got proof?" Former Clinton press secretary Jake Siewert insinuatingly asked why there were no records of the alleged damage. And then the full GAO report came back: The Party of the People had done $15,000 worth of property damage to the People's House. Extend an olive branch to Democrats and they bite your hand off.

Of course, it was Clinton who was gracious and professional, having his administration do a thorough briefing of the incoming team despite the fact that George H. W. Bush had done virtually no turnover and despite Dubya's constant disparaging of Clinton while he was campaigning.  Dubya then immediately stabbed Clinton in the back with a smear campaign of off-the-record rumors about how the Clinton team trashed the White House and Air Force One on their last day.  As Salon reports, Ari Fleischer never did anything to stop the rumors and, instead, helped fuel the speculation.  When former Clinton staffers demanded proof of the White House trashing, the White House played coy, neither confirming or denying the rumors and instead saying "We have moved on".  In April, a formal review by the General Accounting Office, Congress' investigative agency, "had found no damage to the offices of the White House's East or West Wings or EOB" and "the condition of the real property was consistent with what we would expect to encounter when tenants vacate office space after an extended occupancy."  How can she get stuff printed that is so obviously wrong?  I forgot - she is just making a joke.

(Note: no animals were harmed in the writing of this piece)

9/3/2002; 10:35:56 PM: Yesterday's Crossfire had some great lines
"The only president we have celebrated Labor Day today by pretending to care about working people for a day. President Bush visited a Pennsylvania picnic hosted by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners. He neglected to tell the carpenters why he opposes increasing the minimum wage, why he repealed workplace safety rules put in place by President Clinton, rules by the way that prevent on the job injuries, and why he's threatening to veto the Homeland Security bill unless Congress adds anti-union amendments. Why does Bush take such anti-labor positions? Because his corporate fat cat owners tell him to. You see, today may be Labor Day for you and me but for George W. Bush, every day is corporate contributor day."

And...

"Meanwhile, President Bush's job approval rating in the latest CNN/TIME poll is at its lowest levels since before the September 11 attacks and Vice President Cheney's favorability rating is below 50 percent. Asked to comment, Bush said, quote, 'Polls don't decide elections. My daddy's pals on the Supreme Court do.'"

And...

BEGALA: We just -- We just did it with Bush, and let's look at the results: $4.4 trillion in investments gone. One point eight million people who had jobs when Clinton was president, their jobs are gone. Unemployment at 3.9 under Clinton, 5.9 under Bush.

MOORE: You know what? They say that...

BEGALA: At what point do you say, "We have failed"?

And...

BEGALA: Ken Lay, and his company, Enron, gave more money to George W. Bush alone than every Democrat for every federal office in America combined. That's how much he gave Bush.

9/3/2002; 8:02:11 PM: Even the RNC doesn't think Bush has accomplished much
Buried in this WP article is Chairman Marc Racicot saying that that the income tax cuts, a sweeping education overhaul and corporate-reform measures were among Bush's greatest accomplishments.  I heard today on NPR that parents aren't able to leave failing schools because there isn't any room in the successful schools.  Bush opposed the the corporate-reform measure until the day it passed the House nearly unanimously.  And that's the highlights?!?

9/3/2002; 7:11:07 AM: Are Republicans and Democrats living in different universes?
I was cruising the web looking for analysis on the 2002 congressional races and I found an excellent site, mydd.com.  While I was there, I followed a link to the American Research Group.  They have done some polls and the difference between Republicans and Democrats is just unbelievable.  They have 96% of Republicans approve of Dubya where as only 47% of Democrats approve, which is similar to a Gallup poll I discussed earlier.  A 50% difference is huge, but I can almost understand why Republicans would be so supportive of the president.  But the more detailed the question, the worse the difference between Republicans and Democrats gets.  90% of Republicans approve of the way Bush is handling the economy while 70% of Democrats disapprove.  When asked if angry, worried, confused, hopeful, or happy best describes how they feel about George W. Bush as president, 81% of Republicans say hopeful or happy, while 92% of Democrats say angry or worried.  When asked what word best describes how they feel about the national economy, 79% of Republicans say hopeful or happy, while 83% of Democrats say worried or confused.  When asked what word best describes how they feel about the financial situations in their households, 92% of Republicans say hopeful or happy, while 54% of Democrats say worried or confused.  85% of Republicans say the national economy is not in a recession, while 79% of Democrats say the national economy is in a recession.  93% of Republicans rate the national economy as very good or good, while 92% of Democrats rate the national economy as bad, very bad, or terrible.

I look at the these numbers and I just don't understand.  How can Republicans be so positive about the economy and how Dubya is managing it while the Democrats are so negative?  Weren't Republcans hurt by the stock market meltdown?  Have only Democrats lost their jobs?  When people lose their jobs, do they switch political parties?  What's going on?

9/2/2002; 9:39:00 PM:

Stupid NYT article on "Why the President Can't Lose in November"
Richard Burke wrote this stupidity.  "...many prominent Republicans, including some of President Bush's most faithful backers, are convinced that the most certain way for Mr. Bush to continue to rise politically, and ultimately win re-election in 2004, is for Republicans to, well, lose in November."  "Still, just consider the most convincing example (one Mr. Reed remembers well) of how divided government could play to Mr. Bush's advantage: the story of Bill Clinton. His presidency seemed destined to fail after the Republicans' rout in the 1994 elections. Suddenly Democrats no longer ran Congress — and Mr. Clinton had to contend with resistance to his agenda. But with advice from his chief political adviser, Dick Morris, who was cozy with many prominent Republicans, the Clinton White House devised a successful strategy of so-called 'triangulation,' where the president steered carefully between the extremes of the House Republicans and the liberals in Mr. Clinton's own party. He was liberated from the dictates of his own party."

This guy has no clue.  Bill Clinton was a moderate that ran more to center than his party.  Triangulation made a ton of sense for Clinton.  When the Democrats controlled both houses, they had no discipline and undermined Clinton's agenda almost as much as the Republicans.  Once the Republicans took control, Clinton stole their popular issues and vetoed their unpopular ones.  But what really saved Clinton was the stupidity and hubris of the Republicans.  If they hadn't shut down the government in 1995, I don't think Clinton would have won re-election in 1996.  After 1996, the economy was doing so well that Clinton became untouchable.

Bush marketed himself as someone who is more to the center than his party, but the reality has been that he has been extremely conservative.  The Democrats know that on most issues, they are on the side that the public supports.  If the Democrats control both the House and the Senate, I would expect a steady diet of bills that are politically popular but anathema for Republicans and Bush.  HMO reform, adding prescriptions to Medicare, increasing the minimum wage, increased protection for the environment, ergonomic standards for the workplace, campaign finance reform, rolling back the most regressive of the tax cuts in favor of smaller, more progressive ones, etc.  Bush has been very successful in using the House to hide his support for politically unpopular issues and his undermining of politically popular issues.  If the Democrats control both the House and Senate, the Bush has no way of hiding his true positions.  Bush would then have to either alienate his base or the rest of the voters.

9/2/2002; 6:49:36 PM: Has there every been a greater diplomacy debacle than Dubya's administration attempt to build support to invade Iraq?
On Sept. 12, the US had the support and sympathy of the world. Now, we have numerous critics and only one supporter - Israel. On Sept. 12, Iraq was a international piriah, shunned by even its Arab brothers. Now, even Kuwait has come to Iraq's defense. The Bush administration's attempts to build support for invading Iraq has to go down as one of the greatest diplomatic blunders of all time. Now the US is in a no-win situation. If we don't invade, we have thrown away all of that international goodwill for nothing. If we do invade, we will have to pay for a massive operation completely on our own and the world will carp at us for any negative side effects. Dubya's "plan" for getting us out of this no-win situation seems to be dithering, arrogant posturing and publicly displaying the administration's internal disagreements. The only way I can see the US coming out ahead is if Saddam Hussein is overthrown by a group that opposes terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. I really hope God answer Bush's prayers on this one.

9/2/2002; 7:18:19 AM: What's the deal with Republicans divorcing their wives and marrying younger staffers?
Back in 1986, Bob Barr ditched his second wife for a staff member.  In 1999, Tim Hutchinson dumped "his wife of 28 years to marry his considerably younger former legislative director". Then in 2000, Newt Gingrich booted his wife of 18 years to marry a former staff member 23 years than himself. Besides immorality and hypocrisy, the three are about to share something else in common - all are or will hopefully soon be former politicians.  In a country were incumbents so rarely lose, this should be quite a story.  But as the VRWC controls media stories about personal immorality, it is not being covered.

Clinton and these three gentlemen all succumb to the temptation of a young staffer.  Once Clinton succumbed, he did the right things - he regretted the affair, he put an end to it on his own, he never tried to justify his action, he worked to repair his marriage and he stayed married.  Once the other gentlemen succumbed, they continued to do the wrong things - continued the affairs, ditched their wives, re-married their mistresses, and pretty much said. "I am going to enjoy the perks of power - social and religious conventions be damned!"  However, I haven't seen social conservatives give Clinton any credit for having repented his mistake nor I have seen them give the other three gentlemen near the grief that they gave Clinton.  Apparently, character is important to social conservatives - as a way of attacking non-social conservatives.

9/1/2002; 9:32:59 AM: Week in Review
I did something different this week.  All of my stuff has been serious analysis, but this week I tried for some humor by rewriting an WSJ.com opinion piece to try to show how ridiculous its logic is.  That day, I got over 70 hits, the most of the week, so I will try it again.

I got five comments this week:
Steve wrote in reference to the DMN maligning protesters:
I spout Christian and Family Values while stuffing my pockets and screwing whoever gets in my way, therefore I am a Republican.

I don't see what your comment has to do with my post, but I will try to post something soon that your comment is totally apropriate for.

soopadoopa wrote in reference to my criticism of the WSJ.com article defending Ann Coulter:
The transformation by the right-wing punditocracy of Ann Coulter from "conservative writer" to "political satirist" is the only way that the right can bolster the reputation of this erstwhile right-wing media darling, after her book "Slander" was thoroughly debunked and exposed as a collection of bitter rants and made-up "facts".

Just read "Blinded by the Right" to learn how the right will bend over backwards to prop up the reptutations of its disgraced media hit-men.

It still just stuns mean that somebody would try to defend Ann Coulter by saying that she isn't serious when she says those outlandish things.  I have not seen her say anything to temper or provide a humorous context to any of her statements.

My analysis on Al Gore ganered two comments. The first was by debgill:
This analysis is dead on. If only the "reporters" had taken the time and effort to check up on Shrub. Instead, they were impressed that he gave them donuts, so nothing else mattered.

I wish I had an explaination for why the media was so biased, but that bias is a huge threat to our democracy

Then soopadoopa wrote:
Great analysis. I would argue that there's a fourth "M", as in "Monica". Gore was forever tainted with Clinton's scandals, both real (the "Monica" scandal) and GOP-concocted (Buddhist Temple-gate, Filegate, Travelgate, Fostergate, Chinagate, Whitewater, etc.) This contributed to both his own failure to make effective use of the Big Dog during the campaign, and the media's visceral dislike for the guy.

Whenever I tried to follow that, I always came back to media. The only real Clinton scandal was highly personal and didn't involve Gore in any way. The rest are, as you said, "GOP-concocted" and the only reason they had any life was the assistance of the naitional media.

Steve wrote in reference to my praising a NYT editorial on Dubya's new tax cuts:
The very wealthy are fine people and deserve all the money. They keep their shoes nicely shined. I'm sure they have other fine qualities, but the shiny shoes do it for me. How can one argue with shiny shoes? One can try, but one will lose--to the shoes(shiny).

Shiny shoes.  So that is the secret of the rich people's hold on the Republican party.

In terms of readership, I got 330 hits this week and overall, I am 29th on the Salon blog list with 1,647 page reads.

© Copyright 2003 Unrelated Disney. Last update: 7/30/2003; 6:35:30 AM.