douglass carmichael: Political bytes

Fri, 17 Sep 2004 19:37:19 GMT

Another good morale booster

Analysis: Kerry attack machine bashes Bush

By Martin Sieff

Published 2/17/2004 6:30 PM
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040217-061854-2353r

WASHINGTON, Feb. 17 (UPI) -- Something has happened the likes of which have never before been seen during this residency: George W. Bush and Karl Rove are on the defensive against the lean and hungry new John Kerry attack machine, and they do not know what to do about it.

Wed, 23 Jun 2004 21:07:55 GMT

This is good enough to post whole, since it is hard to get impressions of Kerry. That he elicts this kind of response is itself telling.

June 22, 2004
Dear friends,

A group of us traveled to Denver last night and had the opportunity to stand and listen, close up, to Presidential candidate, John Kerry. I witnessed a humble public servant who has dedicated his entire life to on the job training, through long years of hands on experience learning and practicing the arts and skills of governing, of policy making, of coalition building and of implementation. I witnessed a man of true vision for the possible, who understands that true leadership arises from the marriage of heart and head and from the willingness to dream what may be possible and then figure out how to make that dream palpable and real.

Kerry spoke unabashedly about the need for an ecologically sustainable world, which is also economically productive. He spoke of the need for putting money towards programs in which our disenfranchised youth are mentored with understanding and compassion and educated with skills rather than thrown into prisons which eat resources and further destroys these precious young lives.

As Kerry spoke of forging and repairing friendship and partnership around the world, the crowd sighed in relief. Those of us in the room understand how building cooperative and mutually respectful relationship has to be a major component to any prayer of future national security. He spoke in depth about how we would lower the cost of health care while creating an economic motivation for quality of care and delivery. He spoke returning the the 90's when we systematically paid off the deficit and balancing the national buget.

He covered a lot of turf, and covered it well. We were listening to a highly intelligent and thoughtful man who understands the issues, understands how things get done and has shown the patience and the skill to do them. Kerry is not afraid of economic competition but he is clearly a man who will foster a fair and just and ecologically sustainable competition, both here and abroad.

Lat night, John Kerry said "Under my presidency America will only go to war because we have to, not because we want to. And we would only do so with full and accurate disclosure to the American people." I found myself held by the crowd and leaning back into my husband's arms with tears of hope welling in my eyes. I was not alone.

Kerry is real human being. Kerry is a man of integrity and of solid vision and values. Kerry is also giving his life for us. As he moved among us to shake our hands, I found myself saying to him "Please take us there." He said simply, "I'll try."

When my friend, Margo behind me called out, "Bless you - we're with you" He smiled broadly and said a heartfelt "Thank you!"

John Kerry is Presidential. I am much more inspired after seeing him than I was before, when I was in the "well it's what we've got" camp.

And I believe Kerry would be a fine president in terms of policy, implementation and in providing the solid, steady kind of leadership which will be required to turn the great ship of this country back on course. But Kerry does not appear to be a crowd -pleasing, energy raising show-man, which, although just fine with me, unfortunately, is often what wins the votes of the un-decided.

Traveling back to Boulder on the bus, the conversations were hushed and serious. How can we really take this country back? How can we win? He's got the content. He's got the know how. He actually is what we want in a President. He is not perfect. But he is perfectly human.

To get Kerry elected, more of us need to not only give money (very important) but many more of us need to work in all ways make to make this happen. Those of us who know how to give inspiring speeches should be doing so wherever we can find to give them. We need to register voters, drive to the polls and figure out anything and everything we can to create success.

If each of us committed to regime change at home, pledged to personally find five people to vote for Kerry who would not otherwise have voted, and personally committed to get them to the polls on election day, we could win this electon. And in the process of filling this commitment, we would be serving a larger vision. We would be reaching out beyond the people we may already know. We would be educating ourselves and others. We would be making a difference.

If each of us committed to regime change at home, dug deeper, and offered more money that we think we have, we could make the difference.s

Kerry acknowledged, and the group present agreed, "This is the most important election of our lifetimes." We need to, as Margo said, bless him every day. And we cannot expect him to be other than he is. If more passion is needed, well then it is up to us to provide it. If more money is needed, well, then it is up to us. He and Terry have stepped forward and offered their lives. Let's not let this be a futile sacrifice. Let's get this man in office with all the support, encouragement, hard work and blessings it takes to make it happen. This is not a one-man job. This is not the job of the inner circle or the experts. This is not the job of the already dedicated political activists.

Getting Kerry elected is our job. And as he so eloquently said last night, "We are in this for the children." For the children, for the grandchildren, for ourselves, for the world. Please give in any way that you can.

Judith Ansara Gass
Co-Director of the Peacemaker Institute. Boulder Colorado.

Thu, 13 May 2004 18:16:59 GMT

Could Kerry make a major point - around the flip flop issue - by saying "Sometimes it is important to change one's mind. Changing our mind about Iraq is the responsible thing to do. It requires a president who reads the newspapers and follows the details, looks at options, discusses the issues with his cabinet and many others, and makes the best choice possible. I pledge as president to do that, and I pledge that, when circumstances shift and we are building our brings to the wrong future, I'll change my mind, and tell you my thinking, and implement those changes after a vital public discussion."

Tue, 27 Apr 2004 05:35:36 GMT

When running for president, doesn't it make sense to think like a president? The role is to set a tone for the country to be democratic and resolve issues, not to be the one who decides. Take the following

On Tuesday, Sen. John Kerry spoke on several environmental issues in Tampa, Florida, and took questions -- one of which was about offshore oil drilling, a hot-button topic in Florida.

This is how The St. Petersburg Times's Adam C. Smith reported Wednesday on what Kerry said about offshore drilling: "While Kerry has consistently opposed oil drilling off Florida, he said he supports drilling where it already has been approved." This sentence came 415 words into Smith's 1,000-word report, accompanied by no further detail or analysis.

The Tampa Tribune's William March did not even include Kerry's drilling remarks in his initial story on Kerry's speech. Nor did Kerry's drilling comments make it into The Miami Herald's Wednesday account by reporter Lesley Clark.

The next day, Smith of the St. Petersburg Times returned with some vigor -- and with fellow reporter Joni James -- to the subject he had all but kissed off earlier, describing Kerry's remarks on drilling as "imprecise," and among evidence that "Kerry has a knack for ambiguity."

Also on Thursday, Clark of the Herald joined the chase, leading with this: "For most Floridians, drilling for oil off the coast is akin to paving the Everglades or mutilating manatees." Clark then describes Kerry as having "on Tuesday endorsed drilling 'in the right places' but left it unclear where he stood on drilling off Florida's coast."

And today, March, of the Tribune, also playing catch-up, wrote that "in his speech ... Kerry did give a nuanced answer to a question about one of the most inflammatory issues in Florida."

Given that offshore drilling is such a key issue to "most Floridians," shouldn't Clark -- and Smith and March -- have reported in full what Kerry said on the topic in their first stories on the speech -- particularly if Kerry's remarks about drilling were "unclear"? (And then, presumably, sought clarification for their readers?)

Why isn't it good for Kerry to say "this is a crucial issue. we need to let the people decide. I will support a process that lays out the issues so people can make an informed decision."

Fri, 09 Apr 2004 04:49:17 GMT

Bill Greider points to issues facing Kerry, like will hsi economic policy be a pro free trade in the business sense, or look to deal with the economic problems of the middle class?

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040426&;s=greider

Note, the ; should not be in the url

John Kerry is borne aloft by party unity and the overriding imperative of defeating Bush, but the senator has entered a perilous zone where the outcome may depend more on the content of his character. During the next few months, Kerry must somehow fend off the smears and caricatures broadcast by Bush's attack machine and, at the same time, define himself in more convincing terms for the broad audience of voters, many of whom know little or nothing about him. Who is John Kerry? What does he believe about the country? What do people get if they elect him?

Republican strategy

Wed, 10 Mar 2004 15:51:15 GMT

On republican campaign issues.. Rove

http://billmon.org/archives/001195.html#more

Terrirism as dominant issue. (unfortuneately)

Tue, 09 Mar 2004 16:10:38 GMT

This is the myopia induced by Bush in shifting all national priorities for 911 (except taxes).

A new Gallup poll reports that Americans rank terrorism as the most critical threat to the United States. Ninety-two percent of Republicans and 77 percent of Democrats said terrorism was the No. 1 danger facing America. The Washington Times quotes a Republican strategist (unnamed) saying that Bush will "make the case that Kerry is not the right man to lead the war on terror." And, in the same piece, Will Marshall, the DLC's thinktank man, says it will be the "dominant issue in the presidential campaign."

Meanwhile, The Washington Post reports good news for the Democrats on every issue except the War on Terror. While the poll shows Kerry leading Bush 48-44 percent, with 57 percent of Americans saying "we need to elect a new president who can set the nation in a new direction," the Post adds: "Only the war on terrorism continues to garner [Bush] the support of more than 6 in 10 Americans."

The rich and Bush - a novelistic and helpful piece.

Tue, 09 Mar 2004 16:01:31 GMT

This is worth reading, the kind of reporting not often done, but very important, that takes us inside the thinking of others.

In a USA Today opinion piece Web accused Bush of having "committed the greatest strategic blunder in modern memory. To put it bluntly, he attacked the wrong target. While he boasts of removing Saddam Hussein from power, he did far more than that. He decapitated the government of a country that was not directly threatening the United States and, in so doing, bogged down a huge percentage of our military in a region that never has known peace. Our military is being forced to trade away its maneuverability in the wider war against terrorism while being placed on the defensive in a single country that never will fully accept its presence."

Webb then resorted to the older notion of conservatism so as to distinguish himself and his grouping from the neophytes in the White House.

"There is no historical precedent for taking such action when our country was not being directly threatened. The reckless course that Bush and his advisers have set will affect the economic and military energy of our nation for decades. It is only the tactical competence of our military that, to this point, has protected him from the harsh judgment that he deserves."

Indeed, at one DC fete, an influential dowager opined that the Bush boy's invasion of Iraq and his failure to encounter those awful WMDs did not inspire the truly important people with confidence. And why didn't our CIA lads know something after employing all that hi-tech seeing and listening technology that one sees in the movies? Can the affable young man in the White House find the proverbial pimple on his you know what?

What will happen if one of the truly dangerous WOGS actually threatens us?

This kind of chatter among the idle rich bodes well for the Democrats, who could accuse Bush 43 of having committed the strategic bungle of the decade. He seems to have wanted to go to war and allowed those boorish neo-cons to, what's the term, yank his chain.

Kerry as Kennedy, campaign language.

Sun, 07 Mar 2004 14:22:19 GMT

On what Kerry's approach should be: regan vs Kennedy..

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/07/opinion/07GREE.html

Kerry needs to also be in support of a vigorous economny of tech and entrepreneurship, including local business and agriculture. This can be consistent with environmental concerns if the icnetives move away from extraction to tech solutions to energy, water, networking young people. Multilateralism, and a shift from security to opportunity would also help. We need to lessen the neeeds for military interevention and be prepared to be successful when we do.

Bush is obviously trying to use 911 to define a presidency, when the country should have gone down an alternative path of democracy and opportunity and environmental reason.

King and Candadates for..

Tue, 02 Mar 2004 15:07:48 GMT

What's a possible interpretation of this picture? Thoughtful vs charming?

Paige's reflections

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:00:38 GMT

Paige said the NEA was terrorists, but it's important to look at the reverse sensitivity. he realizes it was wrong, but that it happened tells us something about the way labguage may be being used in the Cabinet - and a trial baloon for campaign language?

"As one who grew up on the receiving end of insensitive remarks, I should have chosen my words better," said Paige, the first black education secretary.

Political bytes

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:54:22 GMT

Overheard

Quote of the Day

"The other party's nomination battle is still playing out. The candidates are an interesting group, with diverse opinions. For tax cuts, and against them. For NAFTA, and against NAFTA. For the Patriot Act, and against the Patriot Act. In favor of liberating Iraq, and opposed to it. And that's just one senator from Massachusetts."

-- President Bush, as quoted by the Boston Globe, in a speech last night to Republican governors.

election bytes " the refcession is the clinton recession"

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:17:59 GMT

From calpundit, another hint at election bytes

BUSH ECONOMY....I've never been able to work up much interest in watching the Sunday morning chat shows, but a friend of mine who was surfing around yesterday says that the phrase "Clinton recession" was all over the place. It's the Bushies' latest talking point.

Election bytes Bush above and below.

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:21:25 GMT

From talkingpointmemo, on election bytes

E.J. Dionne has an excellent piece in Tuesday's Post, the heart of which is this passage ...

What's forgotten is that Bush has a pattern throughout his political career of staying above the fray while others tear his opponents to shreds. The Republicans are trying to weave a clear narrative about Kerry. The above-the-surface part is about his voting record, which Kerry will, indeed, have to defend. The below-the-surface part will paint him as a Vietnam-peacenik-Massachusetts-liberal weirdo.

This feels too weak to me, and innaccurate enough and not in synch with popular tendencies.

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 06:06:20 GMT

These hints about the campaign

Bush's McCain Strategy Redux
Washington Post - 1 hour ago
That was George W. Bush's brilliant dodge throughout the 2000 campaign whenever questions came up as to how he behaved during his twenties and early thirties. By poking fun at himself, Bush was winking at the press corps, especially the ...
Bush gives taste of campaign to come Deepika
Bush Says Democrats Offer Bitterness, Anger Reuters

Kerry's wife , Terresa heinz Kerry, and sustainability

Sat, 21 Feb 2004 18:03:49 GMT

Interesting background on Kerry's wife and her interest in sustainability issues. Such synergies could play a large role in this election.

http://culturechange.org/e-letter-54.html#bmk

Use of robust social security for a weakened economy

Tue, 17 Feb 2004 19:08:20 GMT

on social security. Note that it is fine, but Greenspan wants to cut benefits so more money is available for the general treasury. This, following on the previous article, suggests that folks like Greenspan and Bush will use all stops to keep the economy out of trouble, and that means using resources - like social security

It is worth noting that Social Security is currently running a large surplus and is projected to continue to run annual surpluses for more than two decades into the future. The Social Security trustees projections show that the fund's trust will be able to support all scheduled benefit payments for nearly forty years into the future. If Social Security benefits are cut, without any corresponding reduction in the tax rate (which is exactly Mr.

Greenspan's recommendation), then this would mean that Social Security taxes are being used to finance the general budget, not Social Security.This point is especially important in this context, since Mr. Greenspan had chaired the 1982 Commission that proposed a set of Social Security tax increases that were designed to build up a large surplus to help defray the costs of the baby boomers' retirement in later years. In other words, Mr. Greenspan's argument was that itwas desirable to raise Social Security taxes above the levels needed to support the program in the eighties, nineties, and zeros, so that the tax rate would be somewhat lower than would otherwise be necessary in the twenties and thirties. If benefits are now cut below the levels that had been scheduled, then it breaks the link between Social Security taxes and Social Security benefits. Social Security taxes were simply used to finance the general budget.

The Social Security tax is highly regressive because it only applies to wage income and it is capped at approximately $85,000, so that wage income above this level is not subject to the tax. It is extremely unlikely Congress ever would have approved such a regressive tax to support the general budget. It would have been appropriate to note, in describing Mr. Greenspan's proposal, thatthe cumulative surplus in the trust fund is now approaching $2 trillion. This would give readers an idea of the extraordinary deception involved in proposing to cut Social Security benefits as a way of reducing the federal budget deficit.

Bush supports business, not broader social concerns (more..)

Tue, 17 Feb 2004 18:25:34 GMT

On jobs and Bush support of Business.

For three years, President Bush has been willing to anger environmentalists, civil libertarians of the right and left, unions, trial lawyers and conservative advocates of free markets. But one group that almost always comes out a winner when Bush sets policy is the business community, from Fortune 500 corporations to small, family-run companies.

Bush's recent immigration initiative is a prime example. While commentary and reaction focused largely on how it might affect foreign-born workers, the unquestioned beneficiaries are U.S. employers. If the proposal becomes law, they will have a vastly enlarged pool of prospective workers, many willing to perform the dirtiest and most dangerous tasks for low pay.

The policy's likely impact on other constituent groups -- including some important to a Republican president -- is far less clear. Social conservatives, for example, were furious at Bush's plan to make it easier for undocumented workers to stay in this country. The response from leaders of the nation's most prominent Hispanic organizations -- a constituency heavily courted by Republicans and Democrats alike -- ranged from ambivalence to outright opposition because of the administration's failure to provide a direct avenue to citizenship.

But a range of employers hungry for low-wage, low-skill workers hailed the proposal without hesitation. The Essential Worker Immigration Coalition -- an alliance of associations and lobbies representing nursing homes, hotels, road and building contractors, restaurants, landscape companies and meatpackers -- praised the Bush initiative.

Nothing surprising here, just to see how the press is handling it. The narrow range of benefits is met on the other side by the braod range of those hurt by Bush policies. Also his approach does not fit a standard conservative agenda.

Bush on Churchill

Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:07:55 GMT

Worth reading these remarks by Bush at the Library of Congress Churchill exhibit. Bush has used Churchill as an ego marker for himself. The comparison is crazy, but the consequences of a militatnt self righteous Bush are real.

A Googel search for Bush and Churchill will yield the history, since Blair gave him a Churchill bust after 9-11. Hopefully he won't go further down the list

Napoleon, Lincoln, Wilson, Moussolini.... all in all, a slippery slope.

Power vs people..

Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:52:04 GMT

Campaign labguage..

The gap between Mr. Ickes and Mr. Shrum reopens a rift among Democratic strategists that was exposed during Al Gore’s campaign four years ago. Departing from Mr. Clinton’s "third way" centrism, Mr. Gore—on Mr. Shrum’s advice—defined his campaign against George W. Bush in stark terms: "They’re for the powerful," he told the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles. "We’re for the people."

Since most people think they have some power, this probably doesn't work.

Bush playing in the press.

Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:39:07 GMT

The political analysis - one can almost call it that - is so much advanced from previous elections. Good sign. Here is a texas column on Bush

http://www.fwweekly.com/issues/2004-02-11/thought.html

"In short, the next time you get worried that we simply aren't doing enough to prevent another terrorist attack or fix the economy, disregard the "windshield cowboy's" twangy tough talk and remember the disturbing realities being perpetrated by the guy who's really in charge."

Kerry byte

Sun, 08 Feb 2004 17:57:17 GMT

Political bytes, Kerry by Krauthammer.

True, Bush will make the case that his post-9/11 policies are infinitely tougher. And Kerry certainly has given him an opening, saying that the war on terror is ``primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation.''

If Kerry can stick with this, and advance a domestic and multinational agenda in place of war, and win, the country would be a different place.

Bush transcript

Sun, 08 Feb 2004 16:48:48 GMT

From the Meet the Press interview..

I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind. Again, I wish it wasn't true, but it is true. And the American people need to know they got a president who sees the world the way it is. And I see dangers that exist, and it's important for us to deal with them.

He could have chosen a different path, "a kinder gentler...", but this is fate. From character and limitation, we have militarized the world.

full transcript at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4179618/

Blame shift to intelligence.

Tue, 27 Jan 2004 15:39:55 GMT

Comment: We are seeing a tendency to blame Iraq, especially intelligence failures, on the Intelligence services. In fact the organizations were attemtpitng more or less to put a break on the Whitehouse. The blame shift can only increase the strength of the Whitehouse and decrease that of state, CIA, etc.

Kerry bytes

Tue, 20 Jan 2004 20:41:29 GMT

starting a collection of core campaign pieces. They will be archived in politcal bytes

Up on his chair Kerry was talking about special interests. "If you look around the country today, people are hurting," he said. "This thing is rigged against them because [of] powerful moneyed interests. ... Powerful political interests walk into the White House and have secret meetings with the president." This is of course the signature--and much derided--message of Bob Shrum, the Kerry media adviser who came to be associated with the autumn turbulence in the campaign