Found it!

I've been searching all day for some way to spin Bush's visit to Baghdad as inappropriate. I finally found it in a Joe Lockhart quote:

"This is a president who has been unwilling to provide his presence to the families who have suffered but thinks nothing of flying to Baghdad to use the troops there as a prop."

He used our soldiers as "a prop". Classic. And totally true.

Additionally, here's some insightful Washington Post analysis. They seem to believe that this event ties Bush's presidency more tightly to our fate in Iraq, and I couldn't agree more.

Bush pledges not to retreat

Ok. So I'll admit Bush's surprise visit to Iraq was a smart political move. We'll see if attacks upon US forces increase in the next few days as a result of Bush's visit.

And time will only tell whether Bush lives up to these words:

"We did not charge hundreds of miles into the heart of Iraq, pay a bitter cost of casualties, defeat a ruthless dictator and liberate 25 million people only to retreat before a band of thugs and assassins."

Come next summer I'll be reminding you all of this statement.

Dean

After speaking with several Democrats last night, it has become increasingly clear that there is a silent majority that believes liberal extremists (Nader supporters, and lefties) are hijacking the Democratic nominating process. It's quite similar to 1972 and 1984. Maybe the more centrist candidates (Kerry, Clark, and Edwards) just don't have it. And certainly there is much anger against the DLC, rational and irrational.

Does this party want to be tarred as the party who for the first time in history proposed a tax increase on the middle class as the center of its platform? I hear quite a bit of "We can't try to out Republican the Republicans". It's not about that. It's about putting forth a candidate who can appeal to BOTH the centrist Democrats (more than half of the party) and the liberal ones. Remember Clinton? He hinted at raising taxes on the upper class (and he eventually did it). Did Clinton want to raise taxes on the lower-middle class? No, of course not. We all loved Clinton, didn't we? Raising taxes on the upper class = a great idea. You effect a relatively small sector of the voting population and you get a huge amount of government revenue that can be used to pay for new programs.

Look at two problems that effect most Americans - paying for medicine and college. Take the money that is raised by the tax increase and put it towards both of these problems. Reduce people's premiums under Medicare. Double funding for FAFSA. These are proposals that Democrats should be making. They should tie the tax increase to benefits that will be reaped from it (Gephardt, to his credit, has done this. He ties his tax increases to funding for his health care plan).

We can't run for cover. It's true, most of us feel more comfortable fighting for more government spending on the programs we love, and a fairer tax structure. But this country is conservative right now. The Democrats won elections in the 50s, 60s, and 70s by fooling conservative southerners into believing we were like them (the New Deal Coalition). We are not. That game is over. Most Americans hate the idea of big government and taxes - it's just the truth. We cannot run on that platform.

Why I watch Fox News and read Saffire and Will

This nation has increasingly become a nation of "Dittoheads". On both sides of the political spectrum. Conservatives listen eagerly each day as Rush Limbaugh provides them the "news", while liberals tune in to NPR or whichever network they believe comes furthest from providing any decent from their views. While I can understand these habits - it's easier to listen to news casts that reinforce what you already believe - I think it's pretty unhealthy.

It's good to know your enemy. Check over to Fox every once in a while and you can better understand what most Americans think is actually going on in the world. Read a George Will column and you'll see what articulate conservatives are saying. Liberals can't tune the conservative world out like they are tuning us out.

RNC ad

If you weren't already furious about the RNC's recent attack ad (or even if you were) read this William Saletan article.

Speaking of Mr. Saletan - he's certainly making a name for himself lately with some thought provoking columns. I wouldn't be surprised if he's swiped away from Slate some time in the near future.

I enjoy Slate, but I find the structure of the site problematic. For example, if I wanted to read all of Saletan's recent columns, I would be unable to find an easily accessible list of them.

Medicare

Ok so here are the problems with the new Medicare legislation, as I see them. Mostly I'm referencing an AP article I just read:

1. There is a gap in coverage. After Seniors spend $2,250 on health care there is no coverage until they spend $5,100.

2. It also seems that yearly deductibles will rise from $250 to $445.

It's a pretty complicated bill. I honestly haven't made heads or tails out of it yet.

War spending driving growth?

When I saw the upwardly revised economic growth numbers, being an economic novist, I thought to myself, "Ok, hot economic growth. Greenspan is going to raise interest rates now." That's what happened during the end of the Clinton years. The difference was that at that point we had the threat of inflation, while today deflation is perhaps more of a threat. So no rate increases.

The second thing I wondered was "What is causing this tremendous growth? It can't be the tax cuts for the rich. They stimulate the economy in the long term, not the short term." Well, it ends up that government spending has increased substantially for the last few months, due to the war in Iraq. Also, as my friend Alex reminded me, a weak dollar helps our exports (the dollar has been falling steadily for the last two years as foreign investors run from our seemingly corrupt stock market). Part of the equation for calculating GDP factors in our trade deficit (Exports minus Imports). So any boom in exports will push up GDP, even if it doesn't represent anything healthy for the economy (certainly a weakened dollar benefits some - namely farmers - but it's not exactly a boon for those who rely on imports to manufacture products. "It's hard to say," my economist friend Alex told me.)

Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling

The Massachusetts Supreme Court, as you all probably know, has ruled that the state legislature must move on the issue of gay marriages and either outlaw or allow them.

This decision has sparked much debate amongst commentators in the media. Many liberals are overly optimistic about the chances of the mainstream public accepting gay marriage.

The truth of course is that the American public is largely tolerant of homosexuals (by a small but significant majority) but is mostly uncomfortable with the thought of supporting the gay rights cause.

The 2004 election will be about:
1. Iraq
2. Terrorism
3. Gay marriage.
and possibly TAXES (if the Democrats take the disastrous posture of nominating Howard Dean or Dick Gephardt)