More Onion

Here are a couple random ones:

Bush visits USS Truman for Dramatic Veterans'-Benefits Cutting Ceremony

Cousin Oliver to join Clinton White House

and a personal favorite:
South Postpones Rising Again for Yet Another Year

From this week's Onion:

News in brief:

Alan Colmes Loses Argument With Nephew
NEW YORK—Alan Colmes, the liberal co-host of the Fox News debate program Hannity & Colmes, lost an argument to his nephew Bryan while babysitting the 8-year-old Monday. "I wanted to stay up late to watch television, but Uncle Alan said, 'There's already too much self-parenting in America,'" Bryan said. "So I started screaming, 'Mom lets me, Mom lets me,' real loud. He gave in after, like, 20 seconds." In the past two years, Bryan has won arguments with Colmes on the subjects of Pokémon cards, Crunch Berries cereal, and steel tariffs.

I think I'm going to start posting the best political satire I find on the Onion.

Nice Clark piece

Here's a nice Clark piece in New York Times Magazine.

Some thoughts from TPM

Here are some thoughts from Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo. It's a pretty good post. Read it, seriously. I have nothing to say right now. Except that they really need to unplug that woman in Florida.

Reagan on the dime?

Sounds like a great idea. Excuse me while I go throw up.

Bribery scandal

Here's the latest on the bribery scandal. Now Terry McAuliffe has his greasy hands in this scandal.

What a joke this is. This sort of thing happens weekly in Congress and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise. What do you think lobbyists do? Quid pro quo is the whole reason for their existence.

Vince Foster

Ahh, it brings warmth to my heart to see this rightwing crackpot trashed in court by Justice Scalia of all people. I once met a guy who claimed he was a "moderate Republican" who thought Vince Foster had been murdered.

Send a flame

A flame is basically an angry email. Join me in sending one flame to this address every day for the next few months:


info@naderexplore04.org

Administration tries to shut Clark up

If anyone doubts that Wesley Clark is the Presidential candidate the Bush administration fears the most, read this.

New Hampshire

I'm going to New Hampshire for the primary. As of now, I'm working for Wesley Clark's campaign. I'm hoping Clark can overtake Kerry in NH (although I'm skeptical) and emulate what Clinton did in 1992.

I also want to get on the Daily Show - somehow.

I'll be posting on my blog regularly during the trip chronically what I see. I've met Dean, Edwards, and Sharpton before and I'm hoping to meet Clark and maybe talk to him for a bit.

Theses

Is that the plural of thesis? I guess I'll find out when I spell check.

Anyway, I just finished a thesis/research design for my politics major that is designed to test what I call "latent homophobia" (a play off of latent homosexuality, a condition that effects many of our United States Congressmen including Rick Sanatorum). Basically I think that public opinion polls fail to show the true scope of homophobia in America (because of social desirability effects...no one wants to admit they're intolerant). Plus some homophobia is so lodged in our subconscious that it's just hard to get at. For example, while writing this paper, I kept thinking to myself, "Oh no, I hope no one thinks I'm gay for writing this paper". There you have it. I consider myself one of the least homophobic people around, but I'm still worry about writing the topic because people might think I'm gay. That proves my theory. All of us are socialized to be a bit uneasy about homosexuals (I even know some "self-hating homosexuals").

Anyway, the point of all of my research was that Republicans are formulating a new Southern Strategy (the southern strategy involved using racial resentment against blacks to woo white southerners out of the Democratic Party). The new Southern Strategy will be similar to the original one, but instead of priming people's racial resentment, it will prime their "latent homophobia".

My second thesis is on the Enola Gay controversy of the mid 90s. A group at the Smithsonian wanted to create a memorial to the Enola Gay plane that bombed Hiroshima. After a decade of careful and balanced historical analysis and research, they created a wonderful exhibit that was then shuttled by reactionary/insane/overly patriotic/conservative morons who felt that the United States has been right about every decision we've ever made in our entire history and that introspective thought was equal to self-hate (of course, while conservatives support EVERY decision the US has ever made, their support wanes when you mention things like the Voting Rights Act or Brown v Board).

The theme of my thesis - conservative reactionaries hijack history when they keep introspective exhibits from being created. Another great example was the Smithsonian Native American exhibit in 1991 that was shuttled because it "unfairly portrayed American settlers as barbarians who slaughtered whatever was in their path".

People wonder why colleges don't have conservatives in their History/Politics departments. I think it's because history is such a painful thing for conservatives because it destroys their image of America as this god-given flawless gift to civilization.

Of course, the conservative response to this post will be predictable. "Liberals hate America!" "Go move to Canada/Iran/Sweden/etc." Go ahead, send the emails.

Update, 3:41pm: I was trying to find a connection between my theses besides the obvious presense of insidious conservatives and I couldn't think of one. Until I realized the first one was about gays and the second one was about the Enola Gay. ha.

Framework for attacking Bush in 2004

When Bush was elected President, he promised to run his administration like a corporation and delegate much responsibility. Liberals scoffed; they were reminded of Ronald Reagan. We didn't believe he was actually in charge, and we don't believe Bush is in charge. Until recently, however, there was little substantial evidence to prove it.

Lately the media has been focusing on how different policy players within the administration hijacked policy. For example, Cheney's push for a war on Iraq, or Rumsfeld's adamant stance on light troop deployment.

We have also seen much bureaucratic infighting between Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell. It seems like this leaves an opening for a potential Democratic candidate. There is sufficient public evidence that Bush does not have full control of his cabinet.

A strong Democratic candidate should be able to step in and say, "I will hire competent and skilled cabinet secretaries, and I will listen to their advice. But the buck will stop here. You can count on the fact that I will be making the decisions."

Believe it or not, in the 2000 election Bush scored significantly higher than Gore on "leadership" in public opinion surveys. Even today, most Americans believe Bush is a strong leader. Democrats have to change the public's mind about that.

Gephardt and Dean

As I've been fuming, Gephardt and Dean want to raise taxes on the middle class. Jack Beatty (The Atlantic Monthly) takes a look at that and other issues.

Here's a key paragraph:

Another candidate could emerge, but let's assume this primary sprint will come down to Dean vs. Gephardt. Which man would be the stronger candidate against the President?

They share a liability that makes them weaker candidates than the other Democratic prospects: they would repeal all of the Bush tax cuts. Senators Kerry, Edwards, and Lieberman, as well as General Wesley Clark, would repeal only the cuts for the wealthiest Americans, leaving in place the child tax credit and other elements of the cuts for the middle class. In the first presidential debate, if either Dean or Gephardt is the nominee, George W. Bush will point to his opponent and say, "If your family income is $40,000 a year, this man will raise your taxes by over $1,200"—and for once, he'd be telling the truth about the distribution of his tax cuts. Gephardt or Dean would counter, "Yes, Mr. President, but with that $1,200 we will fund health insurance and education programs worth much more than that to middle-income families." But the programs are promises; the $1,200 savings is cash in hand.

That debate moment is the best argument for nominating someone other than Gephardt or Dean.

Another key passage provides an interesting analysis of Bush's recent fall from high approval:

First Bush's approval ratings for his general handling of foreign affairs fell; then his ratings for handling Iraq fell; finally, in the most recent polls, his ratings for handling the "war on terror" have fallen beneath 60 percent for the first time since September 11. Bush has called the guerrilla war in Iraq "the central front in the war on terror," thereby linking failure in the one with failure in the other. The 79 percent of Americans who believe the war on terror either has not changed or has been worsened by Iraq have taken him at his word.

I find that theory very interesting - Bush, by labeling the war in Iraq part of "the war on terror" has weakened himself on what was previously his strongest issue.

Saletan article on Dean

Here's the latest William Saletan article in Slate. Take a look. Dean attacks Bush FROM THE RIGHT on defense.

Successful campaigns in Iraq

Our campaigns seem to be killing a great deal of Iraqi insurgents. Furthermore, I haven't heard of any disasters in the last week or so. Maybe things are stabilizing there. Can it possibly last?

Update, 8:40: Oops. Right after I posted that I read this. Could the Pentagon be lying to us? Is it possible?

Bribery on the Hill

I hate to jump on every possible scandal like some partisan hack, but here's another one in Robert Novak's last column.

Liberals

All of this ranting against liberals lately! What gives? Am I a liberal?

Of course. I agree with almost everything Howard Dean says (except taxes) and I would love to see him as President. But I am NOT about to throw away the election when there is a superbly electable alternative, Wesley Clark.

Here are my issue stances:
1. I'm pro-abortion. That's right, not pro-choice, pro-abortion.
2. Social Security - don't privatize it! Raise the retirement age incrementally (one month at a time over 10 years) and raise the cap on SS taxes (right now they cut off at about 100K in income, if I'm not mistaken).
3. Gay marriage - legalize it!
4. District of Columbia - give it a senator and a rep!
5. Taxes - raise them slightly on the rich (back to Clinton levels), leave them the same on the middle class and poor. Keep the dividend tax cut in place, however. That's a good one. Retirees are going to need a good stock market with impending doom of Social Security.
6. NAFTA - Keep it. Free trade - expand it.
7. ERA - ratify it.
8. Military spending - reign it in a bit. For every 2 dollars cut, spend one dollar on intelligence and one dollar on benefits for veterans and current military personnel.
9. Military strategy - read Wesley Clark's book!
10. Iraq war - apply pressure, fight war with REAL group of allies ONLY.
11. Afghanistan - good war - finish the job.
12. Kosovo - another good war - job was finished. Again, read Wesley Clark's book.
13. Gun control - do away with it. I hate guns, but gun control doesn't work.
14. God in the pledge of allegiance - get rid of it (not a practical idea, but I'm still for it)
15. Republicans: Are there any good ones? John McCain is a good Republican, and so is Lincoln Chafee. John Warner isn't that bad (voted against Bush's tax cuts, Impeachment, and refused to support Ollie North for Senate). But they are mostly bad.

So as you can see, my positions are pretty socially liberal with some moderation on economic issues as well as a bit on military/gun issues.

And most importantly - everything about George W. Bush makes me sick. In the words of Jonathan Chait of TNR:

"I hate President George W. Bush. There, I said it. I think his policies rank him among the worst presidents in U.S. history. And, while I'm tempted to leave it at that, the truth is that I hate him for less substantive reasons, too. I hate the inequitable way he has come to his economic and political achievements and his utter lack of humility (disguised behind transparently false modesty) at having done so. His favorite answer to the question of nepotism -- 'I inherited half my father's friends and all his enemies' -- conveys the laughable implication that his birth bestowed more disadvantage than advantage. He reminds me of a certain type I knew in high school -- the kid who was given a fancy sports car for his sixteenth birthday and believed that he had somehow earned it. I hate the way he walks -- shoulders flexed, elbows splayed out from his sides like a teenage boy feigning machismo. I hate the way he talks -- blustery self-assurance masked by a pseudo-populist twang. I even hate the things that everybody seems to like about him. I hate his lame nickname-bestowing -- a way to establish one's social superiority beneath a veneer of chumminess (does anybody give their boss a nickname without his consent?). And, while most people who meet Bush claim to like him, I suspect that, if I got to know him personally, I would hate him even more."

Why so few posts?

Not much going on.
This summer: Dean surged, Clark joined, Bush tanked.
September and October: California Recall and Valerie Plame thing
October and early November: Bad news each day from Iraq.

In the last few weeks not much has happened in the areas that I'm interested - particularly Bush scandals and elections stuff.

Dean is pretty much comfortably in the lead. Eventually Democratic Party elites will either decide to mount a "stop-Dean" campaign or to back him. Right now "stop-Dean" tactics only serve to increase Dean's support. Every time the DLC or Kerry attacks Dean, he gains in strength. I think this has less to do with Dean and more to do with the fact that no one particularly likes Kerry or the DLC.

Will Wesley Clark wage an anti-Dean campaign? I doubt it. I think that if he doesn't win the nomination he wants to be part of the next administration (if it's a Democratic one). So he isn't going to attack the front runner.

Who would wage this "anti-Dean" campaign? The only one who could successfully pull it off would be Bill Clinton. Or Dean could trip up somewhere. There might be a smear campaign against the guy - but he seems squeaky clean to me besides a few minor gaffes here and there.

Personally I think the Green Party has hijacked the Democratic nomination process. I'd like to see some polling on how many Greens support Dean. I suppose many of them are going for the Dennis Vegan Crusader. When I hear Dean supporters say things like, "Capitalism isn't a good thing," I begin to wonder. Maybe I'm paranoid - but I just have a feeling that the Greens are going to mess up this election again.

Iowa Electronic Market update

The Iowa Electronic Market, as I've mentioned before, is an astonishingly accurate predictor of the political future. They sell contracts in two interesting and relevant markets:

1. How each Democrat would fare against George W. Bush
In this chart, each Democratic candidate is referenced by their name, "BU|CLARK" or "BU|DEAN" represents how well Bush would do against each of these candidates. The numbers represent prices, not percentages of popular vote. According to this market, Clark would wallop Bush in the general election. Most of the other candidates are statistically tied (although Clinton would win over Bush). Interestingly enough, Bush would beat Lieberman pretty badly (the market is undoubtedly factoring in the effect that a Lieberman candidacy would have upon a possible Green candidacy).

I can't argue much with this logic - Clark would trounce Bush in the general election, no matter what the economy does. Unless Iraq turns into a beautiful harmonious Democracy that we no longer occupy, Clark is a sure thing. Forget my rants about taxes, gay marriage, or other wedge issues - Clark would win because he is a moderate General who has a SPECIFIC plan for fighting the war on terror. None of the other candidates have spelled out such a plan as eloquently.

2. Who will win the Democratic Nomination.
This market gives Dean the nomination pretty handily. Dean is worth 59 cents, with Gephardt at 15 cents and Clark at around 10 cents. I would say that's about where the race stands right now, although I would factor in several polls that have Gephardt losing traction in Iowa.

Can Democrats win with Dean? I suppose it's possible, although not probable. I could be wrong about this "silent liberal majority" that supposedly is out there. And having all of the Green votes go for Democrats certainly couldn't hurt this time around (although very few people actually voted for Ralph Nader last election. He scored high in pre-election polls, but when people had to cast their ballots, they sided with Gore or just didn't show up). I'm done complaining about Dean's middle class tax increase - I think I'm on the record about that.