Ronald Reagan dies

I've been tossing around the political effects of Ronald Reagan's upcoming death for a few months. I've always thought that it would give a bit of a boost to Bush's poll numbers, and if it occurred in late October, it could actually hand Bush the election. Alas, like Clinton's memoir, Ronnie's death fell in the political netherland of early summer. It will be interesting to see whether Bush's poll numbers jump. I'm convinced that a resurgence in pride amongst Republicans (currently enjoying their lowest point in morale since the Clinton acquittal) will help Bush, if momentarily.

Or maybe conservatives will look at "The Gipper" and contrast his "great" presidency with Bush's failed presidency. Who knows.

As for Ronald Reagan himself...I'll say this: Whether you like or dislike the man, his Presidency was unarguably one of the most important presidencies of the 20th century. He helped found a new conservative movement and solidified the new political alignment of support for Democrats and Republicans.

More religious data

Here is some non-made-up religious data courtesy of the Polling Report:

70/71% of the nation believes in "The Devil" (Gallup/Fox)
60% of the nation believes the story of Noah is "literally true" (ABC)
61% of the nation believes that the world was created in 6 days (ABC)
64% believe that Moses actually parted the Red Sea (ABC)
54% describe themselves as "born again" or "evangelical" (Gallup)
17% think the world will end at some point in their lifetime (Gallup)

There you have it...

Drill in Alaska

Demand for oil is rapidly catching up with capacity for production.

OPEC countries now pump merely 2 million barrels a day below their total possible capacity (actually, every country except for Saudi Arabia is currently pumping at total capacity). Once demand exceeds supply, the world will experience an economically devastating oil shock.

The US Geological Society predicts that there are about 10 billion barrels of oil under the ground in the Alaskan "wilderness" (barren ugly terrain where few animals live). Why not pump? Heavily regulate the drilling so as to preserve as much of the ecosystem as possible.

And why give away this victory to the Republicans? Instead, adopt it as part of a larger energy bill that mandates higher mileage requirements and provides billions in incentives to develop or purchase fuel cell and hybrid cars.

(some of this argument courtesy of Kevin Drum)

Politicking in church

Karl Rove recently identified 1600 "friendly congregations". The Republican Party plans to provide these churches with campaign literature. This is supposedly an outrage.

Boo hoo. The Democrats have been doing this for years in black churches. And sometimes it involves the indirect payment of money to ministers and pastors within those churches in order to secure their services.

I suppose these churches should have their tax-exempt status removed, but why bother? Too many people have become disconnected from the political system over the past few decades. If churches want to promote political discourse, then let them do so.

Scandals that matter

Wow. After 8 years of the Clinton administration, I became accustomed to trivial scandals (Whitewater, Travelgate, Monica Lewinsky, etc.). These were petty affairs, blown out of proportion by Clinton's overzealous opponents.

Unlike Clinton, Bush's scandals actually matter. Let's look at the list:
1. A high level administration official exposed an undercover CIA agent in order to deal political retribution to her whistle blowing husband.
2. Someone (fairly high up in the chain of command) authorized the use of abusive interrogation practices (including sexual humiliation and physical violence) within a largely civilian populated prison within Iraq.
3. Intelligence regarding WMD was cooked and distorted (Colin Powell recently admitted this) in order to bolster a case for war against Iraq.
4. A White House ally and confidant (Chalabi) has been accused of telling the Iranians that the US had cracked their codes. A high level administration official allegedly provided him with this information (apparently while intoxicated).
5. According to a Pentagon email unearthed by Time, Dick Cheney secured the Iraqi reconstruction contract for Halliburton. This highly dubious action violates numerous Pentagon regulations.

These are scandals that matter. Halliburton's contract, while apparently not providing much profit to this poorly run company, cost the taxpayers billions of dollars. The crime of espionage can carry a death sentence. Exposing an undercover agent is a felony. The war in Iraq, supposedly fought to save America from the threat of WMD, has so far cost us 200 billion dollars, 800 lives, and 4000 casualties. These scandals matter.

Tenet Fired

I couldn't let this go without at least a comment. Let's take a look at the President's bizarre remarks yesterday.

What he said:

Today, George Tenet, the director of the CIA, submitted a letter of resignation. I met with George last night in the White House. I had a good visit with him. He told me was resigning for personal reasons. I told him I'm sorry he's leaving. He's done a superb job on behalf of the American people. I accepted his letter. He will serve at the CIA as the director until mid July, at which time the deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John McLaughlin, will serve as the acting director.

George Tenet is the -- is the kind of public service you like -- servant you like to work with. He's strong. He's resolute. He served his nation as the director for seven years. He has been a strong and able leader at the agency. He's been a -- he's been a strong leader in the war on terror. And I will miss him. I send my blessings to George and his family. I look forward to working with him until the time he leaves the agency. And I wish him all the very best.

Thank you.

What he meant:

PLEASE DON'T HURT ME!!!

Tenet is generally known as a skilled bureaucratic sniper. The fact that his close ally, John McLaughlin, will serve as acting director for a while probably makes Bush a bit nervous. How many goodies does Tenet have in his possession that could destroy the Bush Presidency? Probably quite a few. For the record, I don't believe this "personal reasons" garbage. Tenet was pushed out ahead of the release of the 9-11 Commission's report - a report that will no doubt read like a blooper reel for Tenet's CIA.

Tax the corpses!

Jordan has a great post on the estate tax.

His surprising conclusions: The estate tax is wonderful! It's Jeffersonian! And its better than the income tax...

Bush's Christianity Today Interview

I just read an interview Bush gave to Christianity Today and thought I'd pass it on to you. I'm surprised by this response:

What do you think about being criticized for open expressions of faith?

I just think that I have a fantastic opportunity to let the light shine, and will do so however, as a secular politician. It's really important that you know—I say to our fellow countrymen that my job is not to promote a religion but to promote the ability of people to worship as they see fit.

There's nothing more powerful than this country saying you can worship any way you want, or not worship at all. On the other hand, I can't hide the fact that I am influenced personally. I don't give speeches where I mean I talk about love and compassion when it comes to doing one of my jobs which is to rally the spirit of the country and call people to service.

I'm impressed that Bush would actually tell a Christian Publication that he is a "secular politician". How novel!

What in God's name (no pun intended) is Karl Rove thinking these days? Bush needs to shore up his god-fearing Christian supporters with appeals to their base gay-hating nature. What's all of this "secular leader" stuff? Does he forget that 50% of this country thinks prayer in school should be mandatory? Does he forget that around 40% of the country considers itself evangelical?

US extends military tenures

The Pentagon decided to impose stop-loss orders on troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. This measure will extend many troops' presence in Iraq or Afghanistan. While I pity the troops and their families, we must all remember that they signed up for this. No one compelled these men and women to join the armed forces - they volunteered.

With that in mind, why would anyone want to join the armed forces while Bush is at the helm? Ultra-patriotic Republicans tout the importance of the war on terror or the war in Iraq, but do you think they actually want to go over there and fight in the desert? It would be interesting to look at recent enrollment numbers. I suspect its hard to find accurate numbers (the Pentagon is a propaganda machine), but if anyone knows any, post them in the comments section. I'm pretty sure the recruitment numbers are in dire straits right now. Army enlistment reached failed to meet targets in both 2000 and 2001.

Curb Your Enthusiasm

More proof that Curb is the best show on television...

"Partial birth" abortion ban blocked

Hoorah! The partial birth abortion ban has been partially blocked by a federal judge.

"Wait," you say, "Isn't partial birth abortion 'a terrible form of violence has been directed against children who are inches from birth while the law looked the other way.'".

No Mr. Bush, actually it's not. IT's a rarely used procedure where either the woman's life is in danger, or the baby is massively deformed or retarded. It's not casually performed on "children who are inches from birth".

I urge you to read this post from November for my take on this issue.

Conspiracy Theory

Maybe the Bushies are inflating the terror warning in order to curb travel and thereby reduce demand for gasoline (leading to lower prices pre-election!). I don't think so, but thanks to Mohsin Reza for pointing out the possibility.

Changes

I hate to make one of those "I changed the colors and format of the blog" posts...but here it is:

I changed the colors and format of the blog.

Expect more changes in the future - some of them without warning or provocation!

Compassion

Check out the "compassion photo album" on the Bush Cheney website.

Apparently "compassion" = "photo-ops with black people".

I had no idea!

Two paths in Iraq

We have two options in Iraq:

Option A: Quickly crack down on the Sadr militants and the Sunni insurgency in Fallujeh. (Does Bush resist the crack down for strategic reasons or because it would be politically inexpedient to have more casualties in Iraq?) The casualties would be worth the worthy goal of quickly destroying the insurgency instead of handing over power and forcing the new government to deal with them.

Option B: Handle the situation diplomatically - for now. Let it cool off. Extremists like Sadr feed off of chaos and violence. Don't play into his hands. When an Iraqi army is created (hopefully soon!!!), co-opt many of Sadr's forces into the army, leaving him without military support. At the same time, save US lives by avoiding the invasion of an urban territory and trying to fight a guerilla war.

Currently we lie somewhere between A and B. I believe we need to wholeheartedly pursue either A or B. If we choose A, the action must be taken quickly and forcefully. If we choose B, then we need to quickly create a legitimate Iraqi army. In the words of Gen. Wesley Clark (roughly), "If you want to play with guns, join the army. They've got guns."

Neither terrorists nor insurgents

The victims of torture at Abu Ghraib were largely neither terrorists nor insurgents. From the NYTimes:

The questioning of hundreds of Iraqi prisoners last fall in the newly established interrogation center at Abu Ghraib prison yielded very little valuable intelligence, according to civilian and military officials.

The interrogation center was set up in September to obtain better information about an insurgency in Iraq that was killing American soldiers almost every day by last fall. The insurgency was better organized and more vigorous than the United States had expected, prompting concern among generals and Pentagon officials who were unhappy with the flow of intelligence to combat units and to higher headquarters.

But civilian and military intelligence officials, as well as top commanders with access to intelligence reports, now say they learned little about the insurgency from questioning inmates at the prison. Most of the prisoners held in the special cellblock that became the setting for the worst abuses at Abu Ghraib apparently were not linked to the insurgency, they said.

So what was the torture for? Fun?

Two misconceptions about WMD

Number 1:
Lately I've heard quite a bit of cheering from the Left in response to the New York Times' apology for it's WMD coverage. Supposedly, this reinstates the Times' reputation as a wonderful paper that never biases itself, jumps on bandwagons (WMD, Whitewater) or produces sloppy stories.

Personally, I think they issued the apology to draw more attention to the missing WMD and hurt Bush's reelection chances. While I don't have any problem with this - let's call a spade a spade.

The second misconception is that Bill Clinton believed Iraq possessed vast stock piles of WMD. Sure, Clinton came out and said (roughly), "Saddam has weapons," but could it be that Clinton was exaggerating or distorting what he really believed in order to try to shore up his legacy as a "hawkish" President who tried to stop terrorism and international despotism? That's what I've always thought...I don't buy Clinton's assertion that he believed Saddam had WMD and active WMD programs. If that's true, then why not reinstate inspections after the bombings in 1998? Why was it such a low priority? That's the question people should be asking him.

Progressive vs Liberal

Several years ago liberals "cleverly" started substituting progressive for liberal. The word liberal had become tainted by years of conservative slander, weak Democratic presidential candidates, and embarrassing lefty extremists. I guess it must have seemed like a good idea at the time, but the ruse is up. Progressive clearly means liberal. In fact, when I think progressive, my mind conjures aggressive liberal activist who are determined to thrust liberalism upon our country.

Progressive has come to mean aggressively liberal.

Fortunately, there's a better way of going about this problem. Instead of defining ideas or candidates as progressive or liberal, why not just call them "centrist" or "moderate"? Bill Clinton ran as a moderate. Sure, he had a mixture of moderate and liberal positions, but that's not the point. The point is, he called himself a moderate. George W. Bush did the same thing in 2000 when he ran as a "compassionate conservative".

If liberals want to win the semantic war, they need to distort the truth like Clinton and Bush did. The English language is highly amendable. Let's start today:

John Kerry: A moderate war hero who can lead our country out of the quagmire in Iraq.

Oops

First Ashcroft announces that the terrorist threat is higher than it has ever been. Then we find out that DHS doesn't even know about the threat. And now this:

At least two of the terrorists identified by John Ashcroft as part of an 'Al-Qaeda cell' that is waiting to attack America this summer are already in jail.
A respected website that holds databases on terror suspects lists Amer El-Maati as 'incarcerated'. Likewise, Aafia Siddiqui, a female former MIT student, was arrested in Pakistan over a year ago, according to NBC.

The 'cell' that these individuals are said to belong to doesn't even exist. The Abu Hafs al Masri group was described by the Boston Globe as a 'phantom organization'. Their researchers could find no evidence that the group was real.

Yet another example of gross incompetence within the Bush White House.

Comments

I've now added a comments feature to the blog. That means you can AND WILL send me feedback on my posts.

The most sensible convention argument yet

From TNR:

WELL THEN CHANGE THE DAMN CONVENTION RULES ...: According to today's Washington Post, the rule on when presidential candidates receive their public financing is as follows: "They receive the money when they accept their nominations, or Sept. 1, whichever comes earlier."
This does not strike me as the kind of rule Moses brought back with him from Mt. Sinai. Given that it's exceedingly arbitrary--why September 1?--and that it's supported by no political tradition to speak of, and that the circumstances in which the rule applies have changed dramatically (at the time it was written, which I'm guessing was during the immediate post-Watergate era, the idea of raising a couple hundred million dollars for a campaign probably seemed preposterous), why can't we just re-write the rule so that both candidates receive their money at precisely the same time? Either when the first candidate receives his nomination, or when the second receives his, or on September 1, or whenever ...

Richardson for VP?

I came across a Slate article from 2000 about Bill Richardson's bumbling performance as Energy Secretary. Those who are on the Richardson bandwagon should find this article fairly sobering.

I'm back

If the dozen of you who read my blog didn't notice, I haven't posted for about 10 days. That's because I went on a road trip around the country touring baseball stadiums. I went to ball games in Philly, New York (Shea), Boston, Montreal, Toronto, Cleveland, Detroit and finally Pittsburgh.

Now that I'm back, I'll probably post quite a bit over the next few days.