-- 2004 isn't shaping up to be a very good year for the left. If the economy rallies as expected, Bush is going to be extraordinarily difficult to unseat. Furthermore, because of redistricting, the chances of the Dems retaking the house are practically nil. Then in the Senate, again the GOP has a numbers advantage. We only have to defend 15 seats while the Dems have to guard 19. Last but not least, as Publius explains, the GOP will even have a big advantage in the governor's races....
"Democrats have to defend more seats: Democrats are defending eight seats, while the Republicans only have to defend six.
Red state/blue state: It isn't just that Democrats have to defend more seats than Republicans; it's where the seats are. Eleven of the 14 seats in play are in "red states" won by PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH in 2000. Of the eight seats that Democrats will be defending, no fewer than six of them (MO, MS, IN, KY, WV, and NC) are in "red states" -- while of the six seats the Republicans will be defending, only one (VT) is in a "blue state" won by former Vice President AL GORE.
Open seats: Here, too, Democrats are at a disadvantage. Of the seven open seats, Democrats will have to defend four (WA, KY, IN, and WV), while Republicans will only have to defend three (MT, UT, and LA). And Missouri's Democrat Governor, BOB HOLDEN, isn't a lock to run for reelection -- there's serious talk of a primary challenge -- so he just might decide to follow the lead of several of his colleagues and announce that he's stepping down at the end of the term, too.
Red state open seats: Put the above two items together, and you get the horror scenario for Democratic Governors Association Chairman GARY LOCKE (the outgoing Governor of Washington): six of the seven open seats are in "red states." And those "red states" aren't just "red," they're crimson: the Bush-Cheney ticket averaged 57 percent of the vote in those states, while the Gore-Lieberman ticket managed just 39 percent, on average. Bush can be expected to do better in each one of these states, and while ticket-splitting is a fact of modern political life, winning against those odds would require Democrat challengers to convince one out of every five Republican voters to cast a ballot for a Democrat. That's like drawing to an inside straight."
Those are ugly numbers indeed for Terry Mcauliffe and company to try to deal with, especially coming off of the 2002 elections which were such a debacle for the Democrats.
-- Is it really necessary for the Jerusalem Post, LA Times, & Chicago Sun-Times to have such elaborate sign-ups to read their news? All of those papers do good work, but as a blogger, can you really afford to link them? I mean how many different papers can you expect your readers to sign-up for? Can I make a suggestion? If these papers want to gather demographic info about their readers without an elaborate sign-up process, the should try out the simple form the WAPO uses (seemingly at random). You simply put in your age, sex, & zip and **boom** there you go. It's quick, easy, and it's not enough to dissuade people from linking. Maybe these papers don't care about that because they're just interested in locals who're willing to go through the registration process, but if they want to expand their audience across the world, they need to make it easier for people to get to their content.
-- Back on June 13, Dick Cheney actually told people there could be a blackout...
"The report we issued last month presented more than 100 recommendations covering virtually the entire range of concerns that face the American people. One of the concerns, obviously, is the aging power grid and the growing problem that we have in getting electricity from the power plant to the light switch. It's clear that we must upgrade and expand the power grid. If we put more connections in place, we'll go a long way towards avoiding future blackouts. Another broad aim is to increase energy supplies from diverse sources; from oil and gas, renewables, coal, hydro and nuclear. This is the kind of balanced approach we think is essential if we're going to meet the country's energy needs down the road and take care of many of our other concerns, especially with respect to the environment."
Furthermore, the Bush administration has sent an energy bill to Congress that does deal with upgrading the power grid. But of course, the Democrats in the Senate have stalled it. I believe the President's bill may start getting a little more attention after this.
-- Ironically, the ADL and the other Jewish groups complaining about Mel Gibson's "The Passion" have probably increased the number of people who are going to see the movie by tenfold. I mean come on, just the fact that the whole movie is in Latin, Aramaic, & Hebrew would have discouraged a lot of people from seeing the movie. But now that there has been all of this controversy, people may decide to just watch the movie (here's a trailer) and see what all the fuss is about -- especially since most of the complaints about the movie have sounded really hysterical and silly. "OMG, we got an anti-semitic email, we blame Gibson's movie" or "We haven't seen the move yet, but we believe it's anti-semitic". Those sorts of ridiculous complaints actually make people pay less attention when real anti-semitism (which is common enough in these days and times) is pointed out.
If you're like I was a year ago, you're in trouble with money. You have bad credit and BIG debts, and you're looking for answers. I've been where you are now, and I know the secret to getting out.
I've done everything you would expect to make money. Lottery tickets? I tried that. Books on getting rich in the stock market? I bought a library of them. Online casinos? I lost a fortune in them. Day-trading using free internet stock tips emailed to me by anonymous people? Been there. Sending money to strangers in Nigeria? Done that.
Despite my efforts, all of the above systems actually caused me to have LESS money, not MORE. Just like you, I didn't understand. But then I discovered the secret. How to REALLY MAKE MONEY. The secret is this:
GET A JOB!!!!!!!!!!
I know what you're thinking! I didn't believe getting a job could work for me either. The other methods I'd tried all promised MILLIONS, and getting a job offered much less. But here is the secret: IT REALLY WORKS!!!!!!!!!
At first, it just didn't make sense. I applied for my first job and I was confused. I offered money to the guy who hired me and he acted like I was crazy. How could he not want money? Every other system I've tried wanted money up front, and then never delivered on the promise of more money in return at some later date. It was at that moment I knew I was on to something.
But friend, that was just the beginning. I worked hard, and after two weeks I GOT PAID. It was real $$$MONEY$$$ and NOT A LOAN. They told me the REAL CA$H I made was mine to KEEP FOREVER.
This AMAZING OPPORTUNITY is available to you as well. Give it a try and if you don't find yourself making HUNDREDS of dollars, EVERY WEEK.
Don't keep this life-changing secret to yourself! Please send this message to everyone you know!!!!!
If you enjoyed this satire by Shamus Young, you can see more of his work at The Lemon.
Fred Barnes isn't the first person to say something like this about President Bush...
"The case for Mr. Bush's conservatism is strong. Sure, some conservatives are upset because he has tolerated a surge in federal spending, downplayed swollen deficits, failed to use his veto, created a vast Department of Homeland Security, and fashioned an alliance of sorts with Teddy Kennedy on education and Medicare. But the real gripe is that Mr. Bush isn't their kind of conventional conservative. Rather, he's a big government conservative. This isn't a description he or other prominent conservatives willingly embrace. It makes them sound as if they aren't conservatives at all. But they are. They simply believe in using what would normally be seen as liberal means--activist government--for conservative ends. And they're willing to spend more and increase the size of government in the process."
I'm going to have respectfully disagree with Mr. Barnes here because I think Bush's love of "big government" has everything to do with politics and very little to do with ideology.
If there is such a thing as "big government conservatism", who are its adherents who aren't running for office? Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single conservative commentator who favors significantly expanding domestic programs and social spending. I'm not saying they don't exist, but the fact that I can't think of one off the top of my head tells you that they're a pretty small group if they're out there.
Now there are plenty of Conservatives who're willing to hold their nose and accept the fact that Bush is expanding the size of government because they think that's what it will take to win the White House. But that's no different than the Democrats who were willing to forgive Clinton for signing NAFTA and Welfare reform because they believed that's what it took for Clinton to get reelected.
Barnes goes on to say...
"Big government conservatives are favorably disposed toward what neoconservative Irving Kristol has called a "conservative welfare state." (Neocons tend to be big government conservatives.) This means they support transfer payments that have a neutral or beneficial effect (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) and oppose those that subsidize bad behavior (welfare). Mr. Bush wants to reform Social Security and Medicare but not shrink either."
Yes, but do they support those programs because they understand that they have to politically or because that's what they genuinely believe in? Moreover, even if you don't want to "shrink either" program, that doesn't make you a big government conservative. Considering the massive growth of both of those programs and the political impossibility of significantly shrinking either one of them, simply stopping them from growing would be very helpful in reducing the size of government over the long-term.
Because of the way politics works, politicians who are willing to compromise on their principles, especially when it comes to spending, have a big advantage over those who won't. Unfortunately, that's just how the system is designed. Bush understands that and is taking advantage of it. That doesn't make him a "big government conservative," it just makes him a crafty politician. There is a difference...
If you want to know why we desperately need term limits, you need look no further that these numbers from the latest Dick Morris' column...
"The political parties have conspired in a massive deal to protect one another's incumbents by so drawing congressional district lines that only four incumbent congressmen were defeated by insurgents from the other party - less than 1 percent of the body!"
This is going to sound radical to some of you, but in my opinion, the House has practically ceased to be a Democratic body. Sure, a screw-up like Cynthia McKinney might get tossed out once in a while, but she's the exception to the rule. Because of gerrymandering & incumbent fund raising and name recognition advantages, a seat in the house has essentially become a lifetime job. Then when a congressman retires -- and that is ALMOST ALWAYS the only realistic way to get rid of them unless redistricting changes the makeup of their district -- you're not really selecting a congressman to represent you for the next two years. In actuality, you're choosing someone who will probably be in power FOR LIFE if they so choose. Does anyone think it's healthy for our country to have congressman who know they can stay in office as long as they want once they're elected? I don't think so and that's the one of the reasons I strongly support Term Limits. It's not a cure-all for all the problems in our political process, but it would certainly be a major change for the better.
EPA Nominee Plans to 'Conquer and Dominate' Nature
Utah Gov. Michael O. Leavitt, President Bush's nominee for director of Environmental Protection (EPA), said he plans to drain and pave the nation's swamps, open all federal lands to vigorous strip mining and permit visitors to Yellowstone National Park to "harvest" one grizzly bear per day.
"Humans have a manifest destiny to conquer and dominate nature," said Gov. Leavitt. "No more will Americans be passive victims of nature's whims, allowing stupid amphibians to decide where we live and work and drive."
He suggested environmental protectionists "should be released into the wilderness where they can struggle for survival side-by-side with the bugs, grubs, weeds and vermin they love so well."
Although Gov. Leavitt has a record of protecting the air, water and land in his home state, he said he decided to "take a more aggressive stance" when he learned that the media would label him a conservative extremist in spite his actual record.
"The menu at the EPA cafeteria will include the meat of many endangered species," he added. "And we will immediately launch a PR campaign to improve the image of mercury-laden fish, which are surprisingly tasty despite what you may have read."
If you enjoyed this satire by Scott Ott, you can read more of his work at Scrappleface.
The Democratic Underground Post Of The Day -- The Blackout Is All Bush's Fault!
Anytime some bad happens there are always left wingers looking for a way to tie it to George Bush. Did it rain on your picnic? Then the Bush Family Evil Empire made it rain! Was your favorite TV show canceled? Bush probably made it happen because it was a threat to his reelection. Was there a huge power outage in the Eastern US & Canada? Then it must be Bush's fault...somehow or another. Multiple people at the DU explain how...
zekeson:"* is Culpable for the Blackout - Cheney must release papers
This wouldn't have happened in a rsponsible administration. The problems with the grid have been known about for some time and events such as an energy task force should have dealth with this very issue.
Clearly, the task force had other things on their collective pea brain, but, of course, as no papers of substance have been released, we can only assume those maps of Iraq wreen't there to fix the grid.
* needs to be hit long and hard on this one. Of course he also needs to be dogged about his performance today (this is a domestic problem..). Hitting * leads to Cheney and when he refuses this time to release his papers he should be removed from office. THIS is the end result of his collusion with folks who do not have the best interest of democracy and the United States in mind.
Hell, I don't know. I am in Minnesota and we gots power and air conditioning until the cows come home - which, actually, is pretty soon. Just thought I would try this idea out. Seems like this is something that should stick to *."
Monkey boy said the blackout is an interesting "lesson" for the country. He also added that he has always been in favor of modernization. $$$ He said that this isnÕt a terrorist attack, which begs the question, how does he knowThat when they donÕt know what caused the blackout?
How does the blackout help W and Republican interests?
a trial run to see what would happen if a nuke went off in NYC. The EMP would have roughly the same effect. Hmmmm, where did I leave my tinfoil hat?"
Of course, finding kooks at DU is like shooting fish in a barrel. What I really want to see is to see if any of the Democratic candidates for President try to blame this on Bush =) That what will be really interesting to watch...
"It underscores a blackout in this administration on energy policies," Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry said. "They have ignored the investment needs of our infrastructure in favor of a tax cut for the wealthy."
"Missouri Rep. Richard Gephardt argued that the blackouts can be linked to flaws in Bush and the Republican party's energy policy. "These events illustrate how shortsighted the Bush administration and Republican-controlled Congress were in 2001 when they rejected modernization of our nation's power grid," Gephardt said."
-- Ross Gittins writes an editorial LAMENTING all the choices we have today. Here are a few samples from one of the most ridiculous editorials I've read this year...
"But though some choice is obviously better than none, I think choice isn't all it's cracked up to be. In fact, I'm starting to think choice is one of the great cons of consumer capitalism. It's supposed to be a benefit to consumers, but more often it's a benefit to business.
For a start, consumers often find the choices they're presented with quite confusing. You're being asked to compare an apple with an orange.
....Psychologists tell us our brains are simply not capable of making rational choices between more than two options with differing features....
...Being able to choose gives customers the illusion of being in control. Against that, however, customers often find multi-faceted choices frustrating. No matter which way they jump, they're left with a sneaking suspicion they jumped the wrong way. To this extent, excessive choice makes people unhappy, not happy.
When it comes to deciding what to do with our time, we have a much wider choice than we used to in, say, the 1950s. For work we have to choose how many lunches or conferences to attend, how many newspapers and news bulletins to absorb. At weekends there's an infinite variety of leisure pursuits to pick from.
But I have a theory that so much choice is making us greedy. We rush from one thing to the next, trying to fit in as much as we can, while never getting to do all we'd hoped."
Ah, I see, if only we had LESS choices we'd all be happy. Think about what a better world it would be if only it were so! If only there were a government that made sure we all got the same phone service, listened to the same news, watched the same TV shows, ate the same lousy food -- hey wait, there are countries like that! Of course they're all run by dictators, Communists, and Islamo-Fascists and most people who live in them would love nothing better than to get the Hell out of there to anywhere they do have choices. But do they really know what's good for them? After all, they may live the lifestyle Gittins seems to think is so fantastic, but he's writing a column for a prestigious Aussie paper, so he must know better!
Now some of you may think I'm being to hard on Gittins, but this sort of thinking bugs the hell out of me. It reminds me of people talking about how wonderful these primitive cultures in the depths of the rain forest are and how terrible it is that they're being corrupted by exposure to Western culture. Meanwhile, these idealists never want to live in one of these cultures that they're lauding. Same deal here. Gittins talks about how awful all these choices are for consumers, but he isn't moving to a country like Cuba or North Korea where his choices would be greatly limited is he?
To the contrary, I bet he's taking advantage of his right to choose at every opportunity. I mean do you think Gittins would patronize a grocery store that opened up in his neighborhood that only carried 15 different items? Would he sign-up for a cable company with only 4 channels if he could get 20 channels for the same price at another company? Of course he wouldn't, because choice is not a "con", it's the essence of capitalism and what drives the market and makes it so responsive to people's needs. All of us (including Gittins) should be thrilled we have so many choices instead whinging about it.
I often get the impression that liberals don't have the foggiest understanding of how people become conservative. Maybe they believe radio talk show hosts hypnotize their listeners with the sound of their voice or Richard Mellon Scaife pays us all $5 a week under the table to vote Republican, but that's not how it actually happens. While I can't speak for every conservative, I can tell you how I became a right-winger. (Cont)
-- So Arnold is going to have Democrat Warren Buffet as his campaign manager? Could Schwarzenegger be anymore of a RINO? It's like having a musclebound Jim Jeffers running for governor of California and yet so many Republicans are getting excited about Arnold's candidacy. Since the choice is between a real Democrat (Davis) & a Democrat running as a Republican (Schwarzenegger), I can't say that I really care much one way or the other if Arnold gets elected or not. Of course, anybody, Terry Tate, Gary Coleman, porn star Mary Carey, heck, even Father Guido Sarducci, would do a better job than Davis. So as long as he gets recalled, California can't help but be better off.
-- Speaking of California, I don't think we can emphasize enough what a lousy job the Democrats who control the state from top to bottom have done. You have to go back DC under Marion Barry's or even the Carter administration to find politicians as incompetent as Gray Davis and company. Ann Coulter chimes in on the subject in her latest editorial...
"This is what happens when you let Democrats govern: You get a state – or as it's now known, a "job-free zone" – with a $38 billion deficit, which is larger than the budgets of 48 states. There are reports that Argentina and the Congo are sending their fiscal policy experts to Sacramento to help stabilize the situation. California's credit rating has been slashed to junk-bond status, and citizens are advised to stock up for the not-too-far-off day when cigarettes and Botox become the hard currency of choice. At this stage, we couldn't give California back to Mexico."
-- You know how you often hear lefties saying, "If we only took a small fraction of the money we spent on (defense, the war on drugs, whatever) and spent it on helping the Third World, we could make a huge difference in these countries." Of course, that ignores all the money that we've already poured into the Third World with only minimal results. Furthermore, if you believe the West can simply "give" the Third World enough money to pull them out of poverty, just look at these numbers and I think it'll change your mind...
"Kenya is a water-scarce country, but I believe that with efficient management of our water resources we can use the available water resources for the benefit of everybody and to cover all our needs," Karua said in an interview.
She said rebuilding Nairobi's crumbling water infrastructure with leaking pipes would cost over $80 billion, but much also needed to be done to eradicate corruption and misuse.
"In Nairobi around 40 percent of the water is unaccounted for," Karua said."
That's one problem in one country folks. Remember that and understand that these backwards countries are going to have to learn to help themselves if they're ever going to be more than perpetual basket cases.
-- I'm pleased to see that some of useful idiots who went to Iraq to help Saddam are having to pay a price for it back in the states...
"When Ryan Clancy went to Iraq to protest the war, he knew he was breaking the law. He thought the penalty was a $500 fine, a price he was willing to pay for the cause of peace.
But when Clancy recently got a call from federal officials, he learned the stakes are much higher. Authorities have fined Clancy $10,000, and if he doesn't pay, he could spend up to 12 years in prison.
Clancy, 26, of Milwaukee, is charged with violating sanctions the U.S. and other countries passed in the early 1990s prohibiting travel to and trade with Iraq....."
If you break the law in order to render aid & comfort to a foreign country we're about to go to war with, then you're getting off light if you only have to pay a $10,000 fine as far as I'm concerned.
New legislation requiring a Presidential "finding" for so-called "special ops" by U.S. military forces will help prevent terror attacks, according to a Senate source.
The finding, similar to that used for covert intelligence operations, would have to be sent to the Senate before the special operations force could be deployed.
"By forcing the President to send his finding to the Senate, we'll slow down special ops," said an unnamed Senate staffer. "We never want to startle our enemies, because it upsets them and gives them a reason to attack us."
Since Senators will have the Presidential finding before the special military operation, they can anonymously leak information to the media, thus ensuring that the enemy won't be surprised by the action.
"Our national defense depends on reducing things we do that might anger our enemies," said the source.
If you enjoyed this satire by Scott Ott, you can see more of his work at Scrappleface.
The Democratic Underground Post Of The Day -- Arnold & The Bush Terrorist Attack On Cali
The Du's own CaptainMidnight explains how Bush is going to deliver California to Arnold by engineering a terrorist attack (edited for brevity's sake)....
ALERT! Tinfoil Hat Theory: Why Arnie is running.
...We know the recall's about getting a Repub Gov. in office in order to make California easier to steal, or make the 2004 Election at least close ENOUGH to steal our precious Electoral votes. We know it has nothing to do with Gray Davis being crummy, really.
...I think Rove's got something particularly nasty up his sleeve this time that will change Arnold's fortunes dramatically. I mean, he's about to subject himself and Maria to more salient stories about what he calls "getting my helmet polished." This could be humiliating to him, even before he loses. But what if he "knew" the fix was in?
...My tinfoil hat theory is this:
ROVE/BUSH/CHENEY ARE GOING TO INSTIGATE SOME MIHOP (made it happen on purpose) TERROR ATTACK, BIO ATTACK IN THE US, MAYBE CALIFORNIA, WHEREBY CALIFORNIANS WILL BE CLAMORING FOR A "STRONG" GOVERNOR TO PROTECT US! THEY CAN FINISH THE JOB ENRON STARTED, AND GET A REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR TO HAND THEM THE STATE IN 2004.
At a time of a statewide crisis, like a bio attack on L.A., or some other MIHOP incident, we Californians won't stand for a milquetoast who stands for nothing, like Gray Davis, not a woman, for sure, like Arianna, but a "strong leader," and Americans will have that subconscious memory of Arnold's Terminator and Conan roles, the will reassure us that we are being protected when we see our "strong" man, Arnold, as our governor. Look at how Minnesota elected that hulking creep, Ventura.
Look at 9-11. I personally subscribe to the MIHOP Theory, not LIHOP (let it happen on purpose). You're telling me that they entrusted the carrying out of such an attack, the "New Pearl Harbor" as called for by PNAC and Zbigniev's book, upon which the New World Order will be launched, the Great Final Oil Grab, where Trillions upon Trillions of dollars are at stake, upon the abilities of 19 hijackers armed with boxcutters, and who failed flight school training???
Again, look at Bush's Presidency prior to 9-11. It was going nowhere fast. His poll numbers had just dipped down below 50. He was in the low 50's even before he went on his much-criticized "longest ever Presidential vacation." And yet he went anyway. Enron was about to explode. The Stock Market was about to crash. They were only 9 months into his Presidency, and already it was heading towards a "failed Presidency." Yet Bush & Co. knew something we didn't. Something that would come along and not only pull his feet outta the fire, but catapult him into the stratosphere of becoming Winston Churchill and Shane, combined. No one else saw that coming, right?
...Look at the Florida 2002 Election. They fixed that f*cker literally Six Ways From Sunday. They disenfranchised black voters, they had Republican operatives go into election offices and "correct" only Republican absentee ballots that were missing either the full name or voter registration #, the butterfly ballot in Palm Beach, they positioned Bush's First Cousin, JOHN ELLIS, as the FOX News election anchorman that night who, with no proof, simply called the state, and thus the Election for W. They then had the Supreme Court, ready and waiting, to stop the whole legal recount, if they needed them to. They didn't rely on just one thing!"
Here are a couple of other notable posts from the thread...
mopaul:"completely probable
many people still do not see that 9-11 is the awfullest hoax and atrocity ever committed here...well besides the native american genocide and slavery of africans and millions killed under our meddling actions all over the world. 9-11 was orchestrated in marble halls by men without souls or hearts. hollow men.
these guys won't accept defeat at all at this point. they've made too many gains and raked in too much cash and power to stop now. and 9-11 worked so well as a distraction, you can guarantee that they will do it again. dick has already said, it's not if but when."
DoYouEverWonder:"...Expect the US to fake the launch of a long range missile aimed at California or Alaska from NK. Heck, they don't even need to hit a target, just launching the darn thing, will be all they need for their excuse to launch an immediate and massive retalitory attack against NK. Expect the result to make 9-11 look like a car bombing.
Any election within two weeks of such an event, could assure a huge win for the Terminator, heck they could even get Mike Tyson elected to public office after that."
I do like the "Winston Churchill & Shane, combined" line though. You mix in some clips from "Shane", a Churchill speech, a little bit of Reagan, Dirty Harry and few good Bush clips like him saying Osama is "wanted dead or alive" and Bush walking around in the flightsuit and you have an aggressive, testosterone filled, manly, little video short that would be pretty cool. Heck, I'd put it together myself if I knew where to get all the clips...
Here are a few quotes from & about Howard Dean, the man RWN wants to see receive the Democratic nomination. If you want to know why I'm rooting for him, just read these quotes and imagine the campaign ads Karl Rove will be crafting around them next year if Dean goes head to head with Bush...
On Civil Unions & Civil Liberties
(9/11 & the aftermath will) “require a re-evaluation of the importance of some of our specific civil liberties. I think there are going to be debates about what can be said where, what can be printed where, what kind of freedom of movement people have and whether it's OK for a policeman to ask for your ID just because you're walking down the street." -- Howard Dean in Sepember of 2001
"[I]t was in many ways the most important event in my political life.' -- Howard Dean on Vermont's Civil Unions Law
On The War In Iraq
"We got rid of him. I suppose that's a good thing." -- Howard Dean on Saddam
"I think in general the ends do not justify the means." -- Howard Dean after we blew away Uday & Qusay Hussein
On Social Security
"I have never favored a Social Security retirement age of 70 nor do I favor one of 68." -- Howard Dean in August of 2003
"I would also entertain taking the retirement age up to 68." -- Howard Dean to NBC in June of 2003
"The way to balance the budget is for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Medicare and veterans pensions, while the states cut almost everything else. It would be tough but we could do it." -- Howard Dean in 1995
On Taxes
"Governor Dean would repeal all of the Bush tax cuts. And that would mean an increase in taxes on everybody, including the middle class and working families who don't deserve it now, can't take it, in fact need a break." -- Joe Lieberman on Howard Dean
"Dean not only advocates universal health insurance but also tells audiences that Vermont already has moved in that direction. . . . How to pay for this? Simple, says Dean. Roll back virtually all of President Bush's tax cut of 2001." -- David Broder
"I think most of the [P]resident's tax cut ought to be repealed. It's very bad economic policy." -- Howard Dean in July of 2002
Is He Electable?
"This 'security mom' thing is real. Women are even more hawkish than men. Until you can convince the voters that you, too, can keep the country safe, you don't get heard on the other stuff." Can Dean beat Bush? "Absolutely impossible." -- Jim Jordan, John Kerry's Campaign Manager
"A Dean nomination could again [mean] Democrats lose 49 out of 50 states." -- Mark Penn, Lieberman's pollster
Michael Moore Sues Al Franken for Infringement By Scott Ott
Michael Moore, author of 'Stupid White Men', filed suit today against Al Franken, author of 'Lies and Lying Liars Who Tell Them', for trademark infringement.
According to the lawsuit, "Michael Moore's 'bitter liberal' shtick is well established, and Mr. Franken has no right to confuse the reading public by releasing this sniping, vitriolic attack on conservative pundits."
Mr. Franken's attorney issued this brief statement: "Al Franken was an openly-bitter liberal before anyone had heard of Mr. Moore."
The 82-page court filing also claims that Mr. Franken's book "steals" Mr. Moore's thesis that conservatives are uniquely ignorant and dishonest.
If you liked this satire by Scott Ott, you can see more of his work at Scrappleface.
Remember how ridiculous Spike Lee looked when he sued Spike TV because he claimed people would associate the network with him? Well, Fox News has topped him. They're suing Al Franken for using the term "fair & balanced" in the title of his new book. Plus they had some really nasty things to say about Franken like...
"Franken is neither a journalist nor a television news personality," according to the complaint. "He is not a well-respected voice in American politics; rather, he appears to be shrill and unstable. His views lack any serious depth or insight."
Well, OK, so that one is true. But what about...
"Mr. Franken is also accused of verbally attacking Mr. O'Reilly and other Fox personalities on at least two occasions, and of being "either intoxicated or deranged" as he flew into a rage at a press correspondents' dinner in April 2003. Mr. Franken has not filed a response in court to the suit."
I'm betting on deranged. But setting aside Al Franken's odious personality, Fox is 100% in the wrong here.
First off, the phrase "fair & balanced" is certainly not exclusively associated with FOX & never has been whether they registered it as a trademark or not. To the contrary, that phrase is so commonly used that a Google search for the words "fair and balanced" pulls up 44,200 entries.
Moreover, the idea that consumers are going to confuse Al Franken's book "Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right," with a book written by someone at Fox News is about as likely that a dittohead is going to think "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" was penned by Rush himself. It's just not going to happen.
So since Fox has no legitimate complaint about Franken's book, why are they doing this? Could it be because that there are people at Fox with a grudge against Franken because of his ridiculous behavior (O'Reilly comes to mind) who want to put the screws to him? So they're suing him, making him pay out big bucks to a lawyer, and generally trying to get in the way of his book release just to get a little payback. If you got some people who work at Fox behind closed doors, I'm betting that's about what they'd tell you was happening.
But to me, that sort of silly behavior is just another reason why we need a loser pays principle in our justice system. When Fox loses in court (and they will if they take this all the way), they should have to pay at least a part of Franken's legal bills, if not all of them. Fox shouldn't be filing this frivolous lawsuit. But if they're determined to go ahead with it, then they should have to pick up the tab.
***Update***: Fox's brilliant strategy has driven Franken's book up to #4 on Amazon. Nothing like a little controversy to help you sell more books. If this suit wasn't so dumb, Franken's publicist would have to send Fox a fruit basket...
I did not hear it myself, but according to Classical Values, G. Gordon Liddy read an entire post from RWN on the air...
"John Hawkins says he was "very disappointed" to hear Rush Limbaugh (of whom he is a fan) airily dismiss blogging. But had this leading blogger been listening to Rush's competitor, the G. Gordon Liddy Show, he would have heard his very own blog (about bad reporting by the Washington Post) read on the air, and praised by G. Gordon Liddy."
When I asked for more detail, Eric from Classical Values added this in the comments...
"He read your entire piece on the Washington Post (the one in my link, titled "Where's The WAPO's Accountability?"), and praised it highly -- saying something like, "Here's a blogger who's nailed the Washington Post for inaccurate reporting." Then he used it to praise blogging in general for keeping big media honest. Sorry I can't be more verbatim-accurate; as I do not record the show, and am relying on memory."
Here are my top twenty favorite blogs on the net right now -- minus Scrappleface & IMAO which I decided to leave off because I use their material so often that it's hard to be impartial where they're concerned.
If you were left off, don't sweat it since the list changes over time -- well at least some. Just take a look at this old list from back in January and you'll see what I mean.
Public Service Announcement -- How To Beat The W32/Blaster-A Worm
The W32/Blaster-A Worm is wreaking havoc all across the net on anyone with a XP, NT, or Windows 2000 OS who doesn't have their security patches. This one is really spreading fast.
People hit with this worm are constantly being knocked off the net & forced to reboot.
The fix for this worm is the following patch. Then you can clean the worm off your system with this.
If you're on XP & are unable to download the patch before you're knocked offline, go here and you can get instructions to keep the virus from knocking you offline. That'll enable you to get the patch and removal tool.
***Update***: The LovSan worm (same thing) is spreading rapidly across Europe & Asia and according to the latest info in this article, "(n)early all versions of Windows are affected."
Left-Wing Bloggers Select The 20 Worst Figures In American History
I'm sure most of RWN's readers remember the Bloggers Select The 20 Worst Figures In American History article from last week. Well, that went over so well that I decided to do it again, but with left-wing bloggers making their selections this time.
I ended up asking more than a hundred left-wing bloggers for their choices and 36 responded. All bloggers were allowed to make anywhere from 1-20 selections. Also, I made a decision to combine the votes given to the Rosenbergs and Julius Rosenberg into one group since most people put the two of them together. Some people may disagree with that decision, but I thought it was the best way to go.
Well that's enough about the rules -- without further adieu, the worst figures in American history according to left side of the blogosphere are as follows...(Cont)
***Update***: A few things of note...
-- Because there were some bloggers complaining about all the contemporary figures on last week's list, these selections were probably skewed a bit away from those sorts of people (Bush, Cheney, Robertson, etc). A couple of people even mentioned that in the emails they sent me.
-- I think some of the min-trends were kind of interesting. Alger Hiss didn't make the left's list at all and the Rosenberg's barely made it. On the flipside, Jefferson Davis, Forrest, & Wallace didn't make the right's list.
-- I also note that Robert McNamara seems to be taking the fall for LBJ over Vietnam. Given how big of a screw up that was, perhaps even moreso from the left's perspective than the right, I'd think that someone would have finished higher than #18 for that screw-up, but that's just me. But then LBJ is my top 5, so I'm biased.
-- To me, the weirdest selection by far on either side was Richard Mellon Scaife. I say that because I don't consider him to be a particularly important figure on the right (although I wouldn't mind getting some of that moola he supposedly dishes out to right-wing groups he supports). Of course, Scaife sort of fits into that whole "Conservatives have had so much success in the last 20 years because of think tanks & radio stations funded shadowy rich guys" theme that seems to pop-up every so often on the left. On the other hand, maybe some lefties are just more bitter about the Arkansas Project than I thought.
-- This was a lot of fun and I will be doing it again -- this week as a matter of fact.
***Update #2***:Rex Stetson: Armchair Vigilante (what a great name for a blog) does some more statistical analysis of both lists.
