Goldberg and Guthrie

From Today's Hotline. Sorry the poll is so hard to read.

IL SEN Dem Primary Matchup
All Men Wom Wht Blk 3/1-3 Fav/Unfav
Obama 36% 33% 39% 26% 58% 22% 46%/ 15%
Hynes 21 24 18 30 2 20 43 / 12
Pappas 15 11 19 12 16 14 29 / 10
Hull 14 19 9 19 3 15 33 / 25
Chico 5 5 5 5 5 5 16 / 7
Skinner 1 1 1 2 - 1 11 / 7
Washington - - - - - - 9 / 5
Undec. 8 7 9 6 16 23

Simply Undefinable
Washington Post's Meyerson writes Obama "all but defies categorization" and would "certainly mark a radical departure for the stodgy Senate." If elected, he would be the Senate's "sole" black member and "just the third" since Reconstruction. But that "scarcely begins to describe the distinctiveness of Obama." His father was Kenyan, his mother "a white girl from Kansas." In the IL Sen., he developed a reputation as an "impassioned progressive who was able to get support on both sides of the aisle." Obama is the "progressives' darling" in the IL SEN race, getting "enthusiastic support from white Lake Shore liberals as well as the African-American community." He's won the endorsements of "virtually" all of IL"s major papers, many of which "note their disagreement with him" on the Iraq war but "hail him as a brilliant public servant." If elected, Obama "would also be the most distinctly American" of the Senate's members (3/12).

Ezra has discovered Obama. Hopefully that will drum up a little interest.

From Tapped:

Kind of reminds me of the time in 2001 when GOP personnel recruited a couple of dozen corporate lobbyists to serve as the audience for a Dennis Hastert speech praising Bush's first income tax. A memo to the lobbyists stated:

[T]he Speaker's office was very clear in saying that they do not need people in suits. If people want to participate -- AND WE DO NEED BODIES -- they must be DRESSED DOWN, appear to be REAL WORKER types, etc. We plan to have hard hats for people to wear. Other groups are providing waiters/waitresses, and other types of workers.
Classic.

The rest of the link is about Bush talking up his economic "record" to workers who were cheering wildly. It turned out that the workers actually didn't speak English and therefore had no idea what the Prez was talking about but knew they were supposed to cheer.

Research 2000 IL poll of Dem LVs found Barack Obama with 36% support;
Dan Hynes 21%; Maria Pappas 15% and Blair Hull 14%. A poll of GOP LVs
found Jack Ryan with 36% support; Jim Oberweis 16%; Andrew McKenna 11%
and Steve Rauschenberger 10%

Don't have any internals; any idea how many were polled; any idea of margin of error; any idea of anything.

Pandagon linked to this. There is a God.

The fucking U.S. Congress, full of fucking cowards who are fucking idiots and who have no fucking idea how to run a fucking country, overwhelmingly passed the fucking "Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004." See fucking article here. (Fucking being used as adjective in this case - it's not an article about fucking.)

Thanks to this act, I suppose I could be fined $500,000 if I read the above on the radio. Among other things, the law "increases maximum fine against a performer from $11,000 to $500,000 and allows the Federal Communications Commission to impose the penalty after the first offense. Under current rules, the FCC must wait for a second offense."

Worst of all, for those who care about freedom of speech and what-not, the bill passed with wide bipartisan support.

How could a so-called open minded liberal justify voting for this? How could a so-called small government conservative justify voting for this? ("The government is only good at a few limited tasks - providing a police force, providing for the common defense, and of course fining individuals a half million dollars if they say something over the airwaves that a random bureaucrat at the FCC fines indecent.") I haven't seen a breakdown of the vote yet - to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised at all if more Republicans voted against it than Democrats.

I hope that this bill will be found unconstitutional. Any clerks out there want to tell me what the chances are? Obviously, the Court has held that Congress can regulate the broadcast industry. Is there some sort of chilling effect here? Won't any speech approaching controversial be stopped if there is a credible risk of an individual being fined $500,000 without any kind of a warning?

Of course, nobody- least of all a Presidential candidate or other politician - will speak up against the bill because it would associate one with offensive figures - Howard Stern and Bubba the Love Sponge or whatever that guy's name is. But that's how attacks on free speech usually work - they are made against unpopular people.

What a bunch of fucking cowards are in the Congress of the United States.

Now, I'm no lawyer,** but this strikes me as infringement or mark dilution or something:

ABC News' Jake Tapper talked to comedian and actor Al Franken, whose show, "The O'Franken Factor,'' is one of the cornerstones of Air America's programming. Franken, no stranger to taking on the right wing as the author of the books "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right" and "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot," said he hopes to do to conservatives what his nemesis, Mr. Limbaugh, does so successfully to liberals.

"'It's like ju-jitsu,' Franken told ABC News. 'You use what they say against them and use it to hold them to scorn and ridicule. So there will be a lot of ridicule.'"

**Actually, I am a lawyer. Oh, and this link is for The Note, so it will expire today, I guess.

To follow up on this post below, it seems that maybe this guy isn't going to be named as manufacturing "czar," at least not today. From my hometown paper:

Washington- After a half-year of waiting, the Bush administration appears poised to name its "manufacturing czar," a high-level official who will tend to the nation's struggling factories.

But the nomination of Tony Raimondo, chairman and chief executive officer of Nebraska-based Behlen Manufacturing Co., still might have to wait. Despite a Commerce Department announcement earlier Wednesday that it would name the manufacturing czar today, it appeared later that the administration was struggling to secure key Senate support.

The Commerce Department later said an announcement has been postponed "due to scheduling conflicts." The administration did not release the name of Raimondo, but several other sources did. Raimondo, the son of a Buffalo, N.Y., steelworker, heads an employee-owned company that makes livestock equipment, steel buildings and grain storage systems.

These guys in the WH can't seem to do anything right. Once again, to repeat, Karl Rove is not the genius everyone makes him out to be. He used fear and loathing pretty well for a time, and that's about it. I wonder if they'll have to bring the Velvet Hammer back for the reelection campaign.

And, while outsourcing doesn't get me all hot and bothered, because the job market sucks for other reasons, it should be noted that this Raimondo character has a plant or two in China and only recently (last 2-4 years) outsourced jobs there. Nice choice, Bush! (oh, and this fact goes under the rubric "Some facts are too good to check." But I have heard from a somewhat reliable source that this is true).

I also saw part of Bill O'Reilly's interview with Jason Blair tonight. My immediate response was to quote the otherwise forgettable movie State and Main: "Well... that just happened."

Andrew Sullivan describes it perfectly:

"So what does Blair do now? What would you do if you wanted the purest, darkest revenge against the newspaper that eventually rejected you? You'd go on Bill O'Reilly and you would describe the New York Times as a den of leftist, ideological conformity in which any dissent from left-liberalism is tantamount to career suicide. You'd confirm the most paranoid critic's view that the NYT is as objective as a MoveOn ad. Watching the spectacle last night had my jaw drop close to the floor."

What isn't captured by this is the unbelievable hilarity of O'Reilly - after Blair has described the Times as the liberal den of horrors that O'Reilly has long imagined - asking the tough follow-ups. "Are you telling me truth here?... You're not just saying what I want to hear are you?... Are you telling me the truth here, Blair?" Yes, no man who routinely filed completely false stories with the most important newspaper in the world could possibly keep lying in the face of this awesome interrogation.

(In the interest of full disclosure: I didn't watch the whole interview because it was making me sick and I didn't quote the part of Andrew Sullivan's post where he indicates that Blair might be right about some of the things he said about the Times: go read it for yourself if so inclined)

The below talk about Libya just makes me thankful for the fatal blow the Libyan's WMD program took in the mid 1980s, when they lent plutonium to an American scientist only to have him and his wise-cracking side kick use it to build a time machine.

Of course, I'm sure in 2024 plutonium will be available in every corner drug store. But in 2004 it's a very rare substance.

I only pray that in the future we don't become assholes or something.

[If they ever remake that movie in 2005 and Bush is reelected a good scene could take place in 1975 between Marty and Doc.

Doc: OK - who's president in 2005?
Marty: George W. Bush.
Doc: George W. Bush? The coked-up son of the former chairman of the Republican party?
Marty: Doc!
Doc: And I suppose Timothy Leary is secretary of state! So long, future boy...]

For me, this would almost make a Bush reelection worth it.

Some supporters of the President respond to criticisms that Iraq posed no threat to the United States by citing the moral case for war and the liberation of the Iraqi people. Can someone tell me why Libyans' freedom is so much less important? By giving up his WMD program, has Gadafi purchased the right to continue the human rights abuses detailed here by Amnesty International? (Admittedly, not as bad as Saddam's - but not good either.)

Of course, the United States can't go into every country and stop every human rights violation. That's why it matters whether or not the President told us the truth about the threat posed to us by Iraq - and that's why the response that "even if we did go in on the basis of flawed intelligence we still did a lot of good" is so dishonest.

By the way, I still support the war in Iraq - because, and this is a justification Bush never gave, the human atrocities going on there were partially our fault. Perhaps we were justified in using the Saddam and the Iraqi people as a pawn against the USSR and Iran - but we were obligated to fix the problem. I have no problem with the United States using its military strength in the cause of enforcing international human rights standards, and I have no problem with the evil leaders of the world (I am comfortable using that term, unlike some on the left) knowing that we reserve the right to displace their regime at any time. But this was not the justification that Bush set forth - and as proven by Libya, it is not the basis on which he conducts his foreign policy.

I was watching 60 Minutes II tonight - and they interviewed the "prime minister" (actually, an economic advisor) and one of Gadafi's sons (one NOT killed as a baby by US bombs and apparently the heir apparent).

Well, you know the typical Republican line? We went to war with Saddam; Gadafi got scared; so he agreed to stopped his WMD program. The media trumpeted it: see here (and note how the spirit of the headline is not backed up by the substance of the story - Gadafi just acknowledges that the war played some role in his decision). Looks like someone forgot to tell these two: both of them said they began reaching out to the US two years ago - because the sanctions imposed on their country were making any WMD program insanely unprofitable.

I haven't studied Libya extensively - and frankly I trusted both these guys about as far as I could throw them. (Even in full US-ass-kissing mode, the son was unable to say that he had forgiven the US for killing his two year old sister.) But right now, wouldn't it be in their interest to make Bush/the U.S. look as good as possible?

This just came across the wire (isn't that what news-types say?):

BC-BUSH-MANUFACTURING (UPDATE 1)
UPDATE 1-Bush picks Nebraska CEO as manufacturing czar
(Adds more details on Raimondo, Kerry criticism)
By Caren Bohan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President
Bush, battling for votes in states that have suffered hefty
manufacturing job losses, has chosen a Nebraska executive to
fill a newly created post of manufacturing "czar," industry
sources said Wednesday.

Sources said an announcement would be coming soon of Bush's
decision to pick Tony Raimondo, chairman and chief executive
officer of Columbus, Nebraska-based Behlen Manufacturing Co.,
for the job.

Bush promised on Labor Day in September last year to create
the new position. Raimondo's official title would be assistant
secretary of commerce for manufacturing and services. Democrats
had criticized Bush for taking months to fill the post.

Several battleground states in this year's presidential
election, such as Ohio, which Bush visited Wednesday, have
been hard hit by job losses in recent years.

Raimondo also serves on the board of the National
Association of Manufacturers. Behlen makes buildings, grain
bins, silos and other infrastructure for the farm industry.

In a congressional hearing in June 2002, Raimondo testified
about a sensitive issue for the manufacturing industry -- the
value of the dollar.

He complained then that the U.S. currency's strength was
causing great pain to small and mid-sized manufacturing
companies.

"There is a major factor beyond our control that has tilted
the global playing field against us and is causing extremely
serious harm to America's (small and medium-sized
manufacturers) -- and that factor is the overvaluation of the
U.S. dollar," Raimondo said in testimony to the House
Small Business Committee.

The dollar has been on a downtrend recently.

Even before the announcement was official, Bush's rival for
the presidency, Democrat John Kerry, issued a statement through
a campaign spokesman criticizing it.

"After losing 2.5 million manufacturing jobs, George Bush
has finally realized there's a problem," Kerry campaign
spokesman Chad Clanton said in a statement. "It's too little,
too late. Mr. President, putting another bureaucrat in the
Department of Commerce isn't going to get people back to
work."

(Additional reporting by Steve Holland)
REUTERS

My thoughts: This is a sad attempt to avoid being labeled as out of touch. But more importantly, it's an attempt to avoid being called a flip-flopper. Because, as the report says, Bush promised he'd do this in September, and he hasn't done shit until today. I mean, substantively, who cares if there's some undersecretary for manufacturing jobs? There's not much anyone can do without substantially overhauling administration policy (and even that wouldn't do a whole lot for manufacturing jobs, per se.) But, this smacks of desperation. Why today and not last September? Or any day between September and now? Oh, and I wrote this before seeing the Kerry reply.

Oh, and this does not strike me as a big story. One day max, as this person will have no real power and make no real difference, and everyone knows it, including this Tony character.

And, now that I read the whole thing--this is more China-bashing and talking down the dollar, which John Snow tried last fall. I do understand that there some pros to having a weaker dollar. This is really Brad Delong territory--he posted a bunch on this last fall, and the link here goes to one of those posts.. But, basically, this is the wrong way to talk down the dollar, because it signals to everyone that we want a weaker dollar, even if it means that U.S. currency is no longer the currency of choice. And that is very bad from a current account standpoint.

Ramesh "Ram" Ponnuru at National Review Online writes:

FROM BLOOMBERG.COM [Ramesh Ponnuru]

In Chicago today, Kerry stepped up his criticism of Bush supporters' tactics. Told by a worker to "tell it like it is," Kerry said, "We are going to keep pounding, let me tell you, just beginning to fight here. These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I've seen. It's scary."

Spokesman David Wade later told reporters traveling with Kerry to Washington that the candidate was referring to "the Republican attack machine'' that ran ads against Arizona Senator John McCain during the 2000 Republican primary and against Georgia Democrat Max Cleland, who lost his Senate re-election race in 2002.

My comment: The legend of Max Cleland, like that of South Carolina 2000, are for today's Democrats what Willie Horton was for an earlier breed: examples of horrible Republican campaign tactics that no amount of argument will convince them to relinquish.

My comment to his comment: yeah, pretty much. I don't see any reason to relinquish.

We've talked a bit in this space about how the media trots out John McCain as if he's some all-knowing svengali. "But Mr. Senator, John McCain yesterday said that babies suck. Are you here telling us today that John McCain is wrong?!?!"

I think that's silly, and while there are parts of McCain I like, there are parts I dislike (didn't he want to send a division or two of ground troops into Serbia along with many of our "these sound sweet but actually suck" Apaches?). Also, if McCain really were a straight shooter he'd have left the GOP and become an independent (albeit one who would vote with the GOP and most things, as he is a pretty conservative guy).

But I got this McCain quote of political wire.

On Good Morning America, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was asked if he'd accept an offer to be Kerry's number two: "John Kerry is a close friend of mine... Obviously I would entertain it... But I see no scenario where that would happen."

I'd like to know what's hidden in those ellipses, as I cannot believe that he said he'd entertain such an offer.

1) He seems far too sympathetic to the neocon worldview to join a Kerry administration (although he is not a neocon and understands that just because you say something will be a cakewalk won't make it so).

2) I mean, he's stuck with the GOP so far, so why would he leave now.

3) Finally, I would think he enjoys his "above-the-fray Media-god" status and that would be jeopardized if he took the oh-so-political VP slot.

Mark my words, we will all come to regret that stupid campaign finance reform act that was passed a few years ago. See this.

You know, when we were having our pissing match on here about Scalia and Thomas the other day, Goldberg and Guthrie forgot to praise them for their vote against this bill. I do so now.

However, as Goldberg pointed out to me yesterday, it is impossible for anyone to be against this bill because John McCain is for it. (The media generally cite McCain's support of something as proof positive that it is a good idea.)

Also, just so conservatives don't get excited, I support full public financing of all campaigns - and if your opponent spends his or her own money, you get to match it with public funds. OK, I just made that last part up. Also, I support forcing the networks to provide free air time, etc. Also, I support a government program to solve all my problems.

Back to horrendous document review.

Finally, a Judge Frank Easterbrook citing in the Blogosphere. Albeit it's not on a real blog and it's by his brother. Well, I have a question for Judge Frank: What was with the B+ in Legal Interpretation? Just because I didn't give him a handjob in my second paper on the Coal Miner's Dilemma problem (or whatever it's called). I say...bullshit. Especially since I did give him the metaphorical handjob with my first paper on public choice.

ok, that's enough of that.

I put up a link to The Poor Man the other day. The guy or guys or people who run that site probably have never been here, but it's really good, so I suggest you all check it out. He's not prolific, but he writes way better than most.

Your daily dose of polls. I'd really like a tracking poll, but I haven't seen any. Anyone know of one?

A Chicago Tribune/WGN IL SEN poll of Dem LVs showed Barack Obama with 33% support; 19% for Dan Hynes and 16% for Blair Hull. GOP LVs picked Jack Ryan with 32%; 11% for Jim Oberweis and 10% for Andy McKenna Jr.

Neil Cavuto provided some more Common Sense today on Foxnews. He said this:

"The media sees a 5.6 percent unemployment rate and calls it bad. I see a 94.4 percent employment rate and I see it pretty good."

I was going to comment on this, but rather, I thought I would post four things below, two of which are other quotes from this commentary and two of which I've made up. Try to guess which is which, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

1.) "I hear a good deal about the 1.5 percent of bad priests, but never, not once, anything remotely positive said about the 98.5 percent who are good priests."

2.) "I hear a lot about a few corporate crooks. But I hear nothing about the thousands of publicly listed companies that aren't crooks."

3.) "I hear a lot about millions of people around the world dying of hunger - but never do I hear anything about the bounteous amount of food available in the United States."

4.) "I hear a lot of talk about some African Americans not having their votes counted in the 2000 election - but never do I hear it mentioned by the New York Times that large numbers of minorities, far more than 50%, did have their votes counted."

Answers in the comments...

From Yahoo or Reuters (I don't know if Yahoo puts its own headlines on Reuters stuff or not):

Stocks Fall on Worries Over Stock Prices

They tend to do that, huh?

Below, in the comments, we were debating whether or not the Kerry campaign's attacking Bush for the 9/11 ads constituted "politicizing 9/11" in its own right. We came to some sort of consensus, which was basically that it sort of is, and to that extent, Kerry and his surrogates should not do so. This, however, is the right way to bring 9/11 into the presidential race:

Kerry, who has accused Bush of impeding a federal commission investigating the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, said Monday while campaigning in Florida, ``If the president of the United States can find time to go to a rodeo, he can spend more than one hour before the commission.''

Via Atrios. This is more than a legitimate campaign issue--it's a legitimate moral issue. Keep at it, JFK.

Is our President adding? From TPM:

A calculator is a terrible thing to waste ...

"The labor force typically expands by about 150,000 a month. This has led economists to estimate that payrolls must rise by more than 200,000 a month to reverse the damage in the job market."

Dallas Morning News
January 10th, 2004

"We've added more than 350,000 new jobs over the last six months. The tax relief we passed is working."

George W. Bush
Dallas, Texas
March 8th, 2004

Where's that calculator?

Once again, a purely cut-and-paste post.

From Eric Zorn:

WLS-Ch. 7 released a Senate primary poll of "more than 1,000 voters" Sunday night.

GOP top four:

Jack Ryan 45%
Jim Oberweis 13%
Andy McKenna 10%
Steve Rauschenberger 7%
(undecided 21%)

Democratic top 4

Barack Obama 28%
M. Blair Hull 21%
Dan Hynes 17%
Maria Pappas 11%
(undecided 14%)


The good news for Hynes is that he's still clearly within striking distance of Obama; the good news for Obama is that WLS-Ch. 7 is finding him out in front even though though 50 percent of Democrats are not yet familiar with him.

And,as the landslide of editorial-board endorsements suggests, to become familiar with Obama is to have great respect and admiration for him.

A classic cut-and-paste post by me.

Could someone explain to me why it is that when Bush runs an ad with images from 9/11 he is "exploiting" the tragedy, but when Democrats obviously coordinate a political response using families of 9/11 victims they are somehow not exploiting it?

If groups of victims' families were genuinely outraged and organically (if you will) expressed this outrage to the media, good for them. However, if Democrats were behind it - as seems probable - it seems to me they are just exploiting it all over again.

I am lost and confused right now... it is a Monday morning, and Slate has yet to tell me what I should think about last night's Sopranos.

UPDATE: I know what to think now.

Atrios has a nice little post on the not-so-subtle differences in how the media portray gay life vs. straight life:

So, I'm watching this 60 minutes piece on the "gay Episcopal Bishop" Gene Robinson. I think they've referred to him as a "practicing homosexual" about 15 times. I'm not entirely sure what a "practicing homosexual" is, as opposed to a "non-practicing homosexual." I think the phrase is just meant to conjure up nasty images of hot bishop-on-man sex in the minds of viewers. The piece also thought it was almost scandalous that he (shudder) went to a GAY BAR AFTER THE THEATER with his daughter. A gay bar being a place that tends to, you know, attract mostly gay people and into which therefore no right-minded moral person would ever dare enter. As opposed to "normal bars" which, you know, attract primarily straight people for their Bible Groups and for other acts of morality.

That "practicing" idea is quite odd. Obviously, it has to do with the fact that many fundamentalist types (not to mention the Pope) seem to think that it's not a sin to be homosexual, but it is a sin to do homosexual things. To see the media apparently approvingly acknowledge this.... We constantly here how the so-called liberal media may not be truly liberal on economic/fiscal issues, but they definitely are on social issues. I guess not.

Jack Ryan seems to be officially running on a "Starve the Beast" platform, at least according to his TV ads. Brad DeLong takes down that whole idea here.

There's been a lot of talk about the Bush/Cheney 04 ads that feature ground zero. You can watch them here. I was telling a friend yesterday that I don't really care too much, but I think that anything that keeps BushCo on the defensive is pretty much cool in my book, even if, as a matter of principle, I don't necessarily agree. Also, I find this as much interest group politics (9/11 widows and firefighters) as anything else. That said, if there's a chance Bush can be kept on the defensive on this, the ridiculous GOP convention in New York might end up the PR disaster is should be.

In any event, I think Ezra, who seemingly has the same "who really cares" reaction I had, is on to something here:

The coordinated response to these ads has been absolutely spectacular. Head on over to Google News and check out the headlines. The number of people who'll see Bush Campaign Defends Use of 9/11 in TV Ads far outnumbers those who'll see the ad, and the direct accusation of politicizing 9/11 is far more effective than the subtle suggestion of leadership on that day. The Kerry Campaign has been employing a scorched earth strategy; whatever Bush does, they attack so hard and so fast and so mercilessly that the Bush Campaign is left in the rubble of their original intentions. Now people are on watch for Bush politicizing 9/11, Kerry just framed the media! It's a level of efficacy I've never seen from Democrats; it's so powerful that Bush has brought Karen Hughes back onboard to help out. But I don't know where they go from here. The Bush Campaign is very good on the offense and their actions have usually shocked opponents into recriminations (how dare you say that!?) or fear (on no! A flight suit!), but they're so completely on the defense here that even their attacks are being turned against them and they seem woefully unable to grab a foothold.

I think he might be wrong on some of this (do more people really read AP than watch commercials? and when DID Karen Hughes come back on board?), but yeah, Kerry is hitting back quickly, and that's exciting to see.

UPDATE: This post really didn't turn out as well as I hoped. I guess it's ok, though, for a lazy, dog-dangling Saturday (not to be confused with that fake Saturday last Wednesday).

A new Chicago Southtown (part of the Sun-Times family, apparently) poll:

HOW CANDIDATES FARED

THE DEMOCRATS:
Barack Obama: 28 percent
M. Blair Hull: 23 percent
Dan Hynes: 22 percent
Maria Pappas: 10 percent
Gery Chico: 3 percent
Joyce Washington: 3 percent
Nancy Skinner: 1 percent
Not sure: 11 percent


THE REPUBLICANS:
Jack Ryan: 44 percent
Jim Oberweis: 18 percent
Andy McKenna: 10 percent
Steve Rauschenberger: 4 percent
Other: 6 percent
Not sure: 18 percent

On the front page of today's Chicago Tribune is the banner headline "Padilla Gets to Talk to His Lawyers." There's a big picture of Jose Padilla himself next to the headline.

Let's get this straight: THIS SHOULD NOT BE BIG NEWS IN THIS COUNTRY!!! The fact that some guy gets to talk to his lawyer--good god!

On a related note, I'm reminded of what Barack Obama said at our fundraiser on Monday night. He was giving his stump speech and started talking about how, if one Arab-American (of which Padilla is not) is rounded up without due process, we're all a little less free, even if we're not Arab-American. If one family has to choose between putting food on the table and seeking medical care, we're all a bit less well off. He had several others of these, and they struck a nerve, mainly because I've been thinking along these lines for a while now.

For, if one man is shipped off to Syria to be tortured at our government's behest because his uncle may have attended an Al-Queda camp, there is no justice for any of us in this country. Not for me, not for you, not for anyone.

Gregg Easterbrook makes a bizarre defense of hard-core porn today. And I mean bizzare in the sense that he's making it at all.

I'll pause briefly to note what many have noted before: Why rail against sex in the movies instead of against violence? Wouldn't it be better that people watch sex than watch--well, you know the rest. Here's the twist that Easterblogg wishes to add. Fly-by-night houses may make disgusting porn that is obscene in the legal sense. But these days mainstream porn studios such as Vivid Video, the number-one producer of porn in the United States, are more responsible in what they present to audiences than the big corporate studios. Vivid Video--originator of "pretty porn," today the most popular form of video pornography because men and women can watch it together--never depicts any form of violent behavior. In Vivid movies all acts are consensual, everyone's having a good time and scenes always begin and end with smiles. Vivid flicks show couples, threesomes and foursomes performing acts you might not have believed possible. But no one is ever depicted as harmed or threatened, and depictions of rape or murder are absolutely out of the question.

Ok, fine, I guess. But you are a successful writer and this is what you choose to write on? I find that odd. But it is part of his old hobby horse "I like sex but not violence" thing. Could any of my sources at the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals get me a response from the good judge?

Brad DeLong writes that Kerry is getting serious with the deficit:

It's a very good sign that Roger Altman is taking the lead on putting together the first draft of the Kerry budget priorities document. Roger Altman is very good people: highly competent, steeped in the issues, allergic to the magic asterisk. Moreover, he has the right values--fear of an inefficient and incentive-incompatible tax system, attachment to fiscal prudence as a way of accelerating economic growth, and an understanding of the good that well-designed government spending can do.

I had never hear of this Altman character, but this is good news. I was beginning to think that Kerry's deficit rhetoric was just that. It was reason #2 I had supported Dean (#1 was his success in VT re: Healthcare). The key now is to make sure the public knows that Bush's deficit talk is "all hat and no cattle" and Kerry's has some substance. Because Bush will do all he can to claim that he's a "deficit hawk."

For all you New York-area readers, there's going to be a tribute concert for Townes Van Zandt's 60th birthday that will benefit the Bowery Homeless Mission this Saturday (via Altercation). Jed, others...you should go. Good cause, great singer-songwriter who died before his time.

I learned today on Mustang Bobby's blog that Jerome Lawrence has died. He was one of the authors of Inherit the Wind - a play we should all read today.

I was in that play in high school, and it has always had an effect on me.

"All motion is relative. Perhaps it is you have moved away - by standing still."

Over at David Neiwert's blog, he posts a reader's email that gives, most likely, the definitive view of this movie. Some choice bits:

2) The film is only anti-Semitic if you consider it anti-Semitic to portray Jews as an unruly crowd of evil, hook-nosed Christ killers.

22) When Jesus died on the cross, he proved his divinity by causing a massive earthquake that destroyed the Jewish temple. So, even the unbelieving Jews must know the truth of Jesus. Acting like they don't is just evil. This cannot be interpreted as anti-Semitic under the current definition.

26) The bloopers reel that plays over the credits is really a great piece of work. There was this one scene where Jim fell down when he was supposed to be carrying the cross through the streets, and he just kept tripping over his feet. Falling down again and again. Ha! Oh wait, I think that made it into the final cut.

Most of them (there are 40) are quite good. Not that I really want to pass judgment on the film, as I have not seen it.

The Daily Howler incomparably notes that this questions was asked in the last Democratic Debate:

"BUMILLER: Really fast, on a Sunday morning, President Bush has said that freedom and fear have always been at war, and God is not neutral between them. He’s made quite clear in his speeches that he feels God is on America’s side.

Really quick, is God on America’s side?"


All those in Chicago (particularly those who ride the El): wouldn't you say Goldberg and Guthrie is the best blog in town, in a "we got Metromix they got bubkus" kind of way?

I don't know if anything makes me more depressed than reading those ads on the train on the way to work in the morning. Just thought I'd share.

(Also, go read the whole Daily Howler - it's very funny.)

According to the Washington Post (as linked to by Andrew Sullivan), the Republicans are planning to schedule controversial Senate votes in order to force Kerry (or Edwards) into unpopular liberal positions.

Among these votes could be the ever popular, and beyond idiotic, flag burning amendment. I guess this is how the Founders envisioned the Constitutional Amendment process - to be used as a political wedge issue in Presidential election years.

As much as I usually enjoy watching Republicans do terrible things that confirms my suspicions of them, I genuinely hope that this is not true.

UPDATE: Actually, Sully's take on this is better than mine (shockingly, since he gets paid to do this):

"Flag-burning, fag-burning. Anything for a few votes. And what's really amazing is how cynically these alleged conservatives use the Constitution itself for their partisan ends. One word: sickening."

Reliable Sources tell G&G that exit polls show John Kerry is at over 50% in every state except Vermont.

Unreliable sources tell G&G that Howard Dean may actually be winning Vermont. I don't even remember where I saw that, so it's definitely unreliable.

Despite her many flaws, she was the owner of the only Cincinnati team to win a championship in my lifetime. Also, I got her autograph at a game when I was a kid and she seemed nice enough. I really wish she hadn't said all those things or, I really wish she hadn't thought them.

Go check out the atrios post on this Paul Cameron guy. He mentions how it reads like a parody, and he's right. If you ever wanted proof that, yes, many anti-gay bigots are actually self-hating closeted homosexuals who haven't learned how to deal with feelings that, in reality, are perfectly natural (although certainly in the minority), this is as close to hard proof as you'll get. Unbelievable.

Here's what this Paul Cameron guy says:

"Untrammeled homosexuality can take over and destroy a social system," says Cameron. "If you isolate sexuality as something solely for one's own personal amusement, and all you want is the most satisfying orgasm you can get- and that is what homosexuality seems to be-then homosexuality seems too powerful to resist. The evidence is that men do a better job on men and women on women, if all you are looking for is orgasm." So powerful is the allure of gays, Cameron believes, that if society approves that gay people, more and more heterosexuals will be inexorably drawn into homosexuality. "I'm convinced that lesbians are particularly good seducers," says Cameron. "People in homosexuality are incredibly evangelical," he adds, sounding evangelical himself. "It's pure sexuality. It's almost like pure heroin. It's such a rush. They are committed in almost a religious way. And they'll take enormous risks, do anything." He says that for married men and women, gay sex would be irresistible. "Marital sex tends toward the boring end," he points out. "Generally, it doesn't deliver the kind of sheer sexual pleasure that homosexual sex does" So, Cameron believes, within a few generations homosexuality would be come the dominant form of sexual behavior.

wow.

The posting has been light of late, as social and employment obligations have called. I apologize to all of our loyal readers: those readers in big and small media; those reader who work at law firms; those readers who are simple government bureaucrats; those readers who are mothers to either Goldberg or myself; and finally to those readers who are Goldberg.

On Friday night I was talking with some fellow Democrats and, comfortingly, with voters best described as Independents who voted for Bush in 2000 and will not, under any circumstances, vote for him this time around. The conversation turned to what a stupid man Bush is - a common theme.

What oh what must happen in order for us to stop underestimating this man? Ann Richards laughed at him when he ran for governor of Texas. He won. He then beat the Vice President of the administration that had presided over the largest peace time expansion of the economy in American history. He became President without the support of the majority of the country, and yet has enjoyed widespread approval and support for nearly three straight years. While Democrats have dominated the political news cycle during all of 2004, he has quietly raised upwards of $100 million. He has spent none of it. Yet, he continues to lead either Kerry or Edwards in national polls - even though the economy is worse than it was when he took over, and the war that he lead us into has become more and more unpopular.

He has used this support to effect real change. He has passed his tax cut, passed his drug benefits bill, reshaped our foreign policy and appointed conservative judges to the bench.

Now, he has risked that political capital and is throwing his support behind a Constitutional Amendment - a move that politically could best be described as a gamble. Although many Democrats claim that this issue has been forced upon us by Bush in order to divide us - in fact, it has not. It has been forced upon us by gay people who want to be married. The Democratic response? We must leave this issue up to the states, and talk about other things.

Bush is doing what a leader does - he is standing up for something that at least resembles a principle. Granted, it is a principle of fear and anger and a perversion of a religion based on love and forgiveness into a political ideology based on hate. But he is acting like a President - and he is acting like and is a person who has a clear (if terrifying) vision of where he wants to lead this country and the ability to lead us there.

If this rant was unclear - we shouldn't misunderestimate this man again. We should just beat him. That's all.

UPDATE BY GOLDBERG: Bush/Cheney '04 has spent $39.1M as of the end of January.

"Update" has been edited for accuracy

UPDATE BY GUTHRIE: This may be true, and if so I apologize, but Bush/Cheney '04 is about to run its first major advertising campaign, which is what I should have said.

With Kevin Drum

SERIOUS ABOUT OSAMA....Speaking of Osama, this is the second time recently that I've seen a story like this:

"President Bush has approved a plan to intensify the effort to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, senior administration and military officials say, as a combination of better intelligence, improving weather and a refocusing of resources away from Iraq has reinvigorated the hunt along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The plan will apply both new forces and new tactics to the task, said senior officials in Washington and Afghanistan who were interviewed in recent days. The group at the center of the effort is Task Force 121, the covert commando team of Special Operations forces and Central Intelligence Agency officers. The team was involved in Saddam Hussein's capture and is gradually shifting its forces to Afghanistan to step up the search for Mr. bin Laden and Mullah Muhammad Omar, the former Taliban leader."

To the extent that this is a result of Pervez Musharraf finally deciding to get more serious about the Taliban and al-Qaeda, it's good news. But to the extent that it's the result of the United States finally getting more serious and "refocusing" on Osama, all I can say is, what the hell?

One of the things that war skeptics have been saying for a long time is that Iraq distracted us from Job 1: capturing Osama, wiping out al-Qaeda, and putting the Taliban firmly out of business. The Bushies deny it. But the denials really don't wash. There's just too much evidence that resources were pulled out of Afghanistan as early as spring 2002, that our commitment to Afghanistan has been weak and our ongoing operations have been starved for funding and manpower, and that the administration has been suspiciously unwilling to lean hard on Musharraf. They were just too damn obsessed with Iraq.

I don't know how long it will be before we really know everything that happened after 9/11, but I suspect that history's judgment of the Bush administration will not be kind. In fact, Dennis Hastert's admission that they don't want the findings of the 9/11 commission to be released during the campaign is a tacit admission that they already know the facts won't reflect well on them.

The Bush administration's record on terror has been amazingly flimsy, all bluster and very little genuine progress. John Kerry has shown a bit more willingness lately to go beyond the defensive and demonstrate ways that he would be tougher on terrorism than Bush and I hope he keeps it up. It's not a subject we should dodge, it's a subject in which we should show how we can do better than the Republicans. Getting serious about al-Qaeda would be a good start.

UPDATE: In comments, Chris Conroy asks what Kerry has been saying lately that I like so much. Here's the terrorism speech that he delivered at UCLA yesterday. I thought it was pretty good.

I have nothing to add, and need to get back to work.

The New Republic's Jonathan Chait discovers liberal bias in the form of media coverage of the Hate Amendment (nomenclature used by convention at G&G). He's probably right, but I think there's more to it than that (which I'll discuss below). The nut graphs:

The operating premise of these articles, and most reporting on this topic, is that only the most partisan element of Bush's base supports the amendment. Now, I should say right here that I believe that gays should have the right to marry and I find the amendment morally abhorrent. But I'm far less confident than the press that most people share my view.

[snip]

Bush's support for the amendment hurts him among libertarians. But it helps him among cultural traditionalists--giving the president a way to lure blue-collar Democrats alienated by his unpopular economic policies. My understanding of the current political landscape suggests that more of the available swing voters fall into the latter category than the former. (A good guide to the composition of the electorate can be found in Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg's new book, The Two Americas.)

Why do reporters assume that the amendment is a fringe concern? Perhaps because nearly all live in big cities, among educated, relatively affluent peers, who hold liberal views on social matters. In Washington and New York, gay marriage is an utterly mainstream proposition. Unfortunately, in most of the country, it's not.

Like I said, he's probably right. But I want to point to an underlying theme of this article; one that we've here at G&G have sought to uncover since Day 1. Chait, along with TNR colleague Michelle Cottle, are perfect examples of "fraidy cat liberals" who say, "Oh, I agree with X, but 'America' won't, so let's fight against it.'" Exhibit A was Dean; this is a new (or not-so-new) example. I love gay marriage, but I'm afraid of it, so let's just talk out of both sides of our mouth and hope it goes away. Kerry is doing this, and it sucks, not least because, well, you ain't gonna out-gay bait George W. Bush. So it's not even good politics, in my mind, and it's certainly immoral and unprincipled.

Also, I stated that Chait is probably right about the bias, at least in part. On this issue, I don't mind it, because I liken it to saying "In 1963 the media was pro-civil rights act." Well, if they were, good for them. But, I think this issue has to do with more than "bias." I think the media like this issue because it's, well, easy. The sides are easy, the talking points are easy. You don't need to understand the difference between "average jobs" and "total jobs" at the heart of the 2.6 vs. 3.4 million new jobs prediction. You don't have to understand the legislative history of the Taft-Hartley Act. You just have to know (a) a gay person and (b) a married person in order to develop an understanding. So, this issue is an example of liberal bias, but is a more profound example of laziness bias.

Note to readers from Big Media: I hope this doesn't sound too harsh. I don't mean it to be. I mean, I think budgets are hard, too.

Which old political saw is more tired?

(1) From Republicans: "I will get rid of government waste."*

(2) From Democrats: "I will take on special interests."**

*Thanks to Jack Ryan, Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Illinois, for his commerical that brings this up.
**Thanks to, well, every Democrat ever, for using this one.

I don't know the answer, since, in essence, the two positions are identical.

Today, the Chicago Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune both endorsed State Sen. Barack Obama, Democratic Candidate for Senate. This is pretty exciting, if not totally unexpected, news.

And for all you Chicagoland readers, we're hosting a fundraiser for Senator Obama tomorrow at 6:30pm at Sedgwick's Bar and Grill (Sedgwick and Armitage). The candidate and Pulitzer Prize-winning author Studs Terkel will be there.

Via Atrios, it seems like Sens. McCain and Lieberman are holding up the highway bill in order to force an extention of the 9/11 commission. Good for them!

I think everything is back to normal. I wish the comments thing were right under the permalink line, but what the hell. This is pretty close.

From Kevin Drum, I find this article in the National Review online edition. It basically accuses Kerry of being a KGB toady for protesting Vietnam. Kevin explains how this guy's rhetorical techniques mirror those used by groups like the John Birch Society.

David Niewert should be talking about this, not me, but here it goes: It's profoundly un-American to level such accusations. Of course, NR has every right to do so, but I'm talking about the substance. These people (NR editors, that is) don't understand in the least what America stands for, and what America means.

If anything, it means the right (and duty) to go to your government and say, "How can you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

It also means the right, at the same time of strife, so sit on your ass in Texas and snort blow, although there's no sense of duty in that, unlike in what Kerry did.

This stuff pisses me off.

UPDATE: I did my first successful "Trackback" ping on this one! Now, if I could just get those links to go back to the right side of the page and not be way down at the bottom!

UPDATE II: Got the sidebar back :) Lost comments/trackback :(

Over at the National Review's "Corner", they're calling Massachusetts (you know, the Bay State) the Gay State. Witty.

Sad times in this country when Rush Limbaugh is a voice of moderation and reason. On this, I agree with him 5000%.

What is going on? Two events in our pop culture: one: a movie based on medieval plays that have a long history of inspiring violence and oppression against Jews is released. Two: Janet Jackson flashes breast for about one second. One has inspired a massive government response, which has forced companies to suspend popular radio personalities. The other, has been met with approval by the President.

For the record, massive government response would be wrong in either case.

I like Max's take on the substantive/procedural underpinnings of the "federalism" debate. Again, I never will understand why people (esp. lawyers) fetishize federalism. Here's his intro:

A common corruption of discourse in democratic, federalist systems is for advocates to support decentralization or centralization on procedural grounds, depending on where they think they will get a preferred substantive result. So now supporters of gay marriage use decentralist, process arguments to block Federal action against gay marriage. Opponents of gay marriage invoke first principles designed to guard against man-on-dog. In other contexts, conservatives like to uphold states' rights and progressives the need for national action to protect individual rights.

I tend to think that things I like universalized (such as individual rights) are best done at the highest level possible. Others are best done at a more local level. But I'm not about to make a religion of it.

I don't know about hollywood.com, but I've found some liberal bias. I think there's some serious liberal bias in the blogger code, inasmuch as I can't get the damn links to be on the side of the page. I think the elites who work at blogger.com simply can't handle the No-Spin Truth that is propagated on our page.

Who's looking out for you, not Blogger, that's for sure.

OK, I found some real liberal bias.

This headline from Hollywood.com:

Experts Say "Passion" is Full of Inaccuracies

The first outrageous example in the article:

"The Jewish texts ridiculed long hair as something Roman or Greek," New York University's Lawrence Schiffman told Reuters, yet Jesus has continually been pictured with long hair, as he is in Passion.

You mean... THEY DIDN'T GET THE HAIR RIGHT!?! BASTARDS!

I recommend to all our readers to sign up for the daily email updates from the Center for American Progress. You can sign up here. It's kind of like the Note, but with liberal-biased fact-checking and without the kool kids insidery stuff.

Andrew Sullivan approvingly posts this e-mail:

"We've witnessed a shift in Republican politics. The Republican establishment used to pay lip service to religious conservative interests while openly courting independent voters with moderate policies because it knew it could get the religious conservative vote regardless (who were they going to vote for, Clinton!?). But now, it seems Bush is paying lip service to independent interests while openly promoting religious conservative policy. Who are we going to vote for, Kerry?

Well, yes."

Sully's been great today - but please. His faux-surprise at this development is pathetic. How in our lifetime have the Republicans only paid "lip service" to religious conservatives? By demanding the appointment of pro-life judges? By appointing Thomas and Scalia to the Supreme Court? (Both find Justices who anyone - including readers of this very blog - would be lucky to clerk for, but certainly darlings of the religious right.) By almost passing a ####### flag burning amendment (thanks Democrats)? By passing the Defense of Marriage Act (thanks Democrats)? By appointing John Ascroft? By having their Presidents never utter the words "gay" or "homosexual" in public - even when a plague is destroying the gay community?

The Republican party has done much more than pay lip service to religious conservatives - indeed, the Republican party needs religious conservatives in order to stay in power. It will give them whatever they want. To act shocked about it now is just sort of weird.

Finally, Sully quotes another heartbreaking e-mail...

"I organized my life around four institutions: my family, the Presbyterian Church, the Boy Scouts and the Republican Party. They summed up what seemed to me a sensible view of life and the world, embodying loyalty, unconditional love, a quiet, thoughtful exercise of faith, a commitment to ethical behavior, and a limited government that did the things it needed for the public good but otherwise left people alone to be all they could become and savor the victory of having done so.
Then I came out, and one by one those four institutions turned their backs on me."

Go to his site and read the whole thing. What's wrong with people?

I just watched Mel Gibson enter the No-Spin Zone. It was indeed the hardest-hitting interview I've ever seen - in that at no point did Bill O'Reilly actually fellate Mel Gibson on camera.

Actual exchange during interview (paraphrased... if there is just a God a transcript will be posted):

O'Reilly: I've taken a lot of heat for you, Gibson.

Gibson: I know, I know.

O'Reilly: I'm used to it.

Gibson: You... you're the kind of guy to go down with the ship.

O'Reilly: (laughs) I'm the kind of guy to go down with the ship. Do you feel sorry for me?

Gibson: No.

O'Reilly: I take all this heat for you and you don't feel sorry for me?


And it wasn't entirely clear that O'Reilly was joking when he asked Gibson if he felt sorry him. This truly is No-Spin journalism.

What follows is an actual "Greta Poll" from the Fox News web site. How is this an appropriate question for a poll? How in the name of the seven mad gods who rule the seas will the human quest for knowledge and wisdom be advanced from learning that, say, 16% of Americans are "suspicious that the two men asking for parole are involved"?

The Poll:

As the investigation into the disappearance of the Mississippi family of three continues, what concerns you the most?

__I'm suspicious that there was a domestic problem

__I'm suspicious that the two men asking for parole are involved

__I'm wondering if this was a totally random crime

__Nothing

__I have no idea what happened but I'm very interested in the case



UPDATE: I voted for "I'm wondering if this was a totally random crime."

From Rep. John Dingell to Greg Mankiw. It's PDF so I can't excerpt it. But trust me, it's awesome.

UPDATE: Recall that Rep. Dingell also wrote this in response the CBS miniseries "The Reagans."

Well, I fixed the fact that each post was right on top of each other, but I can't seem to get the sidebar back. I checked it against a new blogger template, and couldn't find the problem.

"This president wants our families denied civil protection and civil acknowledgment. He wants us stigmatized not just by a law, not just by his inability even to call us by name, not by his minions on the religious right. He wants us stigmatized in the very founding document of America. There can be no more profound attack on a minority in the United States - or on the promise of freedom that America represents."

Onion headline on January 28:

Bush 2004 Campaign Pledges To Restore Honor And Dignity To White House

Actual news today:

"Bush cast the upcoming November election as a choice between the 'same old Washington mind-set' and a brighter future in a speech to the Republican Governors Association."

Here's an example of a really dumb man sharing his opinion.

It's about The Passion, which I should be posting more about. Apparently, according to Mr. Cavuto, this a case of Hollywood Elites sneering at the values of everyday Americans. But that's not what anyone is saying - they're saying the movie is anti-Semitic. But not once in this article does he discuss whether the movie is anti-Semitic - he doesn't once address this criticism. So, I suppose what he is saying is that everyday Americans hate Jews and/or he is a complete moron.

A quote:

"Far easier is it for Tinseltown to make a mockery of priests than to say anything good about Christianity itself. But this isn't about Christians or priests or Buddhists or Jews. This is about one solitary life. And one horrible death."

This comes right after he notes that Hollywood "rightfully" praised Schindler's List and Philadelphia. What could he be getting at here?

(BTW, I would appreciate it if someone would read this and tell me if he's insinuating the death of Jesus was worse than the Holocaust or AIDS. He may be.)

UPDATE: And by the way, I don't know if this movie is anti-Semitic or not - I try not to judge things I haven't seen or read, unlike Christian Conservatives, for example. (That's an exaggeration: I apologize.) My only point is that he doesn't acknowledge in this article that this is what the criticism is about, and he doesn't acknowledge that if this criticism is accurate, Mel Gibson does deserve to be ostracized, not just by the liberal, Hollywood elite but by any good person.

What, exactly, is Jack Cafferty's job? And why can't he wear a jacket?

On a related note, Anderson Cooper was subbing for Bill Hemmer today, so I got my morning news from a 360 degree persective, unlike the normal 200-225 degrees, so that was nice.

Well, I've added trackback, even though I'm not sure how it works. In doing so, I managed to totally screw up the page, as you will see the stuff that should be on the side of the page to the right is now at the bottom. Don't know how to fix it.

Daily Kos raises the very real possibility that famed lunatic judge Ray Moore will run for President - possibly offsetting the Nader factor. See this article - dated February 2 - where Moore does not rule out this possibility.

This would be good, although I can't really figure out what objections religious conservatives have about Bush. I know there has been some rumblings lately, but what has Bush not done that they want him to do?

UPDATE: Over at Pandagon, there's a post about conservative outrage over the Bush's immigration policy. That might work.

Drudge links to this, probably untrue, article which claims that US Forces have located Bin Laden, are monitoring him by satelite, and are confident that he cannot escape.

But the article says this...

"The special forces are 'absolutely confident' there is no escape for bin Laden, and are awaiting the order to go in and get him.

'The timing of that order will ultimately depend on President Bush,' the paper says. 'Capturing bin Laden will certainly be a huge help for him as he gets ready for the election.'"

If Drudge wants to continue to be a right-wing attack dog, he'd better read the articles he links to. I'm pretty sure that if it's ever revealed that Bush timed the capture of Bin Laden to help his reelection, he will probably be impeached.

When Terry McAuliffe says this...

"We can't afford to have Ralph Nader in the race... This is about the future of our country. If you care about the environment, if you care about job growth, you've got to support the Democratic nominee. So I'm urging everybody to talk to Ralph Nader."

... what he means is that he thinks the American people are too stupid to select their President on their own. Did it ever occur to Mr. McAuliffe that the people who voted for Nader KNEW that they were voting in a close election and that they chose to give their vote to Mr. Nader even though that might mean that Mr. Bush would eventually win? Democrats want to deny the American people this choice - because, again, they apparently don't trust the people to vote in their own best interest.

I think Mr. Nader put it best when asked about an anti-Nader web site, calling it...

"[A] contemptuous statement against Democracy, against freedom, against more voices and choices for the American people... It is an offense to deny millions of people who may want to vote for our candidacy an opportunity to vote for our candidacy... The liberal intelligentsia... has allowed its party to become a captive of corporate interests."

Why don't the Democrats spend time trying to explain to us why we should vote for Kerry or Edwards instead of Nader, rather than trying (again) to scare their own supporters?

Is it just me, or does Ralph Nader really look like Alan Arkin, circa 1974?

Listening to "The Songs of Leonard Cohen" for the first time in about a year. What a devastating album (in a good way). Wow.

UPDATE: Well, I'm working from home today (using some contraption called the "Interweb" or "World Wide Net" or something like that--amazing, this technology stuff), and I hooked my computer up to my stereo to listen to my MP3 collection which has sat dormant since graduation. I'm rediscovering some great stuff: "Breakfast in America" by Supertramp; "The Village Green Preservation Society" by The Kinks; some random live shows by Radiohead; "Tracks" by Springsteen, although I have this on CD; some stuff by Crooked Fingers. Just some great music.

UPDATE II: And the original self-titled Weezer album. That album is awesome.

From Tom Tomorrow's site:

It all depends on how you define the word "people"
(Note: this entry posted by Bob Harris)

Here's Bush on gay marriage today:

"I am watching very carefully, but I am troubled by what I've seen," Bush said.
-- snip --

"I am troubled by activist judges who are defining marriage. People need to be involved in this decision," Bush said. "Marriage ought to be defined by the people not by the courts."


This is wrong in so many ways... it's hard to know which specific idiotic idea AWOL had in mind.

For one, what's happening in San Francisco began with a decision by local elected officials, not by "activist judges."

Second, the judicial system has only responded so far by not immediately responding to screaming pleas for oh-my-god-make-it-stop-make-it-stop injunctive measures from freaked-out conservatives, whose cases haven't been thrown out but will simply be heard a little later, possibly by the end of the week. This is the opposite of judicial activism.

(Of course, impatience is as much a hallmark of reactionary thought as fear of people who are slightly different and willful insistence on known falsehoods. Combine this with a blinding terror of human sexuality -- that exposed breast is burning my eyes! It burns! It burrrrns! -- and you've got either the modern conservative movement or an emotionally-damaged six-year-old.)

Third, and most importantly, our dumbass-in-chief misses one of the primary purposes of judicial review, established from the very outset of our republic: in a just society, the civil and and constitutional rights of the few cannot be left merely to the whims of the many. Obviously. Jeebus. Bush's position flies in the face of common sense, any basic understanding of American history, and a large body of constitutional law. Maybe Bush was AWOL when they taught Marbury vs. Madison, too.

And finally, even taking Bush's multiple idiocies wrapped in a single statement at face value: um, aren't all those people getting married... people?

I dub this "shrill" and order this poster, and Tom Tomorrow, to sit in the shrill corner with Paul Krugman.

Or so Foxnews is reporting.

You know, for all the talk about how unelectable Dean was, at least all of the liberals would have been united.

One good thing about having Nader in the race is that we can be treated to hearing many Democrats like Jonathan Chait talk about how they agree with everything Nader says, but will not vote for him because they feel other people will not vote for him. Much like the way many Democrats talked about Howard Dean. It's always a pleasure to confirm what sheep most people are.

Is the fact that John Kerry has opted out of public funds, but John Edwards has not, a reason to support Kerry over Edwards?

From an article on Mel's dad:

During his lengthy radio interview, Hutton Gibson, 85, said Jews were out to create "one world religion and one world government" and outlined a conspiracy theory involving Jewish bankers, the US Federal Reserve and the Vatican, among others.

I like this fresh new take on Anti-Semitism. To the Gibson pater familias, the "Jewish" conspiracy involves not just those oldie-but-goodies the international bankers and the Federal Reserve, but also the Vatican. As I've been saying for years, it's all the fault of those damn Jews who run that Catholic Church!

That's the new, dynamic thinking that 21st-century paranoid anti-Semitism needs.

Richard M. Daley:

Marriage has been undermined by divorce, so don't tell me about marriage. You're not going to lecture me about marriage. People should look at their own life and look in their own mirror. Marriage has been undermined for a number of years if you look at the facts and figures on it. Don't blame the gay and lesbian, transgender and transsexual community. Please don't blame them for it.

A Google search of the term "Hannidate" now brings up only two web sites - Hannity's and ours. Nice.

Why am I getting excited about a House race in Kentucky?

Based on the picture posted on Druge right now, I'd say John Kerry's finger is bigger than a fully-grown man.

Looks like Sherman Hemsley of the "The Jeffersons" will be supplying the voice in a Fox remake of Mr. Ed.

This from the CNN article on this important topic:

"'Mister Ed' is a remake of the 1960s talking-horse sitcom. This time around, the equine title character has an urban sensibility."

What does this mean? I mean, I think I know what it means, but good God. Why would a horse have an urban sensibility?

From today's Washington Times:

"In anticipation of the Feb. 25 release of Mel Gibson's controversial movie, "The Passion of the Christ," the poll also found that 80 percent of Americans do not feel that the Jews of today bear responsibility for the death of Jesus Christ, against 8 percent who said they did."

Apparently, this is good news! Only 8% of the people in the alleged greatest society in the history of civilization believe that Dodgers outfielder Shawn Green bears responsibility for the death of a carpenter 2000 years ago! Why that adds up to only slightly less than 25 million people!

But don't believe me that this is good news, see Michael Graham at The Corner...

"Given that the margin of error is +/-4%, concerns about Mel Gibson's movie would appear to be exaggerated."

Of course, I suppose this could mean that up to 12% of the population believes that famed funnyman Mel Brooks killed Jesus.

Incidentally, the same poll indicates that 60% of Americans believe the Bible is "literally" true. I don't even want to think about what that means.

UPDATE: It just occurred to me that it appears that 12% of Americans are undecided as to whether the Jews of today bear responsibility for Christ's death - I suppose, sensibly, that they are waiting for more evidence to come in before they reach a final conclusion as to whether Ruth Bader Ginsburg is guilty of a murder that took place 2000 years ago.

David Brooks today tries to rewrite history, as conservatives are wont to do. Talking about how the dovish faction of the Democratic Party was wrong about Vietnam (this old saw again? Oh yes), he writes:

But most Democrats--and John Kerry was very much a part of this group--saw Vietnam as a refutation of the cold war mentality. These liberals saw the bungling and the lies as symptoms of a deep sickness in the military-industrial complex. So we got movies like "Dr. Strangelove" and "M*A*S*H," which treated military life as insane.

Remember how Al Gore got in trouble by joking about singing union songs at bedtime as a child, but then it came out that the particular song he mentioned wasn't written until the 1970s, and therefore he was a "serial exaggerator?" Well, Mr. Brooks, Dr. Strangelove was made in 1964. Given, M*A*S*H was made in 1970, but it clearly has roots as strong in Catch-22, originally published in 1961, as in Vietnam. I know that we first put troops in SE Asia in the 1950s, but in 1964, I'm pretty sure that the Democratic Party was still pretty unified behind the Kennedy/Johnson plan. Now, Mr. Brooks and his neo-con friends have learned that of the 1960s battles, it's more politically palatable to fight Vietnam all over again that that other seminal battle that some of the morNeanderthalal of his GOP compatriots would like to refight, but that doesn't make it right. And if you're going to do so, get your pop-culture-as-symbolism right, at least from a chronological perspective. Use, maybe Easy Rider or something.

Oh, and he also writes:

Jimmy Carter talked about root causes like hunger and poverty

How dare he! Hunger and poverty? Shut up and bomb someone!

This defies all attempts at parody or witty comments. You must see this for yourself.

UPDATE: This is written on the Hannidate page: "Welcome to Hannidate 2004, where you may find your perfect match through Hannity style romance."

What in God's name is Hannity style romance?

Theory: it involves passionately screaming "deliver me from evil, Sean! Deliver me from me from terrorism, despotism and liberalism! Hannitize me!"

UPDATE: Just taking a glance at the people looking for a Hannidate, it looks like most of the guys are more used to spending the evening at home whilst Hannibating over a picture of Ann Coulter.


(How could I have missed that obvious pun before? Apologies to our family readers - relax, I'm sure the FCC will have jurisdiction over this blog soon enough.)

Apparently, when Americans are outraged over Janet Jackson flashing a breast and pressure CBS to take action and apologize, it is a sign that Americans are righteously standing up for their values.

However, when Native Americans are outraged over a racist performance and pressure CBS to take action, it is a sign of political correctness run amok.

The man who traded Sammy Sosa comments on the trade of Alex Rodriguez to the New York Yankees:

"I was just as surprised as the Yankees and Boston Red Sox fans when I opened my paper today," Bush told NBC at Sunday's Daytona 500. "It looks like a big deal, and it looks like it's going to happen. A-Rod's a great player, and the Yanks are going to be a heck of a team with him in the infield."

Say what? (as the Daily Howler would say). I thought our President didn't read the Newspapers.

I assume what the President meant to say was:

"I was just as surprised as the Yankees and Boston Red Sox fans when Andy Card briefed me about the news today."

Incidentally, I'm not sure what the point of being a baseball fan is anymore. Good work, Yankees, Red Sox and Rangers - you have led baseball one step closer to destruction.

Josh Marshall on what would be going on what happened under Bush/Cheney happened under Clinton/Gore:

Now, needless to say, if we were still operating under the rules that prevailed in the mid-1990s, James Carville would have been appointed Independent Counsel in the late summer of 2002 to investigate Halliburton. He'd have had the Intel shenanigans, the Plame matter and the Niger documents added to his brief since then. A cowed AG would have given him the Guard matter around the middle of last week. And in a couple days some FBI agents would be showing up on Calhoun's doorstep ready to squeeze him as silly as any freshly sliced wedge of lime in close proximity to a bottle of Corona.

"Calhoun" is "Bill" Calhoun, who clearly lied about being around Bush in TANG (or AANG?).