September 30, 2004
THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS:
Regarding John Kerry, Nicolle Devenish, Bush’s Campaign Communications
Director said:
“Someone who blinks when things get hard is not the right person to win
the war on terror. They are preaching retreat and defeat in the face of
real challenges from an enemy bent on our destruction. I think that’s bad
for the troops, it’s bad for allies, and it’s bad for our country.”
Someone who blinks when things get hard?
Think: “The Pet Goat” and seven catatonic minutes.
Think: Bronze Star: Pulling Jim Sassman out of the Mekong
River, under enemy fire.
Retreat and defeat in the face of real challenges?
Think: 9/11. Air Force One. Down the rabbit hole at SAC, Omaha.
Think: Silver Star: Turning the Swift boat and charging the enemy.
You really don’t want to go there, Nicolle.
BY WAY OF COMPARISON:
Since taking office as Vice President, Dick Cheney has received over half a
million dollars of “deferred compensation” from Halliburton. Also, his
wealth is directly tied to the stock value of that company. As surely
everyone knows by now, Halliburton, and its subsidiary, Kellogg Brown and
Root, have overcharged the US government and have wasted several billions of
dollars.
Dick Cheney was renominated without opposition for a second term as Vice
President.
In 1958, Sherman Adams, President Eisenhower’s Chief of Staff, was forced to
resign when it was discovered that he had accepted a gift from a Boston
business man, Bernard Goldfine.
The gift?
An overcoat.
ABOUT NAOMI KLEIN’S “BAGHDAD YEAR ZERO”
If you want a glimpse of what Bush-Cheney and the radical right has in store
for us, take a look at Russia in the 1990s, and Iraq today. Russia was, and
Iraq is, an experiment in Milton Friedman utopianism: minimal government and
free-market absolutism.
In Russia, the Soviet state industrial wealth, distributed “evenly” to each
Russian citizen, ended up in the hands of a very few super-rich oligarchs.
In an extraordinarily important Harper’s Magazine article,
“Baghdad Year Zero,”
Naomi Klein details how right-wing market dogma crashed and
burned in Iraq when confronted with brute reality. Here are a few opening
and closing paragraphs. Be sure to read all of this astonishing article as
soon as you get the chance.
Iraq, [John McCain] said, is "a huge pot of honey that's attracting a
lot of flies." The flies McCain was referring to were the Halliburtons and
Bechtels, as well as the venture capitalists who flocked to Iraq in the
path cleared by Bradley Fighting Vehicles and laser-guided bombs. The
honey that drew them was not just no-bid contracts and Iraq's famed oil
wealth but the myriad investment opportunities offered by a country that
had just been cracked wide open after decades of being sealed off, first
by the nationalist economic policies of Saddam Hussein, then by
asphyxiating United Nations sanctions.
* * *
The honey theory of Iraqi reconstruction stems from the most cherished
belief of the war's ideological architects: that greed is good. Not good
just for them and their friends but good for humanity, and certainly good
for Iraqis. Greed creates profit, which creates growth, which creates jobs
and products and services and everything else anyone could possibly need
or want. The role of good government, then, is to create the optimal
conditions for corporations to pursue their bottomless greed, so that they
in turn can meet the needs of the society. The problem is that
governments, even neoconservative governments, rarely get the chance to
prove their sacred theory right: despite their enormous ideological
advances, even George Bush's Republicans are, in their own minds,
perennially sabotaged by meddling Democrats, intractable unions, and
alarmist environmentalists.
Iraq was going to change all that. In one place on Earth, the theory would
finally be put into practice in its most perfect and uncompromised form. A
country of 25 million would not be rebuilt as it was before the war; it
would be erased, disappeared. In its place would spring forth a gleaming
showroom for laissez-faire economics, a utopia such as the world had never
seen. Every policy that liberates multinational corporations to pursue
their quest for profit would be put into place: a shrunken state, a
flexible workforce, open borders, minimal taxes, no tariffs, no ownership
restrictions. The people of Iraq would, of course, have to endure some
short-term pain: assets, previously owned by the state, would have to be
given up to create new opportunities for growth and investment. Jobs would
have to be lost and, as foreign products flooded across the border, local
businesses and family farms would, unfortunately, be unable to compete.
But to the authors of this plan, these would be small prices to pay for
the economic boom that would surely explode once the proper conditions
were in place, a boom so powerful the country would practically rebuild
itself.
The fact that the boom never came and Iraq continues to tremble under
explosions of a very different sort should never be blamed on the absence
of a plan. Rather, the blame rests with the plan itself, and the
extraordinarily violent ideology upon which it is based.
* * *
The free market will no doubt come to Iraq, but the neoconservative dream
of transforming the country into a free-market utopia has already died, a
casualty of a greater dream--a second term for George W. Bush.
The great historical irony of the catastrophe unfolding in Iraq is that
the shock-therapy reforms that were supposed to create an economic boom
that would rebuild the country have instead fueled a resistance that
ultimately made reconstruction impossible. Bremer's reforms unleashed
forces that the neocons neither predicted nor could hope to control, from
armed insurrections inside factories to tens of thousands of unemployed
young men arming themselves. These forces have transformed Year Zero in
Iraq into the mirror opposite of what the neocons envisioned: not a
corporate utopia but a ghoulish dystopia, where going to a simple business
meeting can get you lynched, burned alive, or beheaded. These dangers are
so great that in Iraq global capitalism has retreated, at least for now.
For the neocons, this must be a shocking development: their ideological
belief in greed turns out to be stronger than greed itself.
Iraq was to the neocons what Afghanistan was to the Taliban: the one place
on Earth where they could force everyone to live by the most literal,
unyielding interpretation of their sacred texts. One would think that the
bloody results of this experiment would inspire a crisis of faith: in the
country where they had absolute free reign, where there was no local
government to blame, where economic reforms were introduced at their most
shocking and most perfect, they created, instead of a model free market, a
failed state no right-thinking investor would touch. And yet the Green
Zone neocons and their masters in Washington are no more likely to
reexamine their core beliefs than the Taliban mullahs were inclined to
search their souls when their Islamic state slid into a debauched Hades of
opium and sex slavery. When facts threaten true believers, they simply
close their eyes and pray harder.
Don’t think for a moment that we aren’t due for a similar fate if the
American voters give George Bush a second term, and Grover Norquist realizes
his dream of “drowning government in the bathtub.”
WHY CAN’T KERRY “GET HIS MESSAGE OUT?”
Time and again we hear the complaint, from political friends and foes and
from the media, that John Kerry’s campaign is suffering because “he can’t
seem to get his message out to the public.”
This is a common topic of conversation on Air America Radio, and the
pundits never seem to tire of telling about it.
Well, what’s wrong with Kerry? Why can’t he convey his message to the
American people? Does he in fact have a message?
Funny that the pundits, and the mainstream media should ask?
As if they
had nothing to do with it!
In fact, Kerry does have a message – loud and clear. You can hear it if you
wait patiently for a Kerry speech on CSPAN, or find the text of a speech
with Google, or if you go straight to the DNC and the
Kerry Campaign
websites. Unfortunately, you have to take the trouble to seek out the
message. The media will not give it to you.
Put it another way: Suppose Kerry has a clear and compelling message for the
American people. How would they know it? He can’t sit down for a private
chat with each and every American voter – there are more than a hundred
million of them. Nor can he stand on a street corner and shout. No, under
present conditions, he must “get his message out” past the corporate media
curtain. And the media is not cooperating. Instead of giving us the
substance of the candidates’ “messages,” they are, once again, dealing with
“the game” and “the horse-race.”
Now, at last, with the debates, Kerry gets his chance to talk directly to
the American people. He’d better do a damned good job of it, for immediately
after the debates, the media whore “spinners” will come in with their
instant (and suspicious) polls and their phony “focus groups” to tell us
what we really saw and how we really should think. In 2000, they applied
their alchemy and succeeded in turning Gore’s debate victories into defeats.
So nothing less than a knockout by Kerry will do the job.
Can there by any further doubt that the corporate media is ganging up on
John Kerry, just as it did on Al Gore four years ago?
The media gave several weeks of free publicity to the demonstrably false
accusations of the “SwiftVets” against John Kerry. At the same time, the
media avoids an investigation and exposure of George Bush’s undeniably
disgraceful derelictions during his self-abbreviated “service” in the Air
National Guard. Instead, the media has sidetracked the issue with by
focusing on the trivial irrelevancy of “the Rather memos.” And CBS has
compounded its offense by canceling a critical 60 Minutes examination of
Bush’s case for going to war in Iraq.
Lies about Kerry vs. the truth about Bush. The authentic war hero vs. the
deserter – and who do you suppose comes out ahead?
We know the answer, just as we know that this could never happen if the
media were truly independent, unbiased, and dedicated to reporting the
facts.
And don’t even get us started on the media’s treatment of the Iraq war,
homeland security, corruption, civil liberties, and the economy.
Responsible journalism has been driven from the network and cable news
channels, and from the pages of the commercial newspapers, to the fringes of
the small-circulation magazines and to the internet. Meanwhile, responsible
journalism survives abroad, where we must often look to find out what is
happening in our own country.
And so those of us who strive for “regime change” must deal with two
adversaries: the Bush regime and the Republicans on the one hand, and the
servile media on the other.
If the deck appears to be hopelessly stacked against Kerry, Edwards and the
Democrats, think back again to the 2000 election. Al Gore was smeared with
ridiculous and groundless allegations (remember “inventing the internet”?).
Bush’s manifest disqualification – his desertion from the National Guard,
his business failures, his dismal record as Texas governor – were all
treated as “out of bounds” by the media and thus ignored. During the
debates, Gore cleaned Bush’s clock on matters of substance, only to have the
pundits and spin-meisters focus on theatrics and turn public opinion around.
And yet, let us never forget, despite all that, Gore won that election –
only to have it stolen from him by Kathryn Harris, Bush’s brother, and five
felonious Supreme Court justices.
Kerry may be battling both Bush and the media. But Bush is arrayed against
both John Kerry and the real world. If the Rovian Wurlitzer keeps public
attention focused on such trivia as allegedly forged memos, ”flip-flops,”
wind-surfing and Theresa’s hair, Bush will win. But if the reality of Bush’s
lies, his illegal war and its casualties, his raiding of the federal
treasury, the impoverishment of the middle class, and the unprecedented
corruption, incompetence and maladministration of his regime, the trashing
of the environment, are at last brought to public attention, Bush’s days in
his ill-gotten office are numbered.
“Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:3)
Eventually, the truth will out. But will it “out” in the next month? That’s
the crucial question.
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate!
(H. W. Longfellow)
September 28, 2004
A TALKING-POINTS MEMO TO THE POST-DEBATE SPIN-MEISTERS:
"Sparky," an anonymous "poster" to the
Democratic Underground,
has given us a brilliant indication of how Democratic triumphs in the
Presidential debates are turned around by the spin merchants in the media.
We'd chuckle over it, except that it's too damned accurate. (See our
"Don't Count on the Debates," in our previous blog, just below).
Read this, watch the Thursday debate, then decide yourselves if he hasn't
nailed it.
Don't be surprised! Here's how the media will cover Kerry's and Chimp's
debate performance:
Kerry:
If he's serious, they'll say he's glum, gloomy, pessimistic, and
uninspiring.
If he's jovial, they'll say he's phony and trying too hard.
Bush:
If he's serious, he's, presidential, the war-time commander in chief.
If he's jovial, everybody wants to have a beer with him.
Kerry:
If he's forceful, they'll say he's too aggressive, mean, negative,
desperate.
If he's calm, they'll say he's weak, unsteady, dull, lacks energy.
Bush:
If he's forceful, he's strong, resolute, unwavering.
If he's calm, he's prepared, on-message, disciplined, reserved.
Kerry:
If he's specific, they'll say he's wonkish, presenting "laundry lists,"
being overly-intellectual, show-offy, and nobody likes the smart kid.
If he's not specific, they'll say he's vague, criticizing but not offering
solutions, not addressing the issues, and nobody knows who he is.
Bush:
If he's specific, he "lays out his plan" and "makes his case."
If he's not specific, he's spanning the issues, giving a global
presentation, painting a broad outline of his plans.
Kerry:
If he jokes, they'll say he lacks gravitas, trivializes important issues,
doesn't understand troops are in harm's way, nation's at war, disrespects
the president, etc.
If he doesn't joke, they'll say he needs to lighten up, he's too stoney,
he's wooden.
Bush:
If he jokes, he's a man of the people, a regular guy, people relate to
him.
If he doesn't joke, he truly cares about the American people and his
sincerity resonates with voters in this difficult time.
Plus, if he finds his podium and doesn't trip on his way to it, he's
surpassed all expectations. (Extra points for correct pronunciation of
"Abu Ghraib" or "nuclear.")
STILL MORE ABOUT THE POLLS.
In my previous blog (immediately below) I took the Gallup organization to
task for “oversampling” republican voters. Specifically, in their hardly
credible report of a 54 - 40 Bush lead, we learned that Gallup assumed that
40% of the eventual voters would be Republicans and just 33% would be
Democrats. This, despite the fact that there is no historical evidence
whatever to support this assumption. Gallup provided no explanation.
Suffice to say that I was astonished. No need to elaborate here, since my
earlier comments are just a few clicks below this.
I did, however, have this to say last week: “To my knowledge, no other
polling organization has such a lopsided oversampling in favor of the
Republicans.”
Well, now my “knowledge” has been enriched by a September 18
New York
Times article by
Adam Nagourney and Janet Elder, and by the Air American Radio fallout
that followed. It seems that the September 18th New York Times/CBS poll,
showing and eight to nine percent Bush advantage (varying with “likely” or
“registered” voters), used a sample of which 28% voted for Gore and 36%
voted for Bush in 2000. This means that had the poll used a sample with an
even number of Gore and Bush voters – reflecting, of course, the actual 2000
vote -- that poll would have yielded a statistical tie.
When Sam Seder of Air America Radio found out about this sample, he went
ballistic on his “Majority Report” program. (There is nothing in the
broadcast spectrum quite like a ballistic Sam Seder – a wonder to behold).
Seder’s outburst generated
the following e-mail exchange between an AAR listener (Hank
Chinaski) and the Times’ Adam Nagourney:
Adam,
In the latest Times poll, participants were asked: "Did you vote in the
2000 presidential election..." "If you voted, did you vote for Al Gore, or
George W. Bush?" 28% had voted for Gore, 36% for Bush. That gives gives
you a poll that is DISTORTED IN FAVOR OF THE REPUBLICANS, which was
UNREPORTED by you. Adam, you either showed extreme journalistic
incompetence by not KNOWING that, OR you are involved in a COVER-UP of the
faulty polling used by the Times.
Which is it?
Nagourney replied:
Is there a choice No. 3? How about this: Whenever you ask that question
in a poll -- who did you vote for last time -- the results do not mirror
what actually happened. People misremember/misreport who they voted for,
and say they went with the winner. Sorry if you're not happy with the
findings of our poll, but there really is no reason to insult me over it.
Adam
Is this Gallup’s reason for their mysteriously unbalanced GOP/Dem ratio?
We still don’t know. However, Nagourney’s “explanation” has to be one of the
weirdest journalistic cop-out’s that I’ve ever encountered – and believe me,
I’ve seen some whoppers in my time.
So let’s take a closer look at the Nagourney “faithless poll subject”
theory.
- I am reminded that soon after the Nixon resignation, it was widely
reported that it was difficult to find anyone who would admit to having
voted for Nixon-Agnew. (Remember Agnew?). Today there are abundant reports
of voters who regret their votes for Bush in 2000 and who are determined
this time to vote against Bush. One rarely hears of individuals who voted
for Gore in 2000 who have “seen the light” and will vote for Bush this
time. Admittedly, this is all anecdotal evidence. Even so, it suggests
that if there any mis-recollection or lying amongst the sample, there is
at least as much reason to believe that it will be manifested in actual
2000 Bush voters “recalling” that they voted for Gore – the opposite
effect of that posited by Nagourney.
- Nagourney suggests: “People misremember/misreport who they voted
for, and say they went with the winner.” How does he know this at all!
Far less, how can the pollsters assign a precise number to this
“misreporting.” Do the pollsters include, among their questions: “Are you
lying to me?” Gimme a break! This statistic smells
“Limbaugh-istic” – or, as Al Franken indelicately puts it, directly “out
of one’s butt.”
- If, as Nagourney suggests (and Gallup and/or NBC/ABC perhaps assume)
that there is such widespread lying afoot amongst their samples, why
should they, or we, have any confidence that their poll projections are
not also based upon widespread but unconfirmable lying by their polling
subjects? Ergo, why should we pay any attention to them at all?
Nagourney's "explanation" is offered totally without foundation. It
is implausible on its face, and it conveys a compelling hint of desperation.
We have yet to encounter an explanation from Gallup of their
extraordinary Republican oversampling.
Bottom line: I still can not remotely imagine a benign explanation for the
Gallup, and now the CBS/NYT, plus-GOP skewing of the poll samples. There
remains a malevolent explanation: (a) to initiate a “bandwagon effect”
toward Bush, while (b) discouraging Kerry voters from going to the polls.
But my mind remains open: If there is some other plausible reason why Gallup
and ABC/NYT would deliberately use a GOP-skewed sample utterly detached from
historical evidence, I’d sure like to hear about it.
In the meantime, take heart: The pollsters generally talk to previous voters
(which is how they identify the “likely voters”). But now, reports are
coming in of a surge in new registrations, heavily weighted in the
Democratic areas. (See Ford Fessenden,
“A Big Increase of New Voters in Swing States, NYT, September 26).
These individuals, presumably, do not take part in the Gallup and NYT polls.
And finally, the Gallup and CBS/NYT polls are still the “outliers.” Most of
the other polls show a tight - and tightening race.
The essential contest remains: Kerry vs. Bush/Media, and Bush vs.
Kerry/Reality. "Bush' brain," Karl Rove, will continue to
attempt to keep the Real World at bay, through lies and distractions, and
hope that his magical mystery tour will somehow hold up for the next five weeks.
Kerry must hope that reality breaks through the media curtain, and the
essential messages get through -- namely, if Bush gets his second term:
- Kid, you're going to be drafted, and perhaps killed in Syria or Iran.
- Sis, you'd better forget about that college degree.
- Dad, you are
likely to lose your job.
- Grandma, what will it be, your prescriptions
or your food?
- Ma'm, like it or not, your pregnancy will go to
full term, and there will be no welfare assistance after your baby is born.
- Citizen, you'd better watch what you say. (Ari
Fleischer has given you fair warning).
- And bloggers, enjoy the free internet while you can.
Soon we'll be selling the internet to
Rupert Murdock.
Kerry has three shots at getting that message directly to the voters --
i.e., the debates. Immediately following those debates, the media
spinners will get to work to tell us what we heard and to tell us what to
think.
Just like 2000.
(See "Don't Count on the Debates," below, and Paul Krugman's
"Swagger
vs. Substance").
September 21, 2004
ABOUT THE POLLS.
Would Gallup, the oldest and most prestigious of the polling organizations,
risk its rock-solid reputation by becoming a player rather than an observer
of the presidential contest?
It seems absurd, and so I was not inclined to believe it.
But now, I’m not so sure. Just look at the evidence.
I have just downloaded the latest tally by
PollingReport.com of the seven
leading poll results. Six show a difference of no more than four points (one
poll, Harris, gives Kerry a one-point lead). The “outlier” is Gallup:
54%-40% Bush. Gallup has been the Bush-plus outlier in fifteen of the last
seventeen weeks (I recently read, but can’t find the source).
Now this is interesting: Gallup’ four-point margin of error (50-44) doesn’t
touch Bush’s best showing among the other six (NBC/Wall Street Journal at
50-46). An “outlier” to be sure!
How is this possible?
“The Left
Coaster” asked Gallup to send their sample breakdowns, and therein found
the answer. (Follow the link above for the figures). This is what the
“Coaster” reports:
This morning [September 17] we awoke to the startling news that despite
a flurry of different polls this week all showing a tied race, the
venerable Gallup Poll, as reported widely in the media (USA Today and CNN)
today, showed George W. Bush with a huge 55%-42% lead over John Kerry
amongst likely voters. The same Gallup Poll showed an 8-point lead for
Bush amongst registered voters (52%-44%). Before you get discouraged by
these results, you should be more upset that Gallup gets major media
outlets to tout these polls and present a false, disappointing account of
the actual state of the race. Why?
Because the Gallup Poll, despite its reputation, assumes that this
November 40% of those turning out to vote will be Republicans, and only
33% will be Democrat. You read that correctly.
In an Air America Radio interview, Democratic polling expert Ruy Teixiera
pointed out that if the parties were sampled evenly, the Gallup figures
would conform with the other polls, and show a tied race, within the margin
of error.
Where on earth does Gallup get those figures of 40-33 in favor of the
Republicans? A search of several articles has failed to provide an
explanation.
Surely Gallup hasn’t found validation for that 40-33 GOP advantage in recent
elections. Al Gore, let us never forget, got half a million more votes than
Bush in 2000. The 2002 mid-term elections were virtually even..
In fact,
as John
Zogby reports, recent election returns show an advantage to the
Democrats:
If we look at the three last Presidential elections, the spread was 34%
Democrats, 34% Republicans and 33% Independents (in 1992 with Ross Perot
in the race); 39% Democrats, 34% Republicans, and 27% Independents in
1996; and 39% Democrats, 35% Republicans and 26% Independents in 2000.
To my knowledge, no other polling organization has such a lopsided
oversampling in favor of the Republicans
Assuming that Gallup’s tallying of the poll results is entirely accurate, if
they assume that 40-33 GOP advantage, their conclusion is still junk. As any
student of formal logic will tell you, valid inferences from false premises
yield unsound conclusions. More bluntly, GIGO: garbage in, garbage
out.
For the life of me, I can’t understand why Gallup is oversampling the
Republicans. Maybe Gallup can provide a benign explanation. But until it
does, I am inclined to suspect the worst: Gallup has decided to become a
“player” in this election – for team Bush.
A series of bad and deteriorating polls for Kerry can set off a “bandwagon
effect.” It could also discourage Kerry voters and incline them to remain at
home during election day.
If Gallup was the only polling organization in the field, the results of
these poll numbers could be devastating to the Kerry campaign. With
virtually all other polls showing a close race, Gallup’s numbers might still
be devastating – but only to the Gallup organization.
In 1936, The Literary Digest conducted a poll based on two million returned
postcards from a mailing that the Digest claimed was sent to one quarter of
all the voters. The projection: a landslide for Republican Alfred Landon,
with 57% of the votes and 370 electoral votes. In fact, the landslide went
to Roosevelt with 62% of the votes.
Soon thereafter, the Literary Digest went out of business.
If Gallup is in bed with the Repubs, it deserves the same fate.
DON’T COUNT ON THE DEBATES.
I vividly remember
what I was thinking exactly four years ago: “Just wait
‘till the debates. Gore will clobber Bush!”
Many Kerry supporters are entertaining the same expectation. “Hope springs
eternal.”
Better sober up and take another look at the 2000 debates. As it turned out,
in the debate contest of Gore versus Bush, Gore won handily. But in
the contest of Gore versus Bush plus Media, it was Gore who was,
well, gored.
The Gore supporters figured that with his advantages of experience,
eloquence and intellect, Gore would clean Bush’s clock. And on debating
points, he did just that. Read the transcripts of the
first,
second, and
third debates,
and you will see what I mean.
“Flash polls” immediately after the debates confirm this judgment – the
immediate public reaction favored Gore.
But then the mighty media spin machine started cranking, and when it was
through, the polls were reversed. And so, today, the media consensus is that
Bush “won” the 2000 debates.
What do you remember about those debates? Quite possibly the following:
Debate One – Gore’s “sighs” and rude behavior. Debate Two – Gore
was stiff, subdued, overly polite (in response, no doubt, to the press
criticism of Debate One). Debate Three (the “Town Meeting”) – Gore
“invaded Bush’s space.” In short, no substance, just “drama criticism,”
focusing on Gore's "poor performances." Bush was given a complete
pass.
Quite possibly, Gore was sabotaged in the first debate, when, during Bush’s
remarks, Gore’s microphone was apparently turned up and “cutaway shots”
showed Gore’s exasperation. Those shots and those “sighs” were then shown
repeatedly in video clips.
The post-debate extravaganzas were very damaging to the Gore campaign. In
one memorable case, Republican operative Frank Luntz (not identified as
such) conducted a “focus group” discussion of the just-completed debate. Up
front, he asked the group which candidate came across as more “likeable.”
When they voted for Bush, Luntz proclaimed Bush the “winner” of the debate.
A member of that group, Lisa Ramsey, later blew the whistle on Frank Luntz’
con:
I was part of Frank Luntz' "focus group" that pitted ten Republicans
against ten Democrats.
We were told to come to a hotel in West Palm Beach an hour before the
show. Upon arrival, we were checked off a list and segregated by party. I
was close enough to the Republicans to see a man passing out "talking
points" to his fellow panelists -- telling them that it would be great if
they could incorporate them into whatever they said -- and to make it
sound personal.
I was outraged and tried to get a copy. I must have looked like a liberal,
so they sent me back to my corner. I approached one of the producers about
it, only to be blown off.
About a half an hour before the show, we were taken to the room with the
cameras. Each side had a few more people than they actually needed, so
Frank and the producer started to hand pick the participants and show them
to their seats.
Interestingly, I was passed over initially (perhaps they smelled a trouble
maker). I made it on when a gentleman had to recuse himself. I could have
sworn that he said that he was a lawyer and they said they didn't allow
lawyers, but I could be wrong.
So here we sat for what was said to be a "sound check." The guy next to me
explained in whispers that this was actual an "attitude check" and that
the producers were identifying who might possess a brain along with an
attitude. During the show, those folks would be avoided and interrupted at
all costs, my new friend said, unless they sat on the Republican side.
All said, the show looked like a one-sided Jerry Springer show ... with
the well dressed and rehearsed Republicans winning sizable airtime with
the fascist talking points. I found the whole experience very disturbing.
Recently, I read an article which identified Mr. Luntz as a GOP pollster.
(Lisa Ramsey in mediawhoresonline.com)
The “likeability factor” must have been the subject of a talking-points
memo distributed beforehand to the whore-media, for it came up time and
again. As Mark Crispin Miller observed:
On CNN... after the third encounter on October 17, Bob Novak got the
ball rolling by suggesting that "there might have been a defeat for Gore
on the likeability factor' ... From there, Jeff Greenfield took the ball
and ran a long way with it, wondering whether 'Gore's clear decision to be
aggressive, to try to define very sharp differences' might make him see
'assertive and tough minded' or 'rude and smug' -- although 'we're going
to have to wait forty-eight hours or so to find out.' '' The 'analysts' at
CNN said not one word about the substance of the candidates' exchange."
(The Bush Dislexicon)
Facts, evidence, competence, enlightened self-interest -- all trumped by
"bad vibes." Substantive ideas and coherent arguments set aside in favor of
empty, focus-group-tested slogans ("compassionate conservatism,": "reformer
with results," "a uniter, not a divider"). And finally, Bush was presented
to us as a "more agreeable" person. The President of the United States as
Prom Date.
The essential strategy of the 2000 debates was identical to the GOP strategy
today: misdirection: “Swift Boats Vets for Truth,” “flip-flips,”
“Rather-gate,” and now, Lord help us all, wind-surfing.
Misdirection, the favorite device of the stage magician, is the key to understanding how Gore’s victory was turned to
defeat in the 2000 debates. Therein, Gore was clearly the master of the
substance, the argument structure, and the language. He addressed (albeit in
too much detail and elaboration) issues of acute and relevant concern to the
public. Bush, in contrast, sputtered and strung together incoherent
fragments of his stump speech, struggled to fill out his allotted two
minutes, all the while reminding us that in fifty-four years he had somehow
failed to take full control of the English Language. Immediate, "unspun,"
public reaction confirmed this impression. Then the pundit and spin-doctor
circus was brought in as we were all told what we "really" saw in the
debates, and what we should "really" think of them. Gore's totally accurate
account of a crowded schoolroom and his innocent error about a visit to a
Texas flood was amplified into "proof" of his hopeless prevarication. Frank
Luntz’ “focus groups" of allegedly "ordinary citizens," harped on Gore's
sighs and posture, and on Bush's "likeability," as all substantial issues
were effectively shut out of serious reflection and discussion.
Among the rules of the upcoming debates are no physical contact between the
candidates and no cutaway shots. Apparently the Kerry handlers are trying to
block some of the GOP tricks from 2000. No matter. The media and GOP
spinners will find other tricks, and no doubt are working on them right now.
If the Kerry campaign is now prepping their candidate on issues and debating
points, while paying no to attention to “atmospherics,” then once again the
Democrat is fated to win the debates and drop like a stone in the polls.
To win, the Democrats must carefully study the past debates and devise
counter-strategies.
The Kerry team must understand, first and foremost, that these debates are
not the Oxford Union. They must look outside the “frame” of “debating,” and
within the frame of “selling the product.”
And they must demand the fairest possible treatment by the media. They won’t
get an even break, but they might at least improve the odds.
We can help by independently contacting the media – in particular, the
networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) and the cable channels (MSNBC, CNN – forget about
FOX) – and demanding fair treatment of the Democratic candidates.
September 21, 2004
“CATASTROPHIC SUCCESS”
If the English teachers’ Committee on Doublespeak were still around, they
would surely award their George Orwell Prize to George Bush, for the
following gem, offered recently in a Time Magazine interview:
"Had we to do it over again, we would look at the consequences of
catastrophic success –– being so successful, so fast, that an enemy that
should have surrendered or been done in, escaped and lived to fight
another day,"
A thousand of our soldiers dead in the field, and an uncounted more dying
in hospital of their wounds. An additional unreported thousands Americans
wounded. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis dead. At a cost of more than
$200 billion, and counting.
And he dares to call this a “success”!
Bush expresses surprise that the Iraqi Army did not stand and fight against
the invading “coalition,” but that they instead “escaped and lived to fight
another day.” What is truly surprising is that anyone could imagine a
different course of events.
The Saddam Hussein’s military budget was about one billion dollars – one
four-hundredth of that of the United States. Furthermore, his military was
crippled by the loss of the Gulf war.
And so, if Bush and his neo-con warriors had an iota of capacity to see
through the eyes of their adversary (an essential component of any competent
military strategy), they could have predicted the present and ongoing
“catastrophic success” in Iraq.
As I wrote for The Crisis Papers a year ago (“Now
We are the Redcoats”):
Faced with an imminent invasion by the United States military (sorry,
“Coalition”), would Saddam, with a military budget one four-hundredth
that of the United States, prepare his pitiful army for a conventional
showdown on the Iraqi deserts with American tanks, jet fighters, cruise
missiles, etc.? If so, he would be a fool.
Or might he, like [the North Vietnamese] General Vo Nguyen Giap, concede
the first inning, and prepare for the guerilla war to follow? Say what you
will about Saddam: he was a tyrant, a brute, and a mass murderer. Granted.
But he was not a fool.
Saddam Hussein clearly understood that Phase One would soon end with the
American occupation of Iraq. So his army gave token resistance, fell back,
then shed its uniforms, blended into the civilian population, and prepared
for Phase Two, which is now in progress.
From the flight deck of the Abraham Lincoln, George Bush proclaimed
“mission accomplished” –– that with the “capture” of Baghdad, we had
“won the war,” just as General Howe proclaimed the end of the American
rebellion with the capture of New York in 1776.
Sadly, the war continues, and the prospects for our side are grim...
In Iraq today, friend and foe look alike. If the American soldier
hesitates, the fedayeen will take the first shot, and another American
casualty will be added to the list. But if he shoots first, his target may
be a twelve-year old boy on the roof, a photographer lifting his camera,
or a family rushing to get home before the curfew. More dead innocent
Iraqis. More rage against the invaders. All to the advantage of the
resistance.
This is how an entire population is redefined by the occupying army from
“the gratefully liberated,” strewing flowers before their “valiant
liberators,” to a pervasive threat, whereby each individual must be
presumed guilty until proven innocent.
To be sure, among the so-called “insurgents” are many criminals, thugs,
die-hard Saddamists, and newly-imported jihadists. But do not doubt that
many are ordinary Iraqi citizens, some of whom have lost friends and
family members to their “enemy.” And they are doing exactly what the
bravest of our own citizens might do in a similar situation: they are
taking up arms against the foreign invaders and occupiers. They want their
country back. They wish it to be an independent and a sovereign country,
and not a resource colony and military base for a foreign power that does
not share their culture and religion, and that has little regard for the
welfare of the conquered.
Why couldn’t the Bush gang foresee this “catastrophe”? And why not those
in the media, the punditocracy, and the general public, somehow persist
in supporting him today?
Just as Saddam could not possibly win a conventional war against the United
States and “coalition” military, the United States is quite unlikely to win
against the Iraqi resistance.
In today’s Christian Science Monitor, Brad Knickerbocker quotes Ivan Eland:
Guerrilla warfare is the most underrated and the most successful form
of warfare in human history... It is a defensive type of war against a
foreign invader. If the guerrillas don't lose, they win. The objective is
to wait out your opponent until he goes home.
Accordingly, the only wise course is for our military to leave, the
sooner the better.
WHO IS BEHIND “MEMO-GATE”?
About a week ago, The New York Times’ Maureen Dowd described the
belief that Karl Rove was behind the Dan Rather, 60 Minutes memos, as a
“paranoid fantasy.”
Count me among the paranoids.
While I am by no means convinced of the Rove Theory, I have some small
suspicions.
Keep in mind that Rove has done this sort of thing before. Shortly before a
Texas debate between Rove’s inarticulate client and his silver-tongued
opponent, Rove claimed to have discovered a “bug” behind a picture in his
office. Due to the short battery life of the bug, it was incapable of
causing harm, and so was almost certainly “planted” by Rove himself. Because
of the distracting publicity, attention was diverted from the debate, and
Rove’s client won.
Then again, just before the 2000 Presidential debates, a GOP briefing tape
was delivered to the DNC headquarters. It was returned unopened, but not
before the GOP trumpeted the story and thus, once again, distracted
attention from the debate.
So is it far-fetched to suspect that he might try a similar stunt, just as
the Bush AWOL was threatening once again to break out into the open?
From an advance excerpt of Wednesday's 60 Minutes interview that we heard on
NPR's "All Things Considered,", we learned that Rather’s source was retired
Colonel Bill Burkett, who has earlier claimed to have witnessed the
destruction of embarrassing portions of Bush’s records by members of his
staff. (Bush was Texas Governor at the time). Burkett refused to disclose
his source of the memos, but insists that he did not write them.
Is Karl Rove the culprit? We ask the key question:
Qui Bono?
– who benefits from this disclosure?
Whether or not Rove was behind this caper, he could not have asked for a
better outcome.
It was a “three-bird-shot.” First, it discredited Dan Rather, who has had a
long-term ongoing feud with the Bush family. Second, it discredited Col.
Burkett, who has been leveling serious charges against Bush and his staff.
And finally, and most significantly, it has diverted attention from the
explosive issue of Bush’s misbehavior and shirking of duty during his
self-abbreviated service with the Air National Guard.
In his brilliant and comprehensive article in Salon.com,
“Bush in the National Guard: a Primer,” Eric Boehlert conclusively
demonstrates, along with many others, that even if the memos are forgeries,
the case against Bush is essentially untouched. The questions of his missed
medical exams, his loss of flying status, his absence from required service
– all this remains unanswered and unrebutted.
But no matter. As far as the general public is concerned, whenever anyone
brings up the issue of Bush’s guard service, we are likely to hear “but
the memos were fakes!” Irrelevant – but nevertheless, effective.
Even so, the Bush AWOL issue will not go away, nor should it.
Still better if Karl Rove is found, before the election, to have been the
evil genius behind “Memo-gate.”
A LETTER TO MY FRIENDS IN RUSSIA:
Дорогие Друзья!
I have been devastated by the news of the slaughter of the innocents in the
Beslan school in southern Russia. And in Moscow, the siege of the theater,
and the car bombing of a Metro station. My heart goes out to the surviving
families and friends.
The world appears to be going mad, all around us.
The Iraqi people are clearly telling the world that they do not wish to be
occupied by the American armed forces. But our boy-president is not
receiving that message, and his circle of international criminals persist in
their determination to make Iraq a permanent military base and resource
colony.
So more innocent Iraqis are being sacrificed. Also innocent are the American
soldiers, the vast majority of whom have no quarrel with the Iraqis, and
want nothing more than to return home to their families.
Meanwhile, the American media, overwhelmingly owned and controlled by
Republican supporters of the Bush regime, has so distorted the "news," that
more than half of our population approves of the Iraq occupation (or
"liberation," as the Bush regime would have us believe). Neither are many
Americans aware or concerned about the very poor opinion the rest of the
world has of our president and his administration.
My compatriots that support Bush in this war are not, for the most part,
evil people. But they are profoundly misinformed.
Prospects for deliverance from this folly in the November election are not
good.
However, those of us, throughout the world, who are possessed of knowledge
and of conscience, have no choice but to persist in our dissent and
struggle.
As I have often written before, our struggle appears to be hopeless: as
hopeless as Gandhi's struggle against the British Empire; as hopeless as
Martin Luther King's protest against racial injustice in the American south;
as hopeless as Nelson Mandella's fight for majority rule in South Africa; as
hopeless as Andrei Sakharov's struggle for reform and liberty in the Soviet
Union.
Yet all of these persisted and prevailed.
I have read that there are now two "great powers" in the world today: the
United States on the one hand, and the "great power" of international
conscience throughout the world (including the United States, of course).
That latter power took to the streets of the world by the millions, just
before the outbreak of the this dreadful Iraq war. It remains, dormant at
the moment, but ready to rise again when the time is right.
I hope and trust that it will do so soon, before many more innocent lives
are sacrificed to the cruel folly that is at work in Baghdad, in Beslan, in
Chechniya, in Palestine.
We are united in this struggle, as common soldiers in the "great power" of
world conscience. Never forget, that you have many allies amongst the
American people, who will not abandon the cause, or their consciences,
whatever the outcome in our November election.
Наилучшик Пажеланий
(Best Wishes)
Ernest Partridge
September 2, 2004
BUSH’S NATIONAL GUARD AWOL SOLVED!
From the secret vaults of our perverted imagination, comes this exclusive
news:
Karl Rove is about to announce Bush's whereabouts during the last two years
of his National Guard obligation.
Turns out that Dubya was in Russia on a very secret and very dangerous
mission for the CIA. Before embarking on that mission, Bush devoted his
extraordinary intellect and laser-like study habits to the task of becoming
perfectly fluent in Russian. He then penetrated the KGB where his
disinformation set in motion the implosion that led to collapse of the
Soviet Union.
"But what about his appearance with the Alabama senate campaign?," one might
ask. There is a simple and straightforward answer: the campaign worker was a
double, placed as a cover for Bush’s heroic counter-intelligence work in the
Evil Empire.
The double was so effective, that he joined the Secret Service, and now
follows Bush everywhere, in disguise, of course,
This explains the strange incident at the Florida school on 9/11.
What actually happened was that word of the first World Trade Center impact
arrived while Bush was in transit to the school. Springing immediately
into decisive action, Bush then ordered the double to stand in for him at
the school, while The Commander in Chief took charge and headed back to DC,
heedless of the personal danger.
Meanwhile the double, not a very bright fellow, forgot his lines and
suffered a seven-minute actors' block.
And that's the honest truth.
If you believe it, then surely you will have no trouble believing the Swift
Boat Veteran's uncorroborated tales based on alleged 35 year recollections,
and contrary to official documents written and testimony taken at the time
of the events.
Remember, you read it first in The Crisis Papers.
ABOUT POLLS
In the current Newsweek’s “Conventional Wisdom” we find, next to “Bush:”
Bad numbers on economy, Swift Boat charges shredded and Iraqi
insurgents unbowed – yet he gains. Go figure.
And where does the CW arrow point? Straight up! “Go figure.”
About those poll numbers, the Center for American Progress’ ever-cheerful
public opinion guru,
Ruy Teixeira, tells us “don’t worry, be happy:”
The Los Angeles Times poll released Thursday August 26th has created
substantial consternation among democrats. Not only the mainstream media,
but many pro-democratic writers and commentators have accepted the polls'
apparent message that the sleazy attacks on Kerry's wartime record have
been successful and have allowed Bush to overtake Kerry in the
presidential race.
The bad news is that this perception has been widely accepted. The good
news is that it's fundamentally wrong.
We’ve often suspected that Teixeira’s news is too good to be true. But he
may have a point here. He continues: “The four major polls conducted since
August 20th do not reveal any consistent or substantial pro-Bush swing such
as would be expected from a successful attack on John Kerry's war record and
character during the week and a half before.”
The latest tally in
www.polingreport.com of the nine leading polls bears this out: Bush
leads in four, Kerry in three, and two dead-even.
We’ve seen this all before. In our late-April blog, having read that “Polls
show that Bush has retaken the lead,” we looked at
www.polingreport.com and
found that of the eighteen polls listed, Kerry led in eleven, and Bush in
seven.
So once again, the so-called “librul media” picked the poll most favorable
to Bush and proclaimed a “trend.”
Now look further at the PollingReport.com’s
more comprehensive
listing of 15 polls, and the result is Kerry 8, Bush 4, and tied
3. (“Likely voters” and not identified as “likely or “registered”). These
are all with Nader included, which works to Kerry’s disadvantage. Many of
these, however, show only a point or two of difference, which means a
statistical tie.
Another interesting finding: Kerry generally polls better among “registered
voters” than among “likely voters.” Don’t quite know what this signifies,
but if one wants to further bias the findings in Bush’s favor, then by all
means quote the “likely voters.”
It is beginning to appear every more plausible that polls are deliberately
being used as tools of political persuasion, in behalf of the Bushistas.
How is this possible?
Let’s assume that the counting is completely copasetic. Even so, polls can
be deliberately biased. First, by selecting a sample that is skewed. Second,
by the phrasing of the question. And third, by the context of the questions
(i.e., the question(s) that preceded, or even the pollsters’ instructions).
And finally, as we have seen, pick among the array of several polls, the
one that best supports your political bias.
Until quite recently, we trusted the polls, believing that the
market-value of the polls depended upon their reputation for reliability and
upon their “track record” of prior performances.
But now, with ever-more bias, slanting and spinning evident in the media,
we’re beginning to take these polls with a pound of salt.
A CRISIS PAPERS BOUQUET FOR ASHLEIGH BANFIELD
A familiar face reappeared on Bill Maher’s HBO show last week: Ashleigh
Banfield.
Remember Ashleigh? She’s the bespectacled tele-bimbo, formerly with MSNBC.
“Formerly” – and therein lies a tale.
Back when I was watching MSNBC (I haven’t in almost a year), she was just
another pretty face. But then I began to notice a difference. She took on
tough assignments, including front-line reporting in Afghanistan. And who
can forget her reporting on 9-12, a couple of blocks from Ground Zero,
during which, in the background, WTC Building 8 collapsed. Ashleigh didn’t,
and proceeded with a thoroughly articulate and professional report.
Clearly there was some well-functioning grey matter behind that pretty face.
Also, an appreciable fund of professional integrity, which she displayed on
April 24, 2003 in her Landon Lecture at Kansas State University.
In that lecture, Banfield,
recalling the opening coverage of the Iraq war, took the corporate news
media to the woodshed:
The TV show we gave you was exciting. It was entertaining. I hope that
the legacy it leaves behind doesn't give only that impression. War is ugly
and dangerous, and we didn't see that....
...what didn't you see? You didn't see where those bullets landed. You
didn't see what happened when the mortar landed. A puff of smoke is not
what a mortar looks like when it explodes, believe me. There are horrors
that were completely left out of this war. So was this journalism or was
this coverage-? There is a grand difference between journalism and
coverage, and getting access does not mean you're getting the story, it
just means you're getting one more arm or leg of the story. And that's
what we got, and it was a glorious, wonderful picture that had a lot of
people watching and a lot of advertisers excited about cable news. But it
wasn't journalism, because I'm not so sure that we in America are hesitant
to do this again, to fight another war, because it looked like a glorious
and courageous and so successful terrific endeavor, and we got rid oaf
horrible leader: We got rid of a dictator, we got rid of a monster, but we
didn't see what it took to do that....
What you read in the newspapers and what you see on cable is not what they
see there. We can't blame these poor people for not liking the United
States. All they know is we are crusaders ... . All they know is that we
want their oil. They are very suspect to who these new liberators are.
Banfield’s finest hour as a TV News correspondent was just about her
last.
Soon thereafter, an unidentified “MSNBC Spokesman” released the statement:
"She and we both agreed that she didn't intend to demean the work of her
colleagues, and she will choose her words more carefully in the future."
Whereupon Banfield was “reassigned” to the programming boondocks, and thence
out the corporate door.
So the next time some media PooBah waxes eloquently about our “free press,”
think of Ashleigh Banfield.
Also, ex-MSNBC, top-rated talk show host, Phil Donahue. (But that’s another
story.)
Let’s hope we will someday have a news media worthy of honest and principled
journalists such as Ashleigh Banfield.
A disclaimer: For those offended by the apparently sexist verbiage
-- "tele-bimbo," "pretty-face," etc. -- I intend this as an indictment on my
part of the sexism of the cable news media. Perhaps you too are
offended by the exclusion from the cable screens of talented journalists who
might look out of place in the pages of Victoria's Secret.
HOW KERRY WINS
As I have noted several times in this blog, I remain quite pessimistic about
Kerry’s prospects. In an honest election, with a “fair and balanced” media,
Kerry-Edwards would win in a landslide.
But, alas, the media is up to the same old tricks that we saw in 2000 (about
which I will say much more in an upcoming blog or essay), and much of the
public appears to be taken in again.
Far worse, however, are those unverifiable e-voting machines, manufactured
and programmed by supporters of the Republican Party, that will tally up to
30% of the votes. I fully expect that many of them will be “fixed” to favor
Bush-Cheney.
And finally, The Busheviks must realize that if they lose, many will face
jail time as the crimes come to light and some are prosecuted. So they are
desperate to stay in office and will stop at nothing to do so.
Even so, Kerry-Edwards can win, despite media bias and e-voting, and here is
how.
The “Swift Boat” smear has given Kerry the license to bring up Bush’s
dereliction of his Texas Air National Guard (TANG) duty – the missing
medical and fitness reports, the alleged purging of the files, and the
coverup that has followed. (As Nixon learned, and so too the rest of us,
“the cover-up is worse than the crime”).
Heretofore, any mention of Bush’s wayward youth has been dismissed as “old
news.” No more. Now that the details of Kerry’s life and activities
thirty-plus years ago are considered fair game, then so too is Bush’s. As
they say in the TV courtroom dramas, “my opponent has opened up that door.”
When the candidates are asked, “what were you doing in the Sixties?,” Kerry
comes out far ahead.
In general, Rove’s no-holds-barred negative attack on Kerry, gives Kerry the
opportunity to strike back in kind. Again, given their records, advantage
Kerry.
Following Ben Barnes, the former Lt. Governor of Texas, more people with
Bush “horror stories” may still come forth. First a few, and as they succeed
without horrid retaliation, more and more follow.
The media perceives a trend, decides to “go with the winner,” and a momentum
builds. It finally dawns on a few key media and corporate poobahs that they
have no stake in the coming economic collapse and diplomatic pariah-hood,
both guaranteed by a Bush victory. At last, we finally begin to get a "fair
and balanced" treatment of Kerry combined with sharp editorial criticisms of
Bush, his record, his policies, and his campaign tactics.
Enlightened investors come to appreciate that an ever-growing number of
jobless, uninsured, underpaid and overworked (as the standard of living
drops) American citizens will not take kindly to Bush’s ever-growing
kleptocracy. Unlike the Russians after the Bolshevik revolution, when our
economy crashes, too many Americans will remember vividly what it was like
to live in a free and prosperous country.
Eventually, moderate Republicans and authentic “conservatives” will
appreciate that, due to the rightward-shift, a vote for Kerry is a vote for
what was once called "moderate Republicanism" so there's little to fear with
a Kerry victory, and much to fear with a Kerry defeat.
The Rove-Bush calliope then runs out of steam and stalls.
Kerry runs up a huge polling lead (12-15 points, maybe more).
With all this, Bush&Co realize that to "win," the e-vote fraud would have to
be so overwhelming as to be unbelievable -- i.e., they couldn't get away
with it. So they call off the "fixes."
Missing from all this are the “imponderables” going on, perhaps even now,
“under the radar. What, for example, might the CIA be up to? “The Company”
has been cruelly betrayed and stigmatized -- Plame, Pak-gate, the Senate
Committee whitewash of the Bushistas at the expense of the CIA, etc. The CIA
has proven itself very skillful at overthrowing foreign governments (Iran,
Central America, Chile, etc.). And they know better than most just what kind
of catastrophe Bush is leading us to. While I doubt that the CIA can or will
directly overthrow the Bush regime, they might work to balance the scale by
releasing information and perhaps applying some blackmail leverage at a few
sensitive spots. This we know: there are a lot of very pissed-off spooks
over at Langley. What, if anything, they might be doing about it is unknown
and unknowable – for now, at least.
Even if the odds are long, we must soldier on, working for “regime change.”
The alternative is just too horrible to allow any let-up in our efforts.