What do Republicans believe in? Or why do Republicans
believe in Bush?

I've heard pundits like Rush ("if people [except for me] are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up.") Limbaugh use the term Rino ("Republicans in name only") as a term of abuse with such scorn that it has led me to wonder what the term Republican now means. When I was young the world was an easier place to interpret, ideologically speaking. The Republicans were for a) lower taxes; b) a smaller federal government whose regulatory actions did not unduly impinge upon the workings of a "free" market; c) balanced budgets and d) minimal interference by the government into areas traditionally regulated by the states and into the private lives of citizens. I will defer comment on the transformation of "Republican" foreign policy for another day.

Prince Awol, the current Republican leader, supported by a Republican House and Senate, has

• raised the total tax burden of most Americans (although he has lowered the tax burden of the most wealthy Americans) [see, Perfectly Legal by David Cay Johnson, or his interview with Lou Dobbs, excerpted at the Whisky Bar - but take your blood pressure medication first);


• overseen a huge increase in the size and scope of the federal government (great cartoon noted by quicksauce here; get Brookings report summary here)
  


• expanded programs which
  
  
  
  • i) give federal money (your tax dollars) to proselytizing religious organizations in exchange for services which they claim their religious faith compels them to do anyway (story here); and
  
  
  • ii) gives federal money (your tax dollars) to corporations which the government knows have not even paid their corporate tax obligations (story here);
    
  
  
  
  


• overseen the transformation of a $230 billion dollar budget surplus into a $2.75 trillion dollar deficit (story here);
  


• supported the Hate Amendment, which will forbid states their traditional perogative in defining marital status (story here);
  


• through his Holy Roller General Ashcroft, issued subpoenas demanding the private medical recordsof American citizens (here) as well as records of a workshop on non-violent demonstrations against the war in Iraq, to which the organizers invited local media and police - not an obvious move for terrorist conspirators (story here); and through the Army (posse comitatus no more), investigated the actions (the organization of a conference on Islam) of students at a US university on US soil (story
  here).

I'm not making this up. Read the Manchester Union Leader (bastion of the conservative press), which accuses the Republican Party of abandoning its traditional values (here and here).

So Awol and his merry band can't be called Republicans in any traditional sense of the term, and indeed they use the term "RINO" to castigate politicians who have been elected on the Republican ticket, and appear to conduct their public life in terms of traditional Republican values. What then do these "neo-Republicans" believe in? It seems that they

• support reducing the tax burden of the wealthiest Americans by increasing the tax burden on middle and upper middle income Americans;


• believe in expanding the size, scope and power of the federal government at the expense of the rights of states and private citizens;.


• want to use the federal government to promote a particular sectarian theology;


• want to use the federal government to enrich corporations whose managers have supported the current administration;


• they wish to always support Prince Awol in everything, whether or not Awol's goals are contradictory, good for the Republican party, or good for America;

This is not an ideology that most Americans could reasonably be expected to support (and indeed, in terms of raw vote, they didn't.) How then, as Kevin Drumm has asked, did Awol do it? Not to be too reductionist, but I think it's pretty simple. Very rich people, who would be the sole beneficiaries of Awol's tax policy gave Awol a ton of money ($70 million before the 2000 primaries [story here]; this year rich people will give him $200 million [story here]). Evangelical Christian leaders decided that although Awol's policies might harm the worldly lives of those entrusted to their pastoral care, the spiritual opportunity Bush offered them (to use the federal government to promote their theology) was too valuable to pass up and delivered their sheep for slaughter (story here,
here and here).The SCLM either took a dive or just thought it would be fun to cover Republicans for a change. Americans were fat, dumb and happy and felt that the election wasn't that important. Liberals were fat, dumb and happy and felt they could indulge the radical chic notion that there was no difference between Gore and Bush. Bush lied about almost all of his plans, except for the tax cut. The SCLM let him lie about the consequences of his tax cut for most Americans.

Conclusion: So, Mr./Ms. Undecided, if you are very rich (and if you have to ask yourself, you aren't) and are a single issue (taxes) voter, vote for Awol. If you are an Evangelical Christian who will happily suffer in this world for the reward promised in the next, and you are a single issue voter (God in Government), vote for Awol. But, if you're a Republican, in your father's sense of the word, don't vote for Awol unless you're okay with the fact that he despises your traditional values.

The Weekly Wingnut Brigade

Apologies and excuses: Pudentilla's preference is to review the wingnut brigade on Fridays. Yesterday, however, it was 40 degrees Fahrenheit in Central Maine. There were no clouds. We had no classes. We played hooky. We took the dog to Reid State Park, sat on the rocks with our lunch and watched the prince of pups run wildly between surf and snow. It's was pretty close to paradise and I couldn't bring myself to read the wingnuts when we finally got home. I had hoped to watch the Friday night political news junkie line up after dinner for inspiration. But this is the week that Maine Public Television broadcasts the highschool basketball tournaments instead of McNeil Lehrer and Washington Week in Review. So no politics all day Friday. I have to say - I had a great day.

In the American Spectator:

John Kerry is the "enemy of the week" because he expressed reluctance to see Gibson's Jesus flic. Kerry's concern that the film might be anti-semitic earned him the designation. Kind of a weak smear if you ask me. Particularly n light of

David Brooks:

Brooks writes a haunting column describing the Torah that his son will read from at his bar mitzvah today. The Torah is one of the few that survives from the town of Wegrow, Poland. Upon reading Brooks' account of the devastation the Nazi's wrought upon that town and its people, I wondered why the American Spectator is so suspicious about Kerry's sensitivity to anti-semiticism.

Pat Buchanan:

Buchanan decries the decision of Mayor Newscomb of SF to permit gays to marry and describes the act as a text book example of how the Left is winning the culture wars [note to friends, they say we're winning]. The rant (a term whose archaic definition according to Oxford is: A high-flown, extravagant, or bombastic speech or utterance; a piece of turgid declamation; a tirade) turns into a tirade against judges. Funny how the right wing tirade against the tyranny of judges always overlooks a) the founder's decision to include Article III in the Constitution; and b) Bush v. Gore.

Ann Coulter:

Having decided to stop screaming at war heroes, Annie this week accuses John Sweeny of the AFL-CIO of hypocrisy in supporting a Democratic candidate, because Kerry "voted for NAFTA, voted for trade with China and voted against drilling for oil in Alaska."; Note to Annie: read Klugman on the the trade / jobs issues. It's not that complex but it does require a more complicated analysis than, "what ever the people who paid for Prince Awol want" as a political and/or economic rationale. Parroting the slogan free trade while you lose jobs with lightening like rapidity, is kind of lousy for working folks.

Jerry Falwell:

Our American Mullah is very happy with Prince Awol this week.He anticipates that the Hate Amendment will play a big role in the presidential election campaign and anticipates that Democrats will "falsely portray those who believe in the sanctity of marriage as hate-filled bigots." Actually, Rev., I think that people who believe for religious reasons that marriage should be defined as a one man/one woman proposition ought to join churches that will only bless such marriages. Such a religious position, does not, of course, preclude a secular state from recognizing marriages between queer folk. I think people who try to use the appartus of the state to impose their religious beliefs on those who don't share them are hate-filled bigots. More importantly, they are theocrats whose political vision is disturbingly like that of the theocrats of the Taliban. Question for the Rev. Why not insist that the Musgrave amendment be modified to preclude marriage between persons who have been married once and divorced? (too extreme? How about modifying Musgrave to preclude the marriage of any person who is divorced and has minor children?

Rush Limbaugh

Rush provides a continuing update on his defesne against charges criminal charges related to his drug addiction and complains about Kerry's flip flops. Nice try "people who break drug laws should go to jail" Rush.

Dennis Boyles in the National Review

Dennis attacks Katherine Gunn, who "took it on herself to leak to the Observer classified documents that alleged the U.S. and the U.K. may have monitored the conversations and activities of several U.N. delegations during the prewar U.N. Security Council debates." Interesting choice of words. The documents don't allege, they reveal that the US asked the UK to spy on the UN (in violation of international law) [story here]. Boyles bemoans the fact that it appears impossible to prosecute Gunn and Claire Short (who confirmed UK spying on the UN) for violating their oaths. If obeying the law is good, why doesn't he bemoan the fact that it's equally impossible to prosecute the Brits and Americans who ordered and conducted the illegal spying?

Imam "Pat" Robertson

The Imam promises us that defining America as a "Christian" nation will promote religious diversity. Like Mullah Falwall, he believes we're in a culture war. Fortunately, the "fair and balanced" Fox News' Sean Hannity is helping the Imam promote his book. And for Christians who worry that they will not live long enough to see the Haterful Christian's victory in the culture wars, the Imam has kindly provided a secret recipie: age-defying pancakes. I'm not making this up.

Andrew "Seen the Light" Sullivan

Sullivan quotes Hitchens to suggest a link between Gibson's previously noted homophobia, and his current obsession with military uniforms and torture. Sullivan hates the film: "Its extreme and un-Biblical fascination with human torture reflects, to my mind, not devotion to the message of the Cross but a kind of psycho-sexual obsession with extreme violence that Gibson has indulged in many of his other movies and is now trying to insinuate into Christianity itself."

The Washington Times

Julia Duin uses the Bennet report to gay bash.She does not take the opportunity to criticize the bishops who moved child molesters around the country without warning to the laity.

Weekly Standard

Jeffrey Bell and Frank Cannon cite polls indicating a "Bush lead turning into a 15-point lead should a fight over the definition of marriage become a prominent campaign issue." They think this is good news for Bush because despite his many promises, he has not been able to find any jobs or weapons of mass destruction (failures which they suspect help the Democratic candidate).

Why do I do this? Does my blod pressure need it? Is it for the sake of intellectual honesty or to mortify the spirit during the Lenten season? Who knows. But now you don't have to.

They want to work you to death.

Jan - Mar. 2001: Greenspan urges Congress to cut taxes rather than uses surplus to stabilize Social Security/Medicare (even to fund "private social security accounts) or pay down the national debt. [discussion here, here and here]. Republicans seized upon his assessment as an endorsement of the Bush proposal to decrease taxes for wealthy Americans (while allowing the tax burden of middle and upper middle income Americans to continue to increase). Sen. Pete Dominici (R. NM), indeed, promised that the surplus in 2001 was so great that there was enough money to fund the rich man's tax cut and to stabilize social security. "I believe that it [the surplus] is so large that we can take care of Social Security, by setting it aside under a lockbox," Domenici said." [full story here]

Fast forward: The rich man's tax cut was passed. The budget deficit grew to $500 billion dollars. The nation went to war. The war was cheap compared to the rich man's tax cut.

"Congressional Budget Office data indicate that in 2003 and 2004, the cost of enacted tax cuts is almost three times as great as the cost of war, even when the cost of increases in homeland security expenditures, the rebuilding after September 11, and other costs of the war on terrorism — including the action in Afghanistan — are counted as “war costs,” along with the costs of the military operations and subsequent reconstruction in Iraq. " (emphasis in original) [story here]

Even Prince Awol's economists admit (admittedly in the footnotes) that the tax cut played a role in the current deficit. [story here].
The tax cuts have also sandbagged state governors, most of whom are grappling with record deficits caused by the rich man's tax cut. [story here] The tax cuts, which Awol et al. advertised as a "jobs" bill, did not create enough jobs to offset the job losses the economy has suffered under Awol. Indeed, Awol while has fiddled the US has suffered the "greatest sustained job loss since the Depression." [story here and here] Hoping that folks wouldn't make a link between the rich man's tax cut and the budget deficit, Awol et adopted a new strategy this year in an effort to make the deficit seem smaller. They omitted the cost of the war in Iraq next year from their budget. [story here]. Thus the deficit is far worse than Awol and his merry men will admit.

February 2004: Greenspan urges Congress to cut Social Security benefits in order meet the demands Social Security will place on American resources. He also urges Congress to make the rich man's tax cut permanent ($1.24 trillion over 10 years)[story
here].

So, my question is: if the rich man's tax cut has not created jobs and it has increased the deficit, why does Greenspan want to keep it, at the price of middle class retirement benefits? Conclusion: Mr./Ms. undecided voter, if don't depend on a job for your income and won't depend on a Social Security check to meet your rent when you retire, vote for Awol. Everyone else: they want to work you to death.

Questions for my congressional representatives:

On Bush's Pro-discrimination amendment:

• Will you support this amendment?


• If yes,
  
  
  
  • Will you support modifying this amendment to forbid states and the federal government from recognizing marriages between men and women who have previously received divorces?
  
  
  • If not, why not?
  
  
  • Will you support modifying this amendment to forbid states and the federal government from recognizing marriages between men and women who have minor children from a previous marriage that has ended in divorce?
  
  
  • If not, why not?
  
  
  
  


• I no, what steps will you take to oppose this amendment?

On Iraq:

• Why did the Senate Intelligence Committee decline, for the first time, to invite the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research to testify at hearings about terrorist threat assessments by government intelligence agencies?

On Social Security:

• Do you agree with Alan Greenspan that the government should cut Social Security benefits to future retirees?

Prince Awol on the Wrong Side of History:

"I draw the line in the dust . . . and I say segregation homophobia
today, segregation homophobia tomorrow, segregation homophobia
forever . . . "

George Wallace, 1963 / George W. Bush, 2004

Some have managed to keep their jobs despite a weak economic recovery in US.

 

Does Prince Awol have a Guilty Conscience?

Maybe it’s a guy thing., I just don’t get the whole revisiting Vietnam thing. It seems to me that Kerry thought it was his duty to enlist and serve. So he enlisted and served. What he saw while serving in Vietnam made him think that the war was bad for America. When he came home from Vietnam he thought it was his duty to oppose the war. So he opposed the war. This doesn’t strike me as hypocrisy. Learning from your experience is generally regarded as a good thing in human development. (Claiming to be a war president while screwing troops out of benefits and pay - that strikes me as hypocrisy.)

Could someone ask the Republicans who are claiming that Kerry’s opposition to the Vietnam war was hypocritical ask them if they thought the Vietnam war was good for America? Maybe they thought it was good for America as long as they (the chickenhawks: Cheney, Chambliss, Delay et al.) didn’t actually personally endure any risk. Would that stance be considered “hypocritical”?

Conclusion: Mr./Ms. undecided voter: if you want a President who has learned from his experiences, don't vote for Prince Awol.

Nader da Nada

Calpundit wants everyone to ignore him. Kleiman thinks the dems shouldn't give him another free pass. Skippy thinks he'll be dismissed as a fringe candidate without the Greens. Josh Marshall thinks that Ralph's claim that he'll help the dems is "sheer sophistry. John Nichols at the Nation thinks that the dems shold Norman Thomas him and that he'll help. Matt Yglesias thinks that the Nation's distinction between the electoral contextt in 2004 and 2000 is self-serving.

Maybe I'm too much of an optimist. But it's hard for me to see how Nader will have a negative effect on the Democratic candidate this fall. Who will vote for him? Those who are such true believers that they will be willing to see Bush win? As if Kerry or Edwards would have gotten their vote had Nader not run? Deaniacs who are really angry at Kerry for beating Dean and who would rather see the man who defeated their guy lose than see the dems to retake the White House? Do you think they would have voted for Bush had Nader not run? No the Deaniacs and TBs would have stayed home.

Will Nader's positions hurt the dems? I don't think so. I think they will stake out the left end of the ideological spectrum. Prince Awol's merry gang, accordingly, will have a hard time running the "Massachussets liberal" (or in Dean's case, liberal trial lawyer) scam. Whatever dem runs will sound mainstream and Nader's critique of the dems (should he make them) will only make the dem candidate sound mainstream. The best case of course would be a dem who could paint both Bush and Nader as extreme, radicals whose policies aren't good for the country. This would be unfair to Nader, whose policies are extreme, but would be good for our country. Too bad for Ralph.

Under this analysis the question is will a Republican protest candidate (Moore or Buchanan) hurt or help the dems. Will Moore/Buchanan make Prince Awol seem more rational because he is less crazy than they are? Or will Moore/Buchanan terrify the populace as Buchanan did with his "culture wars" speech to the Rep Nat Convention in 92? We should be careful what we wish for.

As a War President, Bush Stinks - a post script

And another thing: you would think Prince Awol would at least take care of the troops. But he doesn't. On army pay, Bush originally (August, ’03) proposed rolling back “imminent danger pay” and family separation allowance for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan – only political outcry stopped the administration from pursuing these plans (no analysis has been forthcoming on how much of the Bush tax cut very weatlhy people could offer to forgo in order to support our troops and their families) . Despite the outcry on the pay issue, Bush’s 2004 budget calls for reducing education aid for the children of US servicemen and women. The Bush budget proposal also screws vets on health care according to the VFW. The money quote (as Sullivan would say):

“VFW Commander-in-Chief Edward S. Banas Sr., of Voluntown, Conn., said that with only a $500 million increase in medical funding, the administration's budget falls $2.6 billion short of what the Independent Budget recommends is needed to fully meet the demands for quality veterans' health care. "This funding package is a disgrace and a sham," Banas said.”

The health care situation for soldiers who are currently serving and have been wounded is a nightmare. The same article also notes that the Pentagon is simply lying to the media about the number of wounded from Iraq. The money quote:

“Stars and Stripes (November 5, 2003 European edition) noted that the Landstuhl military hospital in Germany had "treated more than 7,000 injured and ill service members from Iraq." But at the same time, the military had recorded some 2,000 combat casualties. This discrepancy is 3.5-times (350%) between the number of wounded in combat listed by the military and the number of service personnel medically evacuated from Iraq for treatment in Germany!”

Hallibruton's subsidary KBR is putting soldiers at risk by failing to complete sanitation and blast protection facilities at military bases in Iraq which the Pentagon has contracted for.

Bill Berkowitz summarizes the Army Times analysis of how Prince Awol has been shafting the troops: See also the dnc special report on the military.


The context is provided by Army Times opinion polls that suggest that soldier on the ground's opinion about the war does not always match what the Pentagon has been telling the media (the polls make fascinating reading - this is just a selection):

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently told Senators that the present high demand on the military is "very likely a spike." How do you feel?

He's right 24.82 % (707)
He's wrong 68.23 % (1,944)
I don't know 6.95 % (198)
Total votes: 2849

Active force strength is now about 1.4 million. Also, of the 1.2 million National Guard and reserve troops, 154,600 are now mobilized. Is this enough manpower to meet current demands?


Yes 17.53 % (1,281)
No 75.10 % (5,488)
I don't know 7.38 % (539)
Total votes: 7308

Do you think the Army is taking adequate steps to protect convoys in Iraq?


Yes 21.74 % (499)
No 63.22 % (1,451)
I don't know 15.03 % (345)
Total votes: 2295

What do you think about the "bring them on" challenge President Bush issued July 2 from the White House, referring to those who attack U.S. troops in Iraq?



It showed U.S. resolve and confidence in troops to finish the job in Iraq 39.54 % (1,662)
It was irresponsible and unnecessarily placed the lives of U.S. troops
in even greater danger 58.79 % (2,471)
I don't know 1.67 % (70)
Total votes: 4203

How confident are you that the U.S. military has taken adequate precautions to prevent a recurrence of the Gulf War illnesses that arose after the conflict of 12 years ago?



Very confident 13.95 % (203)
Somewhat confident 26.46 % (385)
Not confident at all 59.59 % (867)
Total votes: 1455

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has resisted increases in troop strength, but some members of Congress warn that personnel shortages are having dire consequences on service members and their families. Can the military continue to meet its responsibilities around the world without more people?



Yes 5.84 % (79)
Yes, but it's causing problems, and more people - especially reservists - are likely to leave. 33.80 % (457)
No 58.73 % (794)
Don't know 1.63 % (22)
Total votes: 1352

Finally, although he won't pay them, protect them or nurse them when they've been wounded, Prince Awol has managed to expand the scope of army duties. Now the army is investigating law school seminars about Islam and demanding that students "name names" of attendees. Perhaps Prince Awol hopes that these gestapo like tactics will help prepare soldiers for their mission of bringing "liberty and democracy" to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Conclusion: Mr./Ms. undecided voter: if you have friends or family in the military, you shouldn't vote for Bush.

News from the wing-nut columns:

Coulter continues to trash talk Max Cleland. Her argument appears to be that since he lost his limbs in a non-combat, nay, even a recreational situation, he is not a hero. This is true. He is a hero because, as Joe Conason points out, on 6/9/68 he left a protected position during a mortar attack to provide first aid to fallen comrades, got his men to move the fallen back to protected positions, and while under fire repaired his battilion's communication equipment. This makes him a "war hero." Four days later, he picked up a fallen grenade and it blew up, taking three of his limbs. Then he went home and, despite a handicap that would have daunted the hell out of me, he built a successful life and career and continued to serve his country. This makes him a "peace hero."

Now why is Coulter so anxious to trash Cleland? I mean, it's just rude. Didn't her parents teach her any manners? Even Victor David Hanson thinks Cleland deserved better from the Republicans. Could it be because Cleland, Vietnam vet and war hero (Silver Star, Ann - valour, self-sacrifce) has criticized Prince Awol's conduct during his tenure (if that's the right word) with the National Guard? She says as much. So she's" trashing a cripple." (big irony here - if anyone wasn't crippled by the loss of limbs, it would have to be Cleland) I don't see how the fact that he lost his limbs in a non-combat incident after he'd performed his duty with great heroism (words to date not associated with Prince Awol's National Guard service) undercuts his moral authority. Sure helps us evaluate hers, however. Also suggests the chicken-hawks are bawking over the Guard issue.




Falwell knows why Queers are conquering in America!: Falwell traces the decline and decadence of our age to a failiure to accept the literal truth of the Book of Genesis. "These church leaders who allowed the notion of evolution to be combined with biblical teachings actually unlocked the door to undermine biblical authority, Mr. Ham said. " I don't know how you can make these kinds of argumets and believe in the First Amendment. Pat Robertson doesn't. "There is nothing in the Constitution about separation of church and state. It doesn't exist." It's just my opinion, but I don't think people who don't believe in the First Amendment are good for the country. I do think that the Constitution contemplates people like them and in its genius gives them the same rights as me. But it also gives me the right to say I think they're lousy Americans, unpatriotic, all the bad stuff.

Rush continues to report on his defense of charges that he illegally purchased drugs (an offense for which he thinks folks should go to jail) but is waxing large on gay marriage in SF. "This is a political movement that's taking place, this is a political issue, it's not a civil rights issue, it's not a legal issue, well, it's a legal issue but that's not the predominant manner in which it's being played out. " Not coherent here - but I think he's characterizing SF marriages as "political" and the Mass case as "legal." How this makes it not about civil rights is not clear. The Democrats like Boxer and Frank who have criticized the SF marriages show that liberals only care about the timing. I think his point is that in an non-election year Democrats would be passing out queer marriage certificates like candy. To think, we could have gotten this done if we had only waited a year.

The Washinton Times has an interesting story on Chalabi. Apparently he's said it doesn't matter that all the stories he fed about the WMD are hooey. They started the war that got rid of Saddam. Ends justify means. To the tune of $400 million of your tax dollars from the CPA to Chalabi and his gang.

Over at the Weekly Standard, Kristol and Bottum are backing the FMA, "big time." "the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has forced the question of marriage upon the entire United States." Gee, guys, I thought they were interpreting the Commonwealth's constitution. That's kind of their job. I always get a chuckle when Prince Awol and his merry gang (thank god for the interventionist judges in Bush v. Gore) complain about judges. The "conservative" solution for these guys is a federal law proscribing a matter heretofore always left to the states. This is chinese menu federalism. By why should we ask for intellectual consistency. They came to Washington to rule, not to govern.

There. Now when your Republican friends say that you don't consider other points of view, you can give them the lie.

As a "War President,"Bush Stinks

Let us leave aside the question, for the moment, of whether the war in Iraq was a good idea. Let us assume, arguendo, that we should have invaded Iraq. The election, accordingly, will require the country to assess whether Prince Awol has been an effective leader in a time of war.

The first point we have to make is that Awol gets no points for defeating the Taliban and Iraqui armed forces. No one could seriously believe that the outcome of the military campaigns were ever in doubt. So how are we to judge the Prince as a "war president?" I believe that in this day of "assymetric threat," we should judge our "war presidents" not on how the win the wars (a foregone conclusion), but on how they manage the ensuing peace.

Consider the "peace" in Afghanistan." Afghanistan is presently in danger of becoming a narco-state." Opium production there is at an all time high. A resurgent Taliban is blocking efforts of Afghan voters to register for promised elections. Only about 1 in 10 eligible voters has registered. U.S. officials fear that they may have to postpone the elections. In fact, despite our "military victory" in Afghanistan, the Taliban is still operating effectively in Afghanistan. The Taliban is still killing and injuring U.S. soldiers. Finally, in one of the acidic ironies of this war, the Taliban is still using Pakistan (our "ally") as a base from which to launch attacks into Afghanistan. Conclusion: Mr./Ms. undecided voter - if you think Prince Awol has led an effective war or peace in Afghanistan, vote for him. If you think democracy in Afghanistan requires better results, vote for someone else.

How about the peace in Iraq? The US is abandoning plans for regional caucuses in Iraq (WaPo - registration required). Indeed, one could argue that the US is abandoning plans for any sort of democratic political activity in Iraq. Instead, ithe current policy appears to be to turn everything over to the UN (note to neo-cons, stop UN bashing for awhile). The UN thinks we've done such a great job as an occupying power that they want to delay the election process. The US, nevertheless, insists upon handing power over to someone, anyone, before the end of June (a "mission accomplished" deadline, no doubt). The Pentagon, nevertheless, anticipates that US troops will remain in Iraq (100,000 for at least 2 years). This is a forecast of no small concern in my state of Maine, where 64% of our National Guard forces are presently deployed overseas. US troops, moreover, keep getting killed and injured. 547 US deaths, 647 total coalition deaths as of today. 2672 wounded in hostilities, 3087 total wounded. Perhaps one of the reasons for the injuries is the failure of the Pentagon to properly supply soldiers with body armor and humvees with armor plating. The Pentagon's plans for getting out of Iraq depend on the creation of effective Iraqi military and police forces. Unfortunately, the Pentagon is not training or supporting these forces effectively.

Perhaps it is the Pentagon's failure to properly train and support Iraqi national forces that has led the Coalitional Provisional Authority to hire a private "security company" of South Africans who formerly worked as pro-apartheid enforcers to protect the interests of Mr. Chalabi, a fugitive from Jordanian law on charges of financial fraud, and the Iraqi National Congress (the folks who told the neo-cons about all the WMD that aren't in Iraq). The CPA has also awarded a "start-up" company affiliated with Mr. Chalabi a contract worth more than $300 million dollars to supply arms for the new Iraqi army.

Conclusion: Mr./Ms. undecided voter, if you think that a casualty rate of 30 or more US inadequately equipped soldiers a month is the hallmark of a successful "war president," you should vote for Prince Awol. If you think the utter inability of the US to create sufficiently stable conditions to permit democratic elections is the hallmark of American victory, vote for Awol. If you think paying financial frauds who apparently lied to US intelligence agencies in order to support the drive to war hundreds of millions of dollars (in part to support their own mercenary militia) is a good use of your tax dollars, vote for Prince Awol. Otherwise, vote for the Democrat.

But, the Democrat can't simply point out the obvious, as I have here: As a war president, Prince Awol stinks. Bush broke it and the democrats are going to have to fix it. Kerry or Edwards better offer succinct and specific plans. "Internationalizing the conflict," is a great slogan. But US troops will be stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan for years. US tax dollars will be spent in the region for decades. The Democratic candidate will need to tell folks the how and why of this with credibility (and "more credible than Awol" is not a meaningful standard). As a war president, Bush stinks, but Democrats have to do more than explain why. They're going to have to explain how to clean up his mess.

Lies, Damned Lies and Policies

I loved the story about the scientists complaining that Prince Awol et al. "distort the facts." To quote:

"Together, the two documents accuse the administration of repeatedly censoring
and suppressing reports by its own scientists, stacking advisory committees
with unqualified political appointees, disbanding government panels that provide
unwanted advice, and refusing to seek any independent scientific expertise in
some cases. "

The latest "news" is of a piece with items that have revealed Prince
Awol's mendacity. One could even posit a typology of White House Lies: 1) the
silly ("This event has been in the works for several weeks," McClellen
said as his nose grew an inch) noted by Atrios and CJR ; 2) lies of embarrassment (anything on the National Guard as Kevin
Drumm has demonstrated); and finally 3) lies that offer a rationale for
an administration position which is false - that is, members of Prince Awol's
entourage do not believe what they are saying is true; they believe they will
be more likely to achieve a policy goal if they lie about the purpose of the
policy - WMD as a rationale for the war in Iraq; the tax cuts as a job creation
program; any policy initiative on education or the environment.

I love the scientists' story because I'm a partisan and anything that reveals
the opposition to be stupid or mendacious or hypocrtical (categories 1 and 2)
confirms my world view. So running a campaign based on Prince Awol's lies will
certainly garner my friends' 46% of the vote and may even inspire a high turnout amoung
those 46%. But, the 8% who aren't partisan won't take my pleasure in the observing
the emperor's new clothes. They will be disappointed in Awol and unnerved by
the giddy partisan joy with which his opponents have demonstrated his mendacity.

The third category of lies, however, may attract the interest of the undecided
voter. Democrats should campaign against the policies. For example, consider
the tax cut. The "true" policy goal of the tax cut is to subject very
rich people to less taxation by accelerating the rate at which the tax burden
on middle and upper middle income tax payers (see Johnson, Perfectly Legal,
Portfolio 2003) has been increasing for the last 30 years. Cutting taxes is
a legitimate political goal with a theoretical foundation in libertarian philosophy,
which Republicans have espoused for many years. It is a frequently popular goal
even when argued for in "truthful" terms. So why did Prince Awol argue
that his tax cut would increase jobs? (A category 3 lie). Because at the time,
at the beginning of his term, there was a huge budget surplus and a keen awareness
of the frailities in Social Security funding and a developing recession. Given
a straightforward choice between a tax cut and securing Social Security, I suspect
most Americans (who would suffer under the Prince's tax proposal and would benefit
by a sound Social Security program) would have told their congressional representatives
to save Social Security. So he lied and said his tax proposal would increase
jobs and that there would be plenty of money left over for Social Security.

The key is not to call him a liar. Rather, say his policy is a failure. The
Prince's tax policy has not increased jobs, there is no money left to safeguard
the Social Security program and most Americans have benefited little from his
tax cut plan. So Mr./Ms. non-partisan voter, the Democrats don't think you should
vote for Prince Awol if you favor effective tax reform, job creation and the
preservation of social security. If your income isn't derived from wages and
you won't need a social security check to pay the rent during your retirement
years, vote for Prince Awol and his merry band.

What will Awol et al do then? If they defend an honest policy critique with
a lie - the tax cut helped middle America, the Democrats can respond with a
discussion of the Alternative Minimum Tax that will horrify any dual income
family with kids who hope to go to college. Will Awol claim he's created jobs?
We should only be so lucky. Will Awol propose to save Social Security by putting
it into the hands of his merry unregulated markets band? Pray, pray, that they do
so.

The key is to wipe the smile off your face when the silly, embarrassing lies
are revealed. Talk policy. Let Awol lie.

The So Called Liberal Academy

Sullivan (his 2/18/04 column – I can’t figure out how to make a direct link) is on the bandwagon about the lack of Republican college professors again. I suspect this is part of the right wing-nut campaign organized by Horowtiz (Students for Academic Freedom). A week or two ago, they organized a "National Coming Out Day" for college students who were in the closet about their Republican identity.

Pause for a Rant: Someday, after I finish grading my exams and engaging in the soul searing activity of reading student papers, when I've prepared my lecture and the web page that accompanies it, once I've prepared a list of questions that will provoke a thoughtful and free-ranging class discussion on the readings I've assigned, as soon as I'm done advising students on what classes they need to fulfill their science requirement and what junior year abroad program best suits their needs, the very minute I finish writing up the minutes of the faculty committees on which I serve, immediately upon finishing the book review I'm writing and finding the articles I need for the article I'm writing, reserving some time for sleep and a nodding acquaintance with my personal life, at that very moment I'm going to decide how I feel about the ethics of using my influence with my students to oppress their political identities. I suspect, however, that I would prefer to spend all my extra energy persuading them to avoid run-on sentences.

Isn't the obvious question: why don't Republicans want to teach in colleges? There are plenty of Republican PhDs (consider Wolfwowitz, PhD. Chicago 1972). Even Sullivan has one (Harvard, 1989). But they don't want to teach. If you love your students and your subject, can handle transaction costs (see above) and don't mind the salaries (relatively low for the amount of time spent getting the degree), it is the best job ever anywhere. But if you don't like working with post-adolescents, can't be bothered with a job that doesn't come with junior staff, and want to make money, you should take your PhD. somewhere else. Which is what Republican PhDs seem to do.

I think the right wing-nuts are attacking the academy, hoping to discredit it for liberal bias, because their assault on the "so-called liberal media" has finally been revealed for the fraud it is. I think it's just another chapter in the anti-democratic (small "d") assault on American social institutions that neo-cons have waged for the last generation.

Can my health insurance be as good as my Congressman's?

Why can't Americans have the same quality of health care and health insurance as their elected representatives? Perhaps this is too high a standard to set. Why can't we provide the citizens of these United States the same quality of health care and health insurance that the office staff of our elected representatives have? Maybe that should be the subject of a political debate. The first question is: do we think decent health care and decent health insurance is something that American's ought to have access to? What does the Republican candidate think? What does the Democratic candidate think? If the candidates agree that this a worthy goal, then we can talk about why we haven't achieved it and how we might achieve it now.