Eschaton

Monday, January 19, 2004

Outrage

Lost in the shuffle today was the fact that the flagship "liberal" newspaper chose to honor MLK, jr. day by running an opinion piece defending Ronald "welfare queen" Reagan's record on race.

Ronald Regan, who at the urging of Trent Lott, gave his first campaign speech, emphasizing "states' rights," in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where 3 civil rights workers were murdered in the 60s.

Liberal media my fat white ass.

Congrats to Kerry

Well, I was one of the last to declare the Kerry candidacy DOA, but at some point I did. Silly me.

Initial thoughts (though, ignore my predictions as they're invariably wrong) - it hurts Clark far more than it hurts Dean. But, obviously, this puts the Big Media Matt Dean Inevitability Meme to its strongest test.

... kudos to Gephardt for dropping out. And, hey, kudos to Gephardt for defying the CW of people like me and managing to be a credible candidate.

Pretty Unbelievable

So, the media spent years flagellating themselves for calling Florida 15 minute before the polls closed in the panhandle, and they're now releasing perfectly meaningless poll numbers as the caucuses are actually happening. To the extent that such things could have any effect on the proceedings, they'd be much more likely to have an impact on the caucuses than a normal election.

crazy.

...Des Moines Register has actual numbers, for which the above also would apply. Again, I don't really have a problem with it, I'm just annoyed by the hypocrisy.

The October Surprise

Orcinus tells us about some interesting things in Kevin Phillips' new book:

Some of you may even recall the story. Its basic outline went like this: In the runup to the 1980 election between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, it became clear that the outcome largely hinged on the release of the 52 Americans who had been held hostage by Iran since November 1979. If Carter was able to obtain their freedom, he was likely to win re-election. If he failed, it was nearly certain Reagan would win. As you may recall, the latter was what happened. The hostages were freed on the day of Reagan's inauguration. Later it emerged that a cadre of Reagan campaign officials -- led by former CIA chief William Casey, who was the campaign manager -- may have actually negotiated with Iran behind the scenes to ensure precisely this outcome. There were even indications they may have been involved in sabotaging the attempted rescue of the hostages.

The story gained real traction in the early 1990s when a former Carter intelligence official named Gary Sick released a book detailing the plot. It was promptly pooh-poohed by articles in Newsweek and The New Republic, and a brief House investigation came up dry. Afterward, anyone who even suggested they thought the scenario had any credibility was dismissed as a loony conspiracy theorist. Even the respected AP reporter Robert Parry found himself a journalistic pariah for his dogged pursuit of the story; you can find the results of much of his work at his marvelous Web site Consortium News.

Phillips not only resurrects the story, he examines the evidence and finds that it is almost certainly substantial, despite the all-too-eager earlier dismissals of its substance. More to the point, he compiles a wealth of subsequent evidence, most of it having emerged since 1992, pointing to his conclusion that "Bill Casey -- a born schemer and true buccaneer -- and his associates probably were involved in machinations akin to those Sick alleged." This evidence includes intelligence material from the French, the Soviet Union, Israel and Iran, as well as material that has been ignored by the House investigators.

All of this ties in with Phillips' theses that the October Surprise was a precursor to Iran-Contra (in fact, he argues, the latter was actually a confirmation that the former had occurred) as well as Iraqgate -- the consequences of which, he ably demonstrates, have come home to roost in the current war in Iraq.

And the grownups are still in charge.

Facts Mean Nothing

It doesn't matter how many times a smear is debunked. The whores will keep repeating it. This performance is unbelievable:

BLITZER: Well, Jim, on the Wesley Clark issue, you know, a four- star supreme allied commander of NATO, how much do you worry about a debate between Wesley Clark and President Bush?

JIM DYKE, COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, RNC: Well, the first thing you have to do is win the primary, obviously.

And what we've seen in the last week is sort of a shifting in General Clark's positions. He was for the war. He testified in front of Congress and, in fact, gave very compelling testimony, which this week he suggested we took parts of. So maybe it'd be a good idea if we put the whole transcript of the testimony up. We don't want to misrepresent him.

But I think anybody who reads that would have trouble pulling from that a compelling case against the war.

BLITZER: Has Wesley Clark, Donna, gotten a free ride so far? Have people not scrutinized his words as closely as, shall we say, Howard Dean?

~~~

BLITZER: Let me let Carlos weigh in on the General Clark phenomenon.

CARLOS WATSON, CNN POLIITAL ANALYST: Well, I want to say several things.

One, I think what Jim and the RNC have done is brilliant. I mean, they've...

DYKE: Thank you, Carlos.

WATSON: ... inserted themselves in the Democratic campaign very early. They ran -- or, they didn't run, but the Club for Growth ran an ad here in Iowa which was part of what ultimately stemmed some of Howard Dean's momentum here.

And again, part of the reason why they're weighing in on Wesley Clark and on Howard Dean and on John Kerry is to weaken all of these candidates, because I think the RNC is smart enough to know this is still an evenly divided country, you know, the red states and the blue states. And Jim knows that Wesley Clark would be a formidable competitor. And Karl Rove has said as much.

BLITZER: Go ahead and respond, Jim.

DYKE: I think the reason we weigh in is almost as sort of a fact-check operation. I mean, if Wesley Clark comes out and says he opposed the war from the beginning and there is testimony of him moving in that direction, we think it's worth pointing out. We think it's worth pointing out when candidates take positions that are in direct contrary to fact.

There you are - the SCLM reports lies and praises the liars.

wolf.blitzer@turner.com

Nazis

ConWebWatch brings us dozens of Nazi comparisons by the "outraged" right wing press.

Secret White House Press Memo Leaked

Now we know how it's done.

SOTU Donation Game

SK Bubba suggests a replacement for the SOTU drinking game.

The First Step

Economists for Dean take a look at the NYT's public editor's response to critiques about their coverage of Dean. It is a bit of a whitewash, but it's a start.

Entrance Polling

If the goofy-ass networks actually use entrance polling data to predict a winner in Iowa...

MLK Day

There are many lasting legacies of MLK and the civil rights movement generally, but I think there's one which seems to get less attention than the others - the Voting Rights Act. Some parts of it are only as good as the attorney general who is enforcing it, but at the very least it began the process of ending a whole host of measures designed to prevent a sizeable portion of the populations of many states from voting.

1965 was less than 40 years ago, and at that time in much of the country African-Americans could not vote.

Sunday, January 18, 2004

Iowa Predictions

1) Bob Graham
2) George Clooney

Well, they can't be any worse than my last predictions...

Ah, Philly, the city for which an empty hole, dug by the Disney Corporation on prime real estate, is a metaphor for so much...

Praise Jeebus for cheap gin.

Iggles!

Argh. If the refs are going to declare open season on QBs, they could at least let both teams know.

One Poll, Many Stories

Here's the lead of CBS's coverage of its CBS/NYT poll:

Poll: Bush's Approval Sinking

Jan. 17, 2004

Overall, most Americans say things in the country are worse now than they were five years ago. Fifty-seven percent say things are worse, while 21% say they're better.

(CBS) After rising in public support following the capture of Saddam Hussein, the President gives his State of the Union message next week with a decidedly less positive audience. His approval rating of 50% matches his lowest approval ratings ever, and the largest number ever – 45% - disapprove.

Here's how even the genocide-advocating cult leader owned Moonie UPI reported it:

Times/CBS poll show Bush ratings down
NEW YORK, Jan. 17 (UPI) -- Democratic voters held a 2 point edge over those who would vote for President Bush if the U.S. election were held now, a CBS/New York Times poll said.

The poll published Saturday found that 45 percent of voters said they would vote for a still unspecified Democratic candidate and 43 percent would vote for President Bush.

Late last month, the president held a 49 percent to 40 percent edge. The standing now is similar to what it was in November 2003, before the capture of Saddam Hussein.

Here's how even the liberal New York Times reported it:

Poll Bolsters Bush on Terrorism but Finds Doubts on Economy
By ROBIN TONER and JANET ELDER
President Bush begins his campaign year with Americans voicing strong support for his handling of the war against terrorism, but many doubting his economic and domestic policies, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Fewer than one in five people said their tax burden had been eased by Mr. Bush, who has made tax cuts the centerpiece of his economic program. His latest domestic initiatives, unveiled in the run-up to the State of the Union message on Tuesday, got only a lukewarm response, with 58 percent saying that building a permanent space station on the Moon was not worth the risks and costs.

Moreover, the support Mr. Bush gained after the capture of Saddam Hussein last month has largely dissipated. His overall approval rating now stands at 50 percent, comparable to President Bill Clinton's 47 percent in January 1996. Mr. Bush remains a polarizing figure in a sharply divided country, with 9 in 10 Republicans approving of his performance, and only 1 in 4 of the Democrats.

Despite those vulnerabilities, which the Democratic presidential candidates are busily trying to exploit, Mr. Bush retains a powerful advantage on national security. Sixty-eight percent, including majorities of both Democrats and independents, gave him high marks for the campaign against terrorism, and 68 percent said the Bush administration's policies have made the United States safer from terrorist attacks. Sixty-four percent said they considered him a strong leader.

Extending Copyright to Homonyms

You've got to be kidding.

VICTORIA - A Vancouver Island high school student who does Web site design part-time is locked in a legal battle with one of the biggest companies in the world.

Microsoft Corp. of Seattle, currently valued at $300 billion US, wants Mike Rowe to give up www.mikerowesoft.com as his Internet domain name. The company claims copyright infringement of its name.