CE Volume 4

[Meursault]

DED is a warmonger.

[Mary]

Apologies for the extremely long article from salon.com I'm about to post, but I really feel like people need to read it who think that the speakers at the Republican convention have done a good job exposing the weaknesses and cowardice of John Kerry so far.... The bullshit meter at the Republican convention has been running into the red nonstop, and this just about proves it. I'm not really sure if RS Castaways has a post length limit like rs.com used to, but just in case I'll split this up into a few posts...

The truth isn't out there
By Tim Grieve

Sept. 2, 2004  |  NEW YORK -- Arnold Schwarzenegger told adoring Republican delegates this week that the Democrats should have called their Boston convention "True Lies." But in speech after speech inside Madison Square Garden, Schwarzenegger's Republican colleagues have shown themselves to be truth-challenged. On big points and small, in policy arguments and personal anecdotes, Republican convention speakers have misrepresented, misconstrued, dissembled and dipsy-doodled. You can argue that they weren't lying, exactly, but you can't say they told the whole truth, either.

Democratic Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia delivered the Republicans' keynote address Wednesday night, and he spent a good portion of it railing against Kerry for voting against the "very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the war on terror." What Miller didn't say: Many Republicans voted against those same weapons systems.

"America needs to know the facts," Miller said, but he failed to mention a few of them. Miller told the delegates that Kerry voted against production of the F-14 and F-15 fighters and the Apache helicopter, but he didn't say that Dick Cheney, as defense secretary, proposed eliminating both of them, too. Miller criticized Kerry for voting against the B-2 bomber, but he didn't say that President George H.W. Bush also proposed an end to the B-2 bomber program. In his 1992 State of the Union Address, Bush said he supported such cuts "with confidence" based on the recommendations of his Secretary of Defense: Dick Cheney. With the Cold War over, Bush said, failing to cut defense spending would be "insensible to progress."

That's not how Miller described the cuts Wednesday night. He said Kerry's record on defense spending suggests that he wants to arm U.S. troops with "spitballs." Miller, who was introduced as the "conscience of the Democratic Party," didn't see fit to mention that he and Kerry both voted in 2002 for the largest military spending increase in two decades -- a defense bill that Republican Senator John Warner said would "help to ensure that our military has the tools it needs to defend our nation."

Miller and the Bush campaign plainly know the truth about what he was saying -- the Annenberg Public Policy Center and any number of others have called the Republicans on their misleading argument about Kerry's votes on weapons systems. But adherence to the truth wasn't Miller's strong suit Wednesday night.

Miller said that Kerry has made it clear that he would never "use military force without U.N. approval," and that he would let "Paris decide when America needs defending." In fact, what Kerry said in his Boston convention speech was this: "I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security."

Miller's anti-Kerry rant wasn't the only convention speech in which Republicans misrepresented Kerry's statements or his Senate record. In his somniferous speech Wednesday night, Cheney mocked Kerry for saying that the United States should fight a "more sensitive war on terror, as though al-Qaida will be impressed by our softer side." But Kerry has not suggested a show of sensitivity toward al-Qaida; he said that America should fight a "more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history."

With delegates shouting "flip-flop, flip-flop," Cheney blasted Kerry for supporting the "No Child Left Behind" legislation and then opposing it. In fact, Kerry supports No Child Left Behind but argues that the Bush administration has failed to provide promised funding for it. He mocked Kerry for voting for and then against the $87 billion supplemental funding bill for Iraq, but he didn't explain that Kerry voted on two different proposals -- one that would have paid for the $87 billion by rolling back tax cuts for the rich, and one which simply added the $87 billion to the federal deficit.

Sill, Cheney stayed away from most of the whoppers he tells on the campaign trail. He didn't repeat the phony charge he made last month in Minnesota -- that Kerry has the most liberal lifetime voting record of any current Senator. But Cheney didn't have to work hard to misrepresent Kerry's positions and his record; other convention speakers carried that water for him.

Massachusetts Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey told delegates Wednesday evening that John Kerry "can't win by telling us the truth," but then she immediately fudged the facts herself. In a claim that has been refuted so often that even Cheney doesn't make it anymore, Healey told the delegates: "The truth is that John Kerry -- not Ted Kennedy -- is the most liberal Senator in the United States."

But that's not the truth, really. Earlier this year, the National Journal identified Kerry as the senator with the most liberal voting record in 2003 -- a year in which Kerry missed so many votes while campaigning that the National Journal didn't even apply two of its three measures of "liberalness" to him.

When the magazine looked at the more meaningful lifetime voting records of current sitting senators, Kerry wasn't the most liberal one -- and it wasn't even close. Ten other senators have lifetime liberal scores higher than Kerry's -- and, yes, Ted Kennedy is among them.

(cont....)

[Mary]

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney continued the home-state slam Wednesday, claiming that Kerry had voted for "tax hikes 98 times." The Bush campaign made the same claim in a television ad released last week, and the Annenberg Public Policy Center has already shot it down.

The problem with the "98 times" claim is the Republicans' fuzzy math. While their campaign calculus is getting better -- in March, the President claimed that Kerry "voted over 350 times for higher taxes on the American people" -- the Republicans' calculation repeatedly miscounts and mischaracterizes Kerry's votes.

Annenberg explains that 43 of the 98 "tax increase" votes were actually votes on budget resolutions that did not, in and of themselves, raise taxes. Moreover, in several instances, the total of 98 includes multiple votes on the same piece of legislation: By the GOP's math, Kerry's support for President Clinton's 1993 deficit reduction package as it wound its way through Congress should count as 16 separate votes to raise taxes. Kerry gets dinged six times for a single 1996 budget resolution, seven times for a 1997 budget resolution, and six more times for supporting a proposal to raise the cigarette tax. That proposal was sponsored by Sen. John McCain -- a Republican.

Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele also took Kerry to task for sharing views with Republicans. Steele criticized Kerry for proposing a $6 billion cut in intelligence funding "just a year after the first attack on the World Trade Center." What Steele didn't say: Three months before Kerry made his proposal, Rep. Porter Goss -- Bush's pick to be the new CIA chief -- proposed a much larger cut in intelligence funding. Neither Goss' proposal nor Kerry's passed. But as Annenberg has noted, a Republican proposal to cut $1 billion from the intelligence budget passed on a voice vote the same year.

While Republicans have aimed most of their truth-stretching at Kerry, they have also engaged in the occasional embellishment to bolster Bush's image as a resolute leader. On the convention's opening night, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani called Bush "a leader who is willing to stick with difficult decisions even as public opinion shifts." On the second night, Schwarzenegger said that Bush is a "leader who doesn't flinch, doesn't waver, does not back down." While it's true that Bush has stuck stubbornly to some of his failed policies -- until this week, he couldn't bring himself to admit any mistakes in Iraq -- just as often he has crumbled when public opinion has turned against his views.

Bush initially opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, then changed his mind when it was clear the votes were against him. He opposed the creation of the 9/11 Commission, then supported it. He opposed a congressional investigation into the intelligence failures that led to the war in Iraq, then supported it.

The president who was praised so often this week for his "unflinching" war on terror once said he wanted Osama bin Laden "dead or alive", then said that he didn't really care about finding him. The president who never wavers used to say that America will win the war on terror; over the weekend, he said "I don't think we can ever win it"; over the last week, he's been explaining that he didn't really mean what he said when he said it.

The flip-flops don't fit the image Karl Rove has crafted for Bush, so the convention speakers have simply ignored them. In their place, they've told stories suggesting that Bush has shown "courage" by appearing in photo ops -- grabbing that megaphone at Ground Zero, eating turkey with the troops in Baghdad -- and by standing up to public opinion. Schwarzenegger said: "The President didn't go into Iraq because the polls told him it was popular. As a matter of fact, the polls said just the opposite."

But as a matter of fact, that's not a fact. In a CBS/New York Times poll released on March 6, 2003 -- 11 days before Bush gave his final ultimatum to Saddam Hussein -- 69 percent of the respondents said they approved of U.S. military action to remove Hussein from power. While the White House surely helped shape public opinion -- by misrepresenting intelligence, by incessantly linking Saddam Hussein and 9/11, by predicting that American soldiers would be "greeted as liberators" -- the president didn't buck public opinion when he went to war.

On Tuesday night, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist tried to make Bush look like a strong leader on domestic issues, saying that he would stand up to the trial lawyers who are driving up the costs of healthcare. Repeating a line used by Bush himself, Frist declared: "Let's be clear. You can no longer be both pro-patient and pro-trial lawyer." He said that Kerry has "made his choice" by choosing Edwards as his running mate. But Frist has made his choice, too: in the Republican Senate primary in Florida, Frist endorsed Mel Martinez, a millionaire trial lawyer.

No matter. Frist continued to press his charge, telling the story of a Ft. Lauderdale doctor who he said was forced to give up his medical liability insurance when the costs grew too high. Frist expressed concern that the hospital where the doctor works, Ft. Lauderdale's Broward General, might be forced to close its emergency room because of all those expensive lawsuits by rich trial lawyers. "That hospital has the only Level 1 Trauma Center in the region," Frist said. "What if it closes?" But Vicki Martin, a spokesperson for Broward General, told Salon Wednesday that she is unaware of any discussion about closing the hospital's trauma center. And Frist's claim that Broward General has "the only Level 1 Trauma Center in the region?" That's false, too. There are at least two others, and one of them, Hollywood's Memorial Regional Hospital, is less than 10 miles away.

The Republicans paid tribute to Ronald Reagan Wednesday night, and they've talked a lot this week about the lessons he taught them. They've surely taken one to heart. It was the late president, after all, who once said: "Facts are stupid things."

******

that's it.

Cheers,
M

[Mary]

The issue that a lot of Democrats and other Bush critics have with so many major speaking roles going to "moderates" at the Republican convention isn't based on some abstract principle that it's a bad thing to put moderates onstage at a political convention. The point is that we feel that the Republican Party, lead by the Bush Administration in the past 4 years, has taken a turn to the hard right, and that parading all these moderates before the American public is simply disingenuous and misleading. The party has actually become ultraconservative, IMO, but they're trying to mask the true hard-right ideology that animates them with guys like Giuliani, McCain, and Schwarzenegger (though god, only in the ultraconservative nation that American has become could we possibly consider these people "moderate" - but within today's context, it's true), and vacuous rhetoric about compassion.

Conversely, the Democrats really have been running for the center, hard, ever since the beating both Mondale and Dukakis took in the 80s. The Democratic Leadership Council - out of which was born the national political career of one Bill Clinton - exists for the sole purpose of reinventing the Democratic Party as a centrist, moderate, mainstream party which has disavowed its leftist past. (This is why so many lefties are so disillusioned with the Democratic Party, and why there's much more concern from Democrats about losing votes to renegade candidates from the left like Ralph Nader than from Republicans about losing votes to renegade candidates from the right). Thus when the Democrats put a bunch of moderates onstage at their convention, it's hardly disingenuous. Alas, that is who the Democrats are: a bunch of spineless, milquetoast moderates who have repeatedly abandoned the left on practically every meaningful issue except, perhaps, abortion (and how convenient, they can stick with the left there because most Americans support abortion rights).

Believe me, i wish the moderates at the Democratic convention were as misleading as the moderates at the Republican convention. They are not. The Democratic Party has worked hard and quite successfully to sever its onerous left wing, while the Republican Party has recently done everything in its power to bolster and strengthen its right wing.

As for the nonsense that Republicans are more tolerant and open than Democrats because they have pro-choicers onstage for major speeches whereas Democrats have no pro-lifers. Both parties have certain issues on which they are more unbending. No major speakers at the Democratic Convention opposed abortion. But tell me, what major speaker at the Republican convention opposed the War on Iraq?? What major speaker at the Republican convention opposed the Patriot Act?? At the Democratic Convention, you had major speakers of differing opinions on both of these issues. Not at the Republican Convention. (by the way, I focus on "major" speakers because the claim that Demcrats wouldn't allow pro-life speakers at their convention is blatantly false, being as Representative Jim Langevin is a pro-life Democrat who did speak at the convention) So please, spare me the nonsense about how Republicans allowed people of all viewpoints to speak, but not Democrats. It obviously depends on the specific issue you're talking about, and how it plays out within the particular party you're dealing with.

M

[melon1]

Republicans are doing their best to keep evangelical Christians - a "core part" of Bush's base - hidden during the upcoming GOP Convention in New York. Instead the party will focus on courting swing voters, by featuring a slate of speakers representing views opposite to those of the president's: pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control and anti-death penalty.

It's really no surprise to me. Evangelical Christians are always going to be the least popular group of people, the least hip, the least "with the times" and thus the thinktank Karl Rove and his puppet Bush will continue to choose as their spokesmen people that can sway middle of the road, undecided voters and even convince some Democrats to change parties. Bush, in my mind, proves his, no so much intelligence as, wisdom by surrounding himself with brilliant strategists. "Politics is war by other means" as David Horowitz observed and Bush just happened to land where he did in history with Republican advisors and authors such as Horowitz who have introduced an incredibly successful new strategy: The Art of Political War. That's where it all began. It's David Horowitz' book. And whoever would look into it would find the reason Bush uses such simple language: because politics is a war of soundbites. The book introduced a guide on how to win on the political battlefield and Karl Rove ate it up and has been using it to advise the president. But part of the book explains why religion needs to be separated from politics. Because religion is about saving souls while politics is about getting into office. Does that mean compromise your religious beliefs to win an election? You bet it does. Although I'm a purist, I will vote for Bush. I consider it voting against Kerry. But I would vote for Bush anyway because I'm convinced he is a Christian. Not perfect, but a Christian nonetheless.

What I can't understand is how Mary Blaney can consider dubya to be "ultra-conservative". It doesn't surprise me but I simply can't understand it. How much does the guy have to spend before you realize he's closer to a socially conservative and fiscally liberal Democrat than a Republican? And don't for a minute charge at me with this notion that Republicans spend as much or more than Democrats. When Bush gave his State of the Union Address in 2003, he proposed to spend more money than just about any president has ever proposed while the Democrats complained because he didn't propose to spend as much as they thought necessary! He signed the "No Child Left Behind Act", he called on Congress to act on prescription drugs, he sent $300 Billion to Africa to tend to the AIDS crisis among other things. "Ultra-conservative"? I'm trying not to laugh.

[JesusLooksLikeMe]

From today's The Times newspaper

Is there anyone out there? ET hunters may have a clue
By Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent


AN UNEXPLAINED radio signal is the best candidate yet for “first contact” by an intelligent alien civilisation, scientists have suggested.

The enigmatic signal has been picked up three times since last year by the Arecibo radio telescope in Puerto Rico, making it the most exciting result of the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence programme (Seti).

It does not carry the signature of any known astronomical phenomenon, and does not appear to be the result of natural interference or noise, according to researchers who have studied its frequency pattern.

This means that it could have been transmitted deliberately by an extra-terrestrial species on a distant planet, though experts cautioned that this remains unlikely.

For the past six years, Seti has been hunting aliens using Seti@home, a project that harnesses the power of millions of personal computers around the world to sift through radio signals picked up by the Arecibo telescope. Individual computers load a screensaver, which allows Seti@home to use their processing power when they are idle.

The new signal, which originates from the region of space between the constellations Pisces and Aries, is the most tantalising to be analysed with this powerful new tool, researchers told New Scientist magazine.

Dan Wertheimer, a radio astronomer from the University of California at Berkeley and the project’s chief scientist, said: “We’re not jumping up and down, but we are continuing to observe it.”

The signal, known as SHGb02+14a, was first detected by the Arecibo telescope in February last year, along with several other strange radio waves, during a survey of 200 sections of sky.

When all these were analysed in detail using Seti@home, most of them disappeared, or were put down as the results of interference or natural radio emissions from stars or other celestial objects.

SHGb02+14a, however, has remained, and has now been listened to on three occasions adding up to about a minute. This is not long enough firmly to establish its source, but its frequency of 1420 megahertz has interested scientists, as it is a main frequency at which hydrogen, the most common element in the Universe, absorbs and emits energy.

Many theorists of extraterrestrial intelligence have suggested that aliens would be likely to transmit at this frequency, as the abundance of hydrogen might prompt other civilisations to tune into it. But even scientists who have tracked the signal are cautious about ascribing it to extra-terrestrial life. It appears to be coming from a point in space where there are no obvious stars or planets for 1,000 light years around, and the transmission is very weak.

[JesusLooksLikeMe]

Mary - been reading your posts on Bush getting reelected, Vancouver, etc.

In a sense it might be better for the Democrats if Dubya wins this time. After all, those tax cuts are going to have to be paid for, and the deficits look nasty. Whoever wins office for the next 4 years is going to have to clean up one hell of a mess, both economically and in terms of foreign policy. In 2008 an opposition Democrat party would presumably have a stronger Presidential candidate, and might be in a MUCH better position to win that election.

[Dr. Drum]

Interesting stuff on that radio signal, JLLM. Seti@home is just an inspiring program - I'd encourage everyone to check them out. It's what I use as a screensaver at home.

JesusLooksLikeMe said:

Mary - been reading your posts on Bush getting reelected, Vancouver, etc.

In a sense it might be better for the Democrats if Dubya wins this time. After all, those tax cuts are going to have to be paid for, and the deficits look nasty. Whoever wins office for the next 4 years is going to have to clean up one hell of a mess, both economically and in terms of foreign policy. In 2008 an opposition Democrat party would presumably have a stronger Presidential candidate, and might be in a MUCH better position to win that election.

See where you're coming from on this, as I said on the other board. On the other hand, imagine how much additional damage a re-elected Bush administration could do. Hard line dogma coupled with sheer incompetence – just about the worst combination possible.

[JesusLooksLikeMe]

I agree drum, but you have to think long-term imo.

My charge of negative campaigning by the Republicans - questioned by some of you who raised the red herring of independent advertising - seems to have gained weight with Cheney's rather sour performance at the conference.

Contrast this with the democratic convention, where Kerry's professed intention was to avoid Bush-bashing rhetoric and have his party focus on the more progressive aspects of selling their own policies. I rest my case.

[JesusLooksLikeMe]

Mark Steel has been one of many British journalists attending the Republican convention. Like all the others, what he is witnessing has left him astounded:-

Surely the Americans didn't fight a War of Independence just so they could indulge in this bollocks in New York. In 1775, the radical Tom Paine inspired the revolutionary American army with the lines: "These are the times that try men's souls, but the tougher the conquest, the more glorious the triumph." Well, there must have been another bit that went, "For the spirit of those who are slain shall be forever entrenched in the bosom of sickly-pure girls in spangly purple Lycra waving pom-poms and shrieking the names of doddery senators..."

...the level of banality was displayed by the thunderous cheer given to [Arnie] when he yelled "America is back!" But what did he mean? The bloke he's supporting is already President. And in any case, the original line was "I'll be back", which is nothing like "America is back". But despite this making no sense at all, they all yelped and wet themselves. They'd have done the same if Michael Caine had come on and yelled, "I only told America to blow the bloody doors off..."

How is it that the main speakers include the candidate's wife and daughter? But nobody questions this, just as they wouldn't if it was announced that the next speaker was the President's fish, and a bowl with a koi carp was put on stage for 10 minutes while the fat women squealed "C-A-R-P - he's the guy who swims for me."

And so on... "Grotesque" seems to be the most common adjective used by the British press in regards to both this convention, and the nature of current American politics in general.

[Dr. Drum]

JesusLooksLikeMe said:

I agree drum, but you have to think long-term imo.

I am. We’re already stuck with long-term negative repercussions from their first term. These will be compounded if they get another four years. I don’t have time to get exhaustive but, for example, we’d have four more years of denial and obstruction on global warming when recent calculations show we may be facing a much more serious problem which is moving much faster than was previously thought. It means more alienation between Europe and America and could lead to a de facto Paris-Berlin-Moscow alliance as a counter-weight to unbridled American power (we’re already heading in that direction). There’s the potential for more wars (Iran, Syria); continuing deterioration of the Israeli-Palestinian situation, continued fraying of the American body politic, etc. etc. And I haven’t even mentioned the way they’re playing with fire with those monstrous deficits.

[JesusLooksLikeMe]

Well yeah Drum, it's obvious to us peering in. But a lot of Americans just don't see it, for whatever reasons.

But we're actually coming at this from slightly different angles is all. You're looking (rather nobly, it has to be said) from the perspective of what is best for the world in general. I've got my pragmatic political head on, and am simply looking at what might be best for the Democrats in terms of long-term electoral advantage.
See, the world is fucked anyway. But the Democrats are more likely to win in '08 (and by extension 2012) if Hillary or Edwards was challenging, than if Kerry was the incumbent.

[pissin2]

Just In case you missed it, there were just as many fucking assholes at the Democratic convention. Your point is?

My point is I hope all them assholes get stabbed in the eye as well. I never said "look at these stupid republicans, I hope they all get stabbed!" It just happened that the goofiest dingbat picture I found happened to be republican. Not my fault she's a retard and republican. Total coincidence. I know there are a lot of stupid flag waving fucks out there everywhere you go. And they all suck the big one. Just admit, you want to stab her with a pen too. Unless of course you own a pair of glasses like that yourself.

[Galactus]

Stratman...actaully it was supposed to be abit more evil cartoon villian, but I guess it didn't really come off that way. Mary said it alot better then I ever could have(not the evil vilian bit but the orginal idea that their were in fact moderates speaking at the DNC...though I wouldn'd mind if Mary threw in a MMuuuhahahaha at the end of some of her posts, you know just to spice things up).

I also enjoyed the reveiw of Ah-nuld's speech...it didn't make much sense, it felt like it was built from old SNL skits from when SNL was really unfunny.

I pledge this, however, if Bush does liken America to a Masarati I will vote for him.

[JesusLooksLikeMe]

Fuck politics. Did nobody read my post? There's aliens out there man. Aliens. A whole new civilisation of beings where I might just be considered a sex symbol. Or well hung.