Nosey Online

As some might have noticed, there hasn't been a post on here for the last week. I decided to get my own webhost and begin using Movable Type. After a few days of DNS problems, and a little bit of learning MT, I'm back. This template should change around a lot, and you will start to see more posts from me starting now. So, until tomorrow.

Well, it's all over. Kerry impressively won 9 out of 10 primaries last night. The lone hold-out was Vermont, which went (unbelievably?) to Dean. So now it is time to buckle down, because it's going to get real ugly, real fast. Tomorrow we should see the first salvo from Bush in the AdWars. Go ahead Georgie, go after his voting record. Your own economic and foreign policy records are enough to make the average Democrat choke. All we have to do is convince a small minority of your "installed base" that it's to much for them to swallow as well.

You might try to paint Kerry as a northern elitist, but no one is as arrogant as you.

Congrats to John F. Kerry, future President of the United States!!

Calpundit talks today about what the Democrats have acheived thus far. Finishing up early will be a good thing. now let's raise some money.

According to the Dow Jones Newswire, the FCC is about to levy a new round of indecency fines on radio broadcasters.

About a dozen cases are being finalized...and one target is Howard Stern, one of the nation's most popular and controversial radio hosts. The FCC is deciding on penalties against his employer, Viacom Inc.

Stern has been saying for the last few days that he would be targeted. Although I think the timing of this has more to do with Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction," there is a possibility that he is being silenced. Clear Channel's decision to take him off of 6 markets came not too soon after Stern started to publicly deride President Bush.

During testimony to a congressional indecency hearing, Clear Channel CEO John Hogan had this to say:

...a graphic discussion of sexual acts between the show call-in guest Rick Solomon and Paris Hilton blew through "a line in the sand" [and]...the show would be suspended until "we are assured that his show will conform to acceptable standards of responsible broadcasting."

Actually this discussion was tame by Stern standards. The fact is that broadcasters are under the gun, and if they want congressional support in their plans to own larger majorities of media markets, then you know what will happen. It's a shame that the FCC can manipulate things so the courts can't decide what's indecent on the airways.

In fact, the court has already decided what's not to be allowed on the air. The Supreme Court, in a 1978 decision, said that these words do not hold artistic value and do not conform to community standards. Joanne Ostrow had this to say in the Denver Post:

In the years since, according to lawyer and historian Marjorie Heins, head of the National Coalition Against Censorship, "the FCC commissioners have used their free-floating indecency standard to censor counter-cultural ideas, sexual discussions and language that reflects a sensibility different from their own. Yet the FCC's censorship power would immediately be recognized as unconstitutional if the medium weren't broadcasting." Certain right-wing advocacy groups smell blood in the water since Janet Jackson's flash dance.

Hmm, the FCC is controled by Republicans, who in turn are beholden to "certain right-wing advocacy groups." It will be a long road until November. And it will almost certain be a one-sided campaign if voices of dissent are silenced.

John Ashcroft once said:

"To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve."

I have just one question for that. What will happen when are liberties are lost?

We all knew that this was going to be a slug fest from the beginning. Kevin Drum lists what I am sure is a short list of warning shots from the Bush camp.

Ford says that they will use Toyota's hybrid technology. I like to hear about domestic car companies beginning to use hybrid tech. I plan on buying a hybrid in a couple of years. Maybe by then they will get higher MPG?

John Allen Muhammed has been sentenced to death today. I am against the death penalty, but if there ever was a person that deserved it, this guy would win the prize.

One of the most historical pillars of this country is that the military does not operate on US soil. According to Dow Jones News, the military is increasing it's role in domestic issues, a "little-noticed side effect of the war on terror." Is it just me, or is this like a vote of no confidence in our current domestic intelligence capabilities?

One thing I could never undersatnd is how the FBI and CIA would not share information easilty. If these two government agencies could just talk to each other, things would be a lot different.

This is not encouraging. More military involvement in domestic issues plus weaker civil rights and liberties might not equal a good thing.

The first ad from The Media Fund aires tomorrow. Billionaire George Soros is a big contributor to this group. The ad basically says that GWB has killed the American dream. Of course, conservatives were quick to chime in.

"Another bitter message from yet another shadowy partisan group," said Terry Holt, a Bush-Cheney campaign spokesman.

Holt's comment rings a bit hollow, considering $170 million raised so far. The Bush campaign has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commision. And this comes as a shock to no one.

How does the Bush campaign pay back their donors? This from Alternet:

[...]a federal judge found that FirstEnergy had violated the Clean Air Act 11 times. But later [...] the Bush Administration rolled back the very provision in the Clean Air Act that FirstEnergy had repeatedly violated. The timing couldn't have been better. Since FirstEnergy's trial has not yet entered the penalty phase, this stroke of a pen could spare the company literally hundreds of millions in fines.

Let's look at The Media Fund. A "shadowy partisan goup"? Actually no, it's a group formed by people who want Bush out of office. Now let's take a look at First Energy. They violated the Clean Air Act, and then the Bush administration helped them escape fines (oh yeah, and don't forget how they caused the biggest blackout the country has ever seen).

I find it hilarious that the Republicans can even complain.

Atrios has a post about how blindly some believe that the economy is turning around. Jobs have disappeared and are not coming back any time soon.

In a downturn, most companies do tighten the proverbial belt. They streamline processes, lay workers off, and reign in spending. But this time is different. Offshoring jobs is nothing new. Manufacturing jobs have been going over seas for two decades. The difference now is that they're white collar jobs.

Being an election year, the issue of off-shoring jobs will be a big one. Even Republicans won't be able to ignore the job loss stories from their home state/district. This beast was a long time in the making, and there's no stopping it now. Once companies become "addicted" to the lower costs related to sourcing to places like India, they will stick with it.

The key now will be to stem the loss. This month's issue of Fast Company details the stories of IT related workers who lost their jobs. Some of them have been out of work for a long time. But what I found most disgusting was that some people are forced to train their replacements.

The last time this happened, the manufacturing jobs were replaced with white collar jobs. But now those jobs are disappearing, too. Who will benefit the most? Wal-Mart and McDonalds, who will soon be hiring these out of work IT people who are desperate for a job.

Matthew Yglesias draws attention to an article written by Martin Indyk. This is in the same vein as saying the economy is going strong and creating a ton of new jobs. It sounds good, but just isn't completely true.

The moment has arrived. The long talked-about liberal radio network will debut March 31st. Al Franken, Janeane Garofalo, Chuck D, and Randi Rhodes are just some of the personalities contributing. In particular, Al Franken's show, The O'Franken Factor, will be directly competing with Rush Limbaugh in the Noon to 3 time slot.

The network will debut in New York, Chicago, L.A., and San Francisco. Other market will be added by summer. Why, might you ask, is the roll out this limited? It just illustrates the point of how hard it is to get differing view points on the air. Consolidation in the industry has mad it progressively harder to start new networks. The American Prospect has an interesting piece on the history of talk radio. Conservative talkers have always bemoaned the "liberal" mainstream media, and contended that they were the true alternative. But in reality, talk radio was made just for them. From the American Prospect:

[In the 80's] political change contributed to the rise of right-wing talk shows. In 1987, Ronald Reagan's appointees to the FCC abandoned the fairness doctrine, which had required broadcast stations to maintain editorial balance and to offer reply time to those who were personally attacked on the air. As a result of deregulation, talk stations could cater to a particular ideological audience, just as music stations adopted a single style. By the 1980s, satellite technology was also making it cheaper to transmit talk shows and other programs nationwide and creating the basis for new radio networks to expand.

How can you claim to be an alternative when deregulation of radio created what is now the mainstream?

In 1990, according to the trade publication Inside Radio, there were 360 news-talk stations; by 1994, the number had risen to 1,197 -- and, according to Inside Radio Editor Tom Taylor, Limbaugh was the catalyst. Of course, Limbaugh didn't come up with three hours of material a day on his own. During the previous two decades, conservative donors had built up think tanks, publishing houses, and a new generation of conservative intellectuals. Limbaugh retailed their work, amplifying its impact.

According to a calculation by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, each week the 44 highest-rated talk stations carry 312 hours of conservative shows compared with just five hours from the other side...What's especially striking is that the imbalance exists even in some of the most liberal parts of the country.

Bringing a liberal viewpoint to a large stage will be good for debate. After all, if anyone turns on their radio in the morning or evening, chances are they will get a good dose of conservative views. For a lot of people, the radio is the only way they get their news. Maybe it's time for a real alternative.

FCC Chairman Michael Powell is concerned that broadcast indecency bills in Congress could be problematic. From Dow Jones Business News:

His comments came a day after the Senate Commerce Committee completed work on a bill sharply increasing the fines the FCC can impose for broadcast indecency. But the bill also included a controversial provision to roll back the FCC's June 2003 media-ownership deregulation rules and would regulate violence on cable and satellite television if a study showed that so-called v-chips in televisions aren't effective in screening out violence.

I remember back in the 90's when congress wanted to require television manufacturers to include the V-chip into all the sets made. Here we are, 10 years later, and they barely registered in the cultural wavelength. Read this release from the FCC on May 10, 1999 about a task force that was supposed to watch over the V-chip's effectiveness. According to this, the Task Force would have:

Ensure that the V-Chip Works. The Task Force will take steps to see that the blocking technology is available and working in a timely manner. In particular, the Task Force will ensure that (1) manufacturers meet the July 1, 1999 and January 1, 2000 deadlines for the V-Chip to be installed in new TV sets; and (2) video programming distributors are actually encoding ratings information in conformance with the voluntary industry ratings system.

Educate Parents About the V-Chip. The Task Force will disseminate information to parents about the industry rating system and how the V-Chip can be used to block programming that they find objectionable. In addition, the Task Force will promote the availability of ratings information through magazines, newspapers and television.

And Powell is calling into question the effectiveness of the V-chip today? How convenient. Thomas Hazlett from Slate has this to say:

the Annenberg Center recently studied households given active V-chip tech support. One hundred and ten families with children were given new TV sets containing V-chips, and most of parents received extensive operating instructions. At the end of one year, 77 families reported that they'd never tried the device, while just 8 percent claimed to be using it. This percentage is likely to be higher than that for usage among the general population, who've never received any training. For the most part, it seems that parents simply don't use V-chips.

And we're worried about one "wardrobe malfunction"?

The Muhammed Horton ad. This one has been all over the place already. Go to Ryan Lizza at The New Republic Online to read about it. This comes as a shock to no one. But I ask this question. Can they sustain the attacks by going negative this early? If Kerry's team plays it right, the American public will see these ads for what they are. Ill-conceived scare tactics.

Everyday you can hear it. The conservative mating call. "Jobs! Jobs ae coming back! Consumers, spending like crazy! The economy is fine!" You can hear this everyday from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Atrios points out this article about consumer sentiment. And I echo Atrios' question. Does anyone work for a company who is doing any significant hiring?

I guess when the goverment releases weaker-than-expected job numbers for February, then revises that to a lower number, average people might take a step back and ponder this. Do the conservative's know what they're talking about? First of all, most of these conservative pundits are well off anyway. They wouldn't know what it's like to live in modern times.

As I said here, the off-shoring of jobs is not a good thing. The Bush Administration might want to think about how the public might react to these issues.

Calpundit points out a column by Dick Meyer, who is the editorial director of CBSNews.com.

From the beginning, there has been a credibility problem with the Bush Administration. Fair or not, the 2000 election tainted Bush's presidency for a lot of people. This is why were are seeing Kerry polling even with Bush (although the numbers are fluctuating, they still make a point). Many people will see the "Muhhamed Horton" ad and just laugh.

As long as John Kerry comes out strong in his own defence, Bush's credibility problem might just be his downfall.

Wow. Everywhere I go this moring I read about Spain. Admittedly, before last Thursday, I knew very little about Spanish politics. I knew who the Prime Minister was and that a majority of the Spanish population opposed the US-led war in Iraq. A few days before the bombings, I had heard that the current leading party, the People's Party, was poised to take the election. Then the bombings happened.

The pictures were horrifying. I couldn't even imagine what it must have been like to be there when the trains blew up. Spain grieved, and then the populace kicked the People's Party out of office.

The question of the day is being bantered back and forth all over the internet. Did Al-Qaida have anything to do with the bombings? If this is true, then did the terrorist group really help change the outcome of an election?

We shouldn't be so quick to rush to judgement. This mess has to be sorted out before any kind of assumption can become truth.

For about a year now, I have been saying that the military draft is coming back. At the beginning of the war last March, I began to wonder if there would be enough soldiers to fight on multiple fronts. We were already committed to Afghanistan, and going into Iraq would make it more difficult to have full force preparedness across the globe.

Back in 1999, during a discussion among college friends, I went to the Selective Service website. At question was whether or not you had to go into the Army if you were drafted while attending college. I knew that during the Vietnam era, college was one way to escape the draft. This is not true anymore. From the Selective Service Website:

If a draft were held today there would be fewer reasons to excuse a man from service.

Before Congress reformed the draft in 1971, a man could qualify for a student deferment if he could show he was a full-time student making satisfactory progress in virtually any field of study. He could continue to go to school and be deferred from service until he was too old to be drafted. Under the new draft law, a college student could have his induction postponed only until the end of the current semester. A senior could be postponed until the end of the full academic year.

So now I knew that college was no safe haven from a new draft. Fast forward to last year. The Selective Service posted a notice on its website that they wanted volunteers to help re-populate local draft boards. These draft boards decided who went to war during a draft. Although the Department of Defence downplayed this notice as routine, many publications wrote stories and people got worried that another draft might happen. This piece was in USA Today last September. Not soon after these stories made it to print, the Defense Department pulled the notices.

Today, I went to the Selective Service website, and lo-and-behold, the notice is back on the front page. I went back to the site because of stories like this one that came out over the weekend:

The government is taking the first steps toward a targeted military draft of Americans with special skills in computers and foreign languages.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is adamant that he will not ask Congress to authorize a draft, and officials at the Selective Service System, the independent federal agency that would organize any conscription, stress that the possibility of a so-called "special skills draft" is remote.

Nonetheless, the agency has begun the process of creating the procedures and policies to conduct such a targeted draft in case military officials ask Congress to authorize it and the lawmakers agree to such a request.

Isn't this interesting. Basically this is admitting that they don't think there will be enough "special-skills" manpower for future operations. Is this a first step towards a new Vietnam-era styled draft? Obviously, the idea of this is extremely unpopular in this country. A lot of politicians shy away from this topic, especially during an election year.

But what if Bush wins another term, and then decides to fight more wars? Republicans in the past have followed every command from the Bush Administration. Lately, they have been upset, mainly at fiscal problems, but you can bet they would still follow orders if he won the presidency again.

This is an important story, one worth more airtime and print. A year ago, the mere mention of "special-skills draft" would have some people freaking out. Now, while attention is on the election, the procedures for a draft can be drawn up in silence.

From the Selective Service Annual Performance Plan FY-2004:

Strategic Objective 4.1: Ensure a mobilization infrastructure of 48 Alternative Service Offices and 48 Civilian Review Boards are operational within 96 days after notification of a return to induction.

Routine or not, this sounds a little scary.

Atrios has this one. Please take the time to read this one. Arrogant is a word that comes to mind. I'm not sure how to even respond to this.

First of all, Republicans already control most of government. The executive is theirs. Congress is theirs. And thanks to Bush's recess appointments, the judicial will be theirs as well.

Although, word is that two or three of the Supreme Court Justices might be looking to retire on Bush's watch. So what would be the point of this legislation? Greed is another word that comes to mind. It's bad enough that conservatives are trying to "clean up" the airwaves, but now it appears that they are trying to re-write the Constitution.

I don't think that this will be taken seriously, but who knows. It is an election year, after all.

First there was the underestimation of cost for the Medicare drug plan. Now, Vicki Kemper at the Los Angeles Times has a piece about controversial "video news releases" that the Bush Administration has put out.

It was with great fanfare that the Bush administration unveiled 30- second television commercials and a two-page flier that would be mailed to 41 million seniors and disabled people, touting the newly enacted Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Missing from the publicity was any mention of "video news releases," which feature "interviews" with government officials and voice-overs by production company employees posing as Washington reporters, for use in local TV news shows.

Last week the General Accounting Office ruled that the ads were ok, but not completely factual. Then this:

On Monday, less than a week after it concluded that the administration's Medicare commercials and fliers were technically legal but contained "notable omissions and errors," the General Accounting Office said it would conduct another investigation to determine whether the video news releases constituted illegal "covert propaganda."

Several Democratic lawmakers, meanwhile, sent a letter to executives of the five major TV networks urging them to "immediately warn stations not to use these materials" because they contain no statement indicating that they were produced by the government.

This should come as a shock to no one. My first real inkling of just how produced the Bush Administration is came from the documentary Journeys With George by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's daughter Alexandra. During the 2000 Election Campaign, Alexandra Pelosi was a producer for NBC in Bush's press pool. Before a Bush rally, Alexandra filmed scores of painted signs that supported Bush. The idea was that the cameras would get people in the audience holding signs that they brought to the rally. But in reality, the signs were already pre-made.

I realize that Democrats do this as well, but I get the feeling that everything about Bush is pre-made for television. The ranch in Crawford, the appearances at NASCAR events and rodeos, and the visual backgrounds at all his speeches give the feeling of a Hollywood production. Just watch Wag The Dog and you'll know what I mean.

After all the boloney over an extension for the 9/11 panel, this should come as no surprise. Via Josh at Talking Points Memo, Time Magazine has a piece about the Iraqi Intelligence Failure investigation.

A TIME examination of the panel members' backgrounds reveals a web of sticky connections to the Bush team and, in one case, an alleged lack of investigative curiosity [...]

Questions of objectivity won't be resolved until the panel completes its task. Five weeks after being appointed, the group has not met, and it is unclear when it will.

Could you imagine what the Republicans would have done if Clinton had stonewalled on Watergate or Lewinsky? They would have gone nuclear. This administration has shown a penchant for slight of hand manuevers and outright stalling tactics. Does anyone expect anything different out of them?

On another note, conservatives have been alluding to an absurd notion that John Kerry is Osama Bin Laden's candidate. This stuff is truly disgusting. Kerry would fight the War on Terror just as any other president would. As expected, the Bush team is running on terrorism, and nothing else.

Many of you are aware of the current legislation about indecency fines that is making its way to the Senate. The bill already passed the House with only 22 representatives voting against it. It is truly a monumental piece of legislation. Monumentally bad, I should say. The American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, or AFTRA, is the union that represents on air talent. In a letter to Senators, AFTRA's President and Executive Director wrote that the bill should be voted down.

Now, this is really a big deal. The FCC, up until this point, had held corporations responsible for indecent material that made it over public airwaves. But that is all changing.

Two provisions of the bill as drafted represent particularly egregious assaults on freedom of expression. The first such provision eliminates the due process protections of the current rule by eliminating the requirement that the performer be given a warning and opportunity to hearing before forfeiture. The second increases the existing fines on individual performers or announcers by 500% (from $11,000 to $500,000) for an initial indecency violation, without any regard for ability to pay. Incredibly, this amount is almost double the fine that can be levied against a corporation that holds a broadcast license ($275,000).

So what do we have here? It's an election year, and this legislation has made it on the fast track. But what is really interesting is the part that goes after the indiviuals. Why would you increase the fines that much for individual performers? Because it is a way to appease voters without going after the corporations that own the licenses.

Big media spent a lot of money last year to lobby the FCC for changes in market ownership rules. Big media also spend a lot of money on Republican election campaigns (specifically Clear Channel). Persecuting performers is a way to get at the "problem" without going after big media.

Performers and announcers who appear on the air or before the microphone are rarely, if ever, responsible for making programming decisions. Rather, they are asked to produce content. It is the broadcast licensees and networks who not only determine whether and when that content will be aired, but also reap the financial reward of airing such content. In many instances – because of tape delay or voice tracking – the programming isn’t even aired live.

Most people don't realize that almost all of what they hear on the radio nowadays is pre-recorded. Only Howard Stern and other nationally syndicated radio hosts are live. The second to last paragraph of the AFTRA letter really underscores my big issue with this legislation.

Moreover, with the move away from localism and towards corporate programming created by deregulation, community standards unfortunately no longer enter into the broadcast licensee’s content debate.

How can there be community standards without local communities?

If anyone loves to read/talk about school funding issues, Charles Kuffner over at Off the Kuff has a great post about funding issues in Texas. As anyone from Ohio would know, we have our fair share of problems. School districts all over the state keep coming back to citizens for more money. Huge increases in tax assessments and school levies add to an already over-taxed populace. Pretty soon, if things don't get any better, voters will stop giving more money. Period. So if things don't improve at the state and federal levels, communities all over Ohio (and other states) will see decrease in quality of education and local services.

An editorial in today's Washington Post illustrates a great lack of respect that the Bush Administration has for Congress. Their case in point is the recent revelation about threats made to the Medicare chief actuary.

Tension between the executive and legislative branches is inevitable, but the Bush administration has tended to treat Congress with an arrogance bordering on contempt. The latest illustration involves the report that the Medicare chief actuary was threatened with firing if he gave lawmakers his analysis of the likely costs of the new prescription drug legislation. The actuary, Richard S. Foster, estimated that the new entitlement would cost far more than predicted by the Congressional Budget Office: $534 billion over the next decade rather than the CBO's $395 billion.

Now let's play a game of what-ifs. What if Foster leaked the information? It was hard enough for the bill to pass on its own merits.

Indeed, had the administration been more forthcoming, the bill probably would have failed: The House managed to pass it only after leaders delayed gaveling the vote to a close in order to engage in last-minute arm-twisting.

Rep. Nick Smith of Michigan (who is retiring) was told his vote on the Medicare bill would influence whether his son, now running for his father's seat, would get money for his campaign. This is just more evidence that the Bush administration cannot further their agenda with just plain facts.

At the beginning of the year, the administration had to explain the higher-than-expected cost for the Medicare drug bill.

When the administration finally was forced to acknowledge its far-higher estimate in January, officials acted surprised at the new price tag. "This is really the first time that we've come up with a full and precise cost estimate because we were going through our budget processes," said White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan.

A scene from the movie Animal House flashed in my mind after I read those lines. The one where Delta Tau Delta was trying to defend the fraternity's antics in front of a peer review board. I could just picture juvenile journalists in the back of the press room cracking jokes under their collective breaths as McClellan spoke. "Cough, cough, bulls***."

The warchest is coming in handy already. Kerry's favorable/unfavorable ratings have taken a 10% net loss in just the last two weeks or so. Bush is aleady pounding away, framing Kerry for voters. This just in from the Associated Press.

John Kerry's words are being used against him in President Bush's new television ad, which accuses the presumptive Democratic nominee of waffling on military issues.

Airing nationally on cable TV, the commercial uses the same footage and many of the same lines as a spot Bush is airing in West Virginia this week criticizing Kerry for voting against an $87 billion aid package for Iraq and Afghanistan last year...

Kerry's tortured response to the West Virginia ad underscored the difficulties of defending Senate votes on massive spending bills loaded with hundreds of unrelated provisions. The Democrat explained that he voted against the $87 billion bill because he did not support the president's military and reconstruction plans. Kerry also noted that he supported a failed amendment that would have paid for the Iraq and Afghanistan programs by repealing Bush's tax cuts.

"I actually did vote for his $87 billion, before I voted against it," Kerry said Tuesday.

Bush's campaign tacked that quote to the end of the West Virginia ad, which was edited slightly to make room for Kerry's response.

The White House believes the next two months may be more important than the last 60 days of the campaign, because they have a chance to define Kerry before Americans get to know him.

And it's only March.

Ezra over at Pandagon, had this to say about the Kerry waffling issue.

The only thing I can see to do is get out in front of it, defuse the issue. I fear Kerry's denials that he ever shows a hint of waffling are going to kill him; they won't work. What he can do is reframe the issue; in my opinion, it's his only chance.

Hear, hear.

An AP piece yesterday has Karl Rove grinning from ear to ear.

White House political chief Karl Rove said Wednesday that President Bush had just begun to demonstrate the kind of targeted, multi-front campaign he plans against Democratic rival John Kerry.

Addressing a small group of conservative activists, Rove assured them that Bush planned a nimble campaign able to counterpunch even before Kerry opens his mouth. The White House adviser pointed with pride to the Bush camp's response Tuesday, when it got word that Kerry planned a national security speech to veterans in West Virginia.

Less than 24 hours after learning of the speech, the Bush campaign produced an ad criticizing Kerry for his Senate votes on military spending. It also dispatched volunteers to hand out pro-Bush material to West Virginians, and started radio ads in the state.

This is starting to have an effect. Kerry's marginal lead a few weeks ago has reversed course. Without enough money, Kerry might never be able to respond to this.

Rove criticized Kerry's vote for the Iraq war and against the $87 billion request for more money. He questioned Kerry's position on military issues. And then the Senator had this to say; via Counterspin Central:

"As I said yesterday about the events in Spain, they cannot become the reason to leave [Iraq]. And I call on Prime Minister [Jose Luis Rodriguez] Zapatero to reconsider his decision and to send a message that terrorists cannot win by their acts of terror."

I guess that negates the argument that John Kerry wants to abandon Iraq.

But the funny part of the AP article is when Rove starts to whine.

Rove complained that Democrats were criticizing Bush for failing to stem joblessness, when the unemployment rate is roughly the same as it was during President Clinton's 1996 run...

And he expressed irritation that some disgruntled Republicans in Congress and elsewhere have increasingly chosen to go to the news media to air their complaints, rather than bringing them directly to the White House.

Boo hoo, Karl. At least white collar IT workers had jobs back then. The meager uptick in job numbers doesn't reflect the quality of jobs gained versus jobs lost. A person made more in their IT job then working now as a waiter. And as I said before, what do you expect when your team has no respect for Congress in the first place.

The Washington Post has this piece about the House ethics committee. It seems as if they are awakening from their slumber.

For more than four years the House ethics committee has stood virtually mute, acknowledging no inquiries into alleged wrongdoings except for the slam-dunk case against Rep. James A. Traficant Jr. (D-Ohio) -- who already had been convicted and sentenced to federal prison for bribery in 2002.

That changed Wednesday night, however, when the secretive panel known as the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct announced the start of a "full and complete inquiry" into claims by Rep. Nick Smith (R-Mich.). Smith said last fall that unnamed GOP colleagues had tried to bribe him into voting for the contentious Medicare prescription drug bill on Nov. 22 by promising campaign help to his son, who is running to replace his retiring father.

I mentioned Rep. Smith yesterday. It has taken long enough to look into this. During Clinton's years there were multiple tax-payer funded investigations into President Clinton and other Democrats. Congress has been very silent since January 2001. This time, we have very serious things to look into. Rep. Smith's bribery claim, the Valerie Plame CIA leak, intelligence failures, and 9/11 just to name a few.

But this administration has show it's penchant for slowing things down. Anytime the word "investigation" is mentioned, they go into shout-down mode. "How dare you ask about the President's military records. Don't you know we're fighting a war on terror?"

All these investigations that are taking place might just be window dressing. Democrats don't have any real power in Congress, so it's up to Republicans to allow these investigations to take place.

Meanwhile in the Capitol, few people seemed to think the Smith investigation would land anyone in trouble. Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) said there is nothing extraordinary about a lawmaker observing to a colleague that party loyalists might help his son's campaign if the legislator backs the party on a big vote.

"I fail to see that as a bribe," Davis said. "Nick thought he could get some mileage out of this, and some mileage for his son."

Maybe not, but you know that if the situation was reversed, Republicans would be appointing an Independent Council.

So what about Bush's warchest? Via Counterspin Central, the Washington Post has this piece about Kerry's fundraising. Apparently it's not going to be as bad as we feared.

Sen. John F. Kerry is setting the stage to raise as much as $100 million for his presidential campaign by seizing control of his party's fundraising machinery, winning the support of top money people for vanquished rivals, and attracting thousands of new small donors via the Internet, according to officials inside and outside his campaign.

I really thought he might get $65-$75 million, tops. The more we keep giving, the better chance Kerry has to re-frame his image and keep it that way.

Although Bush is virtually certain to raise more money than Kerry -- and perhaps double -- Democrats are no longer concerned that the president will spend the Democratic nominee into the ground even before most voters tune into the race months from now. Some Republicans privately express concern that Bush's money advantage will not prove invincible, as they had once believed.

I always think a level playing field is the best way to get a fair election. If Kerry couldn't raise enough money, Bush was going to nail him to the cross and parade him around town. But now it looks as if things might be even-steven after all.

Via Atrios. Newsday has this piece about merchandise sold on the Bush-Cheney re-election website.

The official merchandise Web site for President George W. Bush's re-election campaign has sold clothing made in Burma, whose goods were banned by Bush from the U.S. last year to punish its military dictatorship.

The merchandise sold on www.georgewbushstore.com includes a $49.95 fleece pullover, embroidered with the Bush-Cheney '04 logo and bearing a label stating it was made in Burma, now Myanmar. The jacket was sent to Newsday as part of an order that included a shirt made in Mexico and a hat not bearing a country-of-origin label.

I'm sure Bush or his crew had no idea about the origin of the merchandise. Nonetheless:

Burmese textile workers earn as little as 7 cents per hour, according to the National Labor Committee, a human rights group.

"If it is true, it is very contradictory because the sanctions were imposed by the Bush administration," said Bo Hla-Tint, a spokesman for the Burmese government-in-exile in Washington, D.C.

Human rights watcher Charles Kernaghan, director of the National Labor Committee, said the slip-up showed a lack of conviction on the administration's part. "Given the debate about outsourcing, it's amazing that the campaign would be selling stuff made in the most brutal country on earth, known for things like child labor and sexual slavery," he said. "It shows a crude indifference to this issue."

One thing's for sure, considering Bush's "It ain't my fault" campaign strategy, a little accountability would be nice.

Later in the article it's noted that they reporteres also ordered stuff from John Kerry's website, but haven't received it yet. Who knows what that will bring.

Kevin Drum, formerly of Calpundit, points to the growing controversy over José María Aznar's PP party misleading Spanish voters. He refers to a piece from the Financial Times.

Its federal criminal bureau said the Spanish authorities intentionally withheld information and misled German officials over the explosives used in the Madrid bombings. The Spanish conservative government had insisted the Goma 2 Eco dynamite for the explosives had been frequently used by Eta, the Basque separatist movement. On Monday, it admitted that was not the case.

Sounds familiar. I wonder if decades from now we'll ever know just exactly what went wrong in our own country from 9/11 forward during the Bush administration's time in the White House. Kevin had this to say about the FT piece.

They didn't just mislead their own people, they also endangered the investigation itself by misleading other crime agencies. Since the group behind the bombings was spread throughout Europe, cooperation with other police forces was essential to quickly cracking the case. Playing games in a case like this really did have the potential to let the bombers get away.

I couldn't agree more.

I took a break over the weekend. My intention was to wait until last night and post something after 60 Minutes. But I realized while watching the Clarke interview that this was going to be all over the net. So I figured, why regurgitate the story?

So I decided to wait until this morning so I could read some White House responses. This is from Fox News.

Rice echoed the administration's rebuttal in a guest column in Monday's Washington Post and addressed Clarke's characterization of her obliquely.

"Before Sept. 11, we closely monitored threats to our nation," she wrote. "President Bush revived the practice of meeting with the director of the CIA every day — meetings that I attended. And I personally met with (director) George Tenet regularly and frequently reviewed aspects of the counterterrorism effort."

All of this can be expected. Most of us have believed Clarke's accusations for a long time. While Clarke's interview last night wasn't ground breaking (we already knew this), it underscrores a point. There are people inside the administration that question what is going on in the White House. While Clarke's revelations might be the most damaging, we've heard this before. Paul O'Neill on 60 Minutes in January was just as enlightening.

Since the beginning, this administration has put up a wall of secrecy. Now it looks like things might be tumbling down. Josh at TPM says it best.

The first months of the Bush administration were based on a fundamental strategic miscalcuation about the source of the greatest threats to the United States. They were, as Clark suggests, stuck in a Cold War mindset, focused on Cold War problems, though the terms of debate were superficially reordered to make them appear to address a post-Cold War world.

That screw up is a reality -- their inability to come clean about it is, I suspect, is at the root of all the covering up and stonewalling of the 9/11 commission. And Democrats are both right and within their rights to call the White House on it. But screw-ups happen; mistakes happen. What is inexcusable is the inability, indeed the refusal, to learn from them.

And then over at Pandagon, Jesse had this to say.

As with everything else relating to the war on terrorism, Bush was going to make changes at his leisure, getting around to it soon enough to say that he did it, but getting around to it late enough to say that he did it - the plan to fight al-Qaeda, reshaping intelligence agencies, the DHS.

It reminds me of the stories of FDR rewriting his speeches in his own handwriting to shape history's perception of his engagement in his own legacy. Of course, Roosevelt taking the time to write out speeches in his own handwriting and Bush delaying important changes in our national security apparatus are about as comparable as the local pee-wee football league and the NFL.

True.

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Sir Winston Churchill

Or so says Condi Rice. I meant to post this last night. Just for reference, here is a Reuters piece about Richard Clarke's accusations.

The counter attack has been on all fronts. In print, over the air, and on the net. Stand-up comic, er, White House Spokesman Scott McClellan had this to say.

"This is Dick Clarke's 'American Grandstand.' He just keeps changing the tune."

Har har, Scott. Nice play on words.

But then he follows more seriously with:

"Why did he wait till the beginning of a presidential campaign?" McClellan said. "Clearly, this is more about politics and a book promotion than it is about policy."

I have to say, who cares about the book promotion. Clarke clearly has some important things to say.

The Bush administration has a very large and very powerful PR machine. They were able to keep a lid on dissidence from the time they took office until about the end of last year. The wheels really began to fall off the cart in January with Paul O'Neill's interview/book. The conservative bandwagon had the same response back then. "He's promoting a book. He's just sour grapes. He was out of the loop." Then they lob the ol' "why'd he wait until election year?"

Here's the reason. In this day and age of 24/7 disposable news, it makes a difference when stories come out. It's sad to say, but most American's would forget what Richard Clarke has to say if not released in an atmosphere that gets it repeated airplay.

Here's my favorite, although incorrect, sentence in the Reuters piece.

Bush's leadership on security and his war against terrorism is a main plank of the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign.

Change "a" to "the" and you have the administration's main problem with the likes of Clarke, O'Neill, and Joe Wilson. Take away the "war image" thing and it all falls out from under them.

The attacks have been ferocious. Republican apparatchiks flooded the airwaves. This was to be expected. They are trying to use smoke and mirrors in order to hide the truth. Kos nails it.

But what Clarke has done is simply add fuel to charges already floating around -- from Paul O'Neil, from David Kay, from others. One person making charges might be spun as the rantings of a disgruntled former employee, or the machinations of a political enemy. But as more of these former officials come out, the damage they wreak on the administration rises exponentially.

We are seeing confirmation upon confirmation upon confirmation. The numbers of whistleblowers are too many to easily dismiss. The news media is no longer doing so, and the administration is reduced to calling in Rush Limbaugh to plead their case (Cheney: Our top counter-terrorism official was "out of the loop" on terrorism matters. And that's their defense!)

As I mentioned in my last post, Condi Rice has been out there prominently, mostly because Clarke accuses her of not paying enough attention to al Queda. However, there are other more important things for her to be doing instead of playing to the camera. How about showing up to the 9/11 panel hearings?

The ten-member panel had invited National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to testify. She declined, with the White House citing concerns about separation of powers.

What’s the big deal? Why not testify? It’s obvious that things are looking darker for the Bush administration. They will not accept responsibility for anything that has happened on their watch.

By the way, I listened to some of Cheney on Limbaugh yesterday. Even though it made me sick, I did find one thing to laugh at. Rush Limbaugh’s big idea to help heal the divide in the electorate is to hand George Bush a landslide in November. Rush says that will give Bush the resolve he needs in order to put down the Democratic uprising. I guess it doesn’t matter that Bush is the reason this nation is polarized.

Cell phone activated backpack bombs in Madrid. The pictures were stunning. One might ask the question, why hasn't this happened in the US? Aren't we at war with al Queda? There are many theories as to why America hasn't seen our own suicide bombings. Yet. Al Queda's M.O. is mass casualty attack. Hence 9/11. The suicide bombings in Israel are the work of other terrorist organizations. But don't they hate us? Hesios nails it.

Hamas, Hez'b'allah and Islamic Jihad aren't attacking the United States. Yet. Or at least they haven't done so since the early 1980's when we were meddling in Lebanon.

While our alliance with Israel ticks them off, it's not yet something that would make the suicide bombers bring their holy war to our subways. If we continue on this neo-conservative crusade to dominate the rest of the world, they just might.

I saw two bumper stickers on the back of a car yesterday. Simultanesously made me sick & laugh at the same time. The first one was "Bush-Cheney '04". The second was "WARNING: In case of rapture, this car will be unmanned". Obviously we all know that the religious wackos support Bush. My funny thought was that maybe they'll all disappear on November 1st.

I might need to explain what the rapture is for the uninitiated. The rapture is when God is supposed to take true saved Christians away from the earth leaving behind the rest to deal with the Tribulation. From CBS News:

An estimated 70 million Americans call themselves evangelicals, and their beliefs have already reshaped American politics. In the last election, 40 percent of the votes for George W. Bush came from their ranks...

See, maybe this will help.