It is the animal everyone thought was extinct. During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush called himself a "compassionate conservative," promising that he would be a different sort of Republican than the hard-edged Newt Gingrich crowd, that he would be "a uniter, not a divider."
Well, as we all know, that language went right back into the filing cabinet after Inauguration Day as Bush proceeded to divide the country as it had not been in decades. He blew the federal budget surplus on a series of giant tax cuts, most of which went to the wealthiest Americans while leaving middle- and lower-class taxpayers with crumbs. He stocked the Government and the judiciary with conservative ideologues dedicated to poking their noses into people's private lives while letting business do whatever they pleased regardless of the consequences. He let industry lobbyists literally write Administration energy policy, larding it up with tax breaks for themselves. He told the rest of the world to go fly a kite after promising during the campaign to work hand in hand with other nations. He unleashed John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act after 9/11, stealthily observing our reading habits and trying to recruit mail carriers and plumbers to spy on us in our homes.
And, of course, he abandoned the hunt for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to drain American blood and treasure into the desert sands of Iraq in an obsessive vendetta against Saddam Hussein.
As the Republican convention kicked off in New York yesterday against the backdrop of hundreds of thousands of people marching in the streets, decrying Bush's actions as President and calling for his electoral defeat in November, witness the return of that strange and exotic beast called the Compassionate Conservative.
Down the memory hole is any remembrance of the 1992 convention, when speaker after speaker alienated large swaths of America with their "culture war" oratory and snide personal attacks on the Democrats. Gone is the "you are with us or you are with the terrorists" language. Nowhere to be found are the accusations of disloyalty and insufficient patriotism for expressing doubts about Administration policy.
Unwelcome is any mention of the huge tax cuts for the rich, the loss of millions of jobs, the stagnation of the American wage, the skyrocketing costs of health care, the mass giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry disguised as a Medicare prescription-drug benefit, the disinformation campaign to fool the American people into believing Iraq was behind 9/11, the transformation of our world image from a beacon of hope and opportunity to a raging bully, the massive antiwar demonstrations around the world.
Instead we see people mounting the stage at Madison Square Garden hailing the President as a modern-day Winston Churchill, a holy warrior holding back the darkness of Islamic terrorism while crusading (oops, that word is forbidden) for the light of America.
And the Republicans, having brought their convention to New York for the first time ever, are determined to play the 9/11 card for all it's worth, trotting out none other than Rudolph Giuliani to proclaim that "we need George Bush now more than ever."
There is something exceptionally ugly and shameless about how the Republicans so eagerly exploit 9/11 for their own purposes. The dust had not yet settled at Ground Zero before the Bush Administration sought to use the attacks as an excuse for going after Saddam Hussein. Bush fought the establishment of an independent 9/11 commission tooth and nail until the victims' families finally shamed him into it, and then did everything he could to prevent it from getting the job done. And in the propaganda campaign leading up to the invasion of Iraq, the terms "9/11," "al Qaeda," "Iraq" and "Saddam Hussein" were used interchangeably until a solid majority of Americans were convinced that Saddam was behind 9/11. Even our soldiers who stormed into Iraqi territory believed that they were avenging those who died in the attacks and going after the people who were behind them.
Bush "was for us right here in New York City," said former NYC Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, "inspiring a nation as he stood on hallowed ground, supporting the first responders." Of course, he had the good taste not to mention that after using the rescue workers as props, Bush then allowed his promise of $20 billion in general aid and first-responder assistance to languish.
Nor did he say that under White House pressure, the EPA deliberately withheld a multitude of data on how the post-attack air in Lower Manhattan was contaminated with various toxins, allowing rescue personnel, residents and Wall Street workers to believe that the air was safe to breathe. Hundreds of such people now suffer from health problems ranging from shortness of breath and chronic coughing to asthma and acid reflux disease.
"Our President has proven his ability to adapt to changing times while holding true to his basic beliefs in freedom, opportunity, and compassion," said Montana Governor Marc Raciot, neglecting to point out that Bush has made a habit of never admitting to any mistakes ever, staying with the same policies and approaches long after it becomes obvious that they just don't work. Neither did he remark that a number of very unfree regimes have been given a "get out of jail free" card as the price for their political support in the War on Terror™.
One can almost see a 1940s-style propaganda poster, showing a larger-than-life Uncle George standing in front of an American flag and with the wreckage of the World Trade Center in the background, protectively cradling a child in his massive hands as he defiantly faces off against a menacing Arab man with explosives strapped to his body and carrying a scimitar. "Our President -- Keeping Our Children Safe!" the poster could say.
Protestors are kept far away so as not to disturb the peaceful intellectual slumber of the true believers. Dissident Republicans are told to stay in line and not make waves. Yes, this is indeed a kinder and gentler GOP convention, happy smile fixed firmly in place with the superest of superglue. If only it actually represented the party's means and goals.
8/27/2004
A Father and His Daughter
I never thought I would find myself agreeing with Vice President Cheney on anything. To many people he is the power behind the throne, the obsessed ideologue behind the invasion of Iraq, the Emperor to President Bush's Darth Vader.
But once in a while -- once in a long while -- he actually says something sensible.
On Tuesday, Cheney was the main attraction at a rally in Iowa. After hearing the standard stump speech about Iraq and the War on Terror, one attendee said that "we have a battle here on this land, as well" and asked Cheney about his stand on gay marriage.
Coming from a man who still believes Iraq was behind 9/11 and had nuclear weapons before last year's invasion, Cheney's response was eminently levelheaded. "With respect to the question of relationships," he said, "my general view is that freedom means freedom for everyone. People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to." He went on to say that marriage is historically "a relationship that has been handled by the states. The states have made that basic fundamental decision in terms of defining what constitutes a marriage."
This put him into direct conflict with Bush and the Republican Party, both of whom adamantly support a constitutional amendment denying the same marriage rights enjoyed by everyone else to gays and lesbians, taking it entirely out of the hands of the states to begin with. "Attempts to redefine marriage in a single city or state could have serious consequences throughout the country," the draft GOP platform says, "and anything less than a constitutional amendment, passed by Congress and ratified by the states, is vulnerable to being overturned by activist judges."
What was behind Cheney's sudden burst of humanity? The answer is simple: one of his daughters is gay. Just for a moment, he stopped thinking like an ideologue and started thinking like a father. "We have enormous pride in both of them," Cheney said. "They're both fine young women. They do a superb job, frankly, of supporting us. And we are blessed with both our daughters."
You see, in a political environment which blames all our problems on the eternal Them, whether they be people of a different religion, skin color, sexual orientation, or anything else, it becomes a lot harder to go with the flow when one of "them" is family.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan ducked the issue at Wednesday's press gaggle, but the GOP's right-wing base promptly attacked Cheney with righteous fury. The Family Research Council, one of the loudest anti-gay-marriage groups, pounced on him for sending "mixed messages," frostily wondered why he was "allowed to depart from this position when the top of the ticket is unified on all other issues," and told him in no uncertain terms to get back in line.
Do the FRC and other religious-right groups actually expect Cheney publicly to relegate his own daughter to second-class citizenship for the sake of ideology? Apparently so, and their actions should make Cheney think long and hard about whether their backing is worth it.
Anyone who demands that someone must turn his or her back on a loved one as the price of their political support can, in the words of the Vice President himself, go f*ck themselves, and Cheney should say so loudly and publicly.
But once in a while -- once in a long while -- he actually says something sensible.
On Tuesday, Cheney was the main attraction at a rally in Iowa. After hearing the standard stump speech about Iraq and the War on Terror, one attendee said that "we have a battle here on this land, as well" and asked Cheney about his stand on gay marriage.
Coming from a man who still believes Iraq was behind 9/11 and had nuclear weapons before last year's invasion, Cheney's response was eminently levelheaded. "With respect to the question of relationships," he said, "my general view is that freedom means freedom for everyone. People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to." He went on to say that marriage is historically "a relationship that has been handled by the states. The states have made that basic fundamental decision in terms of defining what constitutes a marriage."
This put him into direct conflict with Bush and the Republican Party, both of whom adamantly support a constitutional amendment denying the same marriage rights enjoyed by everyone else to gays and lesbians, taking it entirely out of the hands of the states to begin with. "Attempts to redefine marriage in a single city or state could have serious consequences throughout the country," the draft GOP platform says, "and anything less than a constitutional amendment, passed by Congress and ratified by the states, is vulnerable to being overturned by activist judges."
What was behind Cheney's sudden burst of humanity? The answer is simple: one of his daughters is gay. Just for a moment, he stopped thinking like an ideologue and started thinking like a father. "We have enormous pride in both of them," Cheney said. "They're both fine young women. They do a superb job, frankly, of supporting us. And we are blessed with both our daughters."
You see, in a political environment which blames all our problems on the eternal Them, whether they be people of a different religion, skin color, sexual orientation, or anything else, it becomes a lot harder to go with the flow when one of "them" is family.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan ducked the issue at Wednesday's press gaggle, but the GOP's right-wing base promptly attacked Cheney with righteous fury. The Family Research Council, one of the loudest anti-gay-marriage groups, pounced on him for sending "mixed messages," frostily wondered why he was "allowed to depart from this position when the top of the ticket is unified on all other issues," and told him in no uncertain terms to get back in line.
Do the FRC and other religious-right groups actually expect Cheney publicly to relegate his own daughter to second-class citizenship for the sake of ideology? Apparently so, and their actions should make Cheney think long and hard about whether their backing is worth it.
Anyone who demands that someone must turn his or her back on a loved one as the price of their political support can, in the words of the Vice President himself, go f*ck themselves, and Cheney should say so loudly and publicly.
8/25/2004
Friends in Low Places
The incendiary accusations in Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's ad campaign smearing Senator John Kerry as having lied about his Vietnam record have now all but collapsed. In the meantime, President Bush, once again putting his leadership skills on display, repeatedly refused to join other politicians from both parties in condemning the attack ad, choosing instead to say piously that he is against all such ad campaigns. (Of course, the really dirty ads are coming from just the Republican side.)
With the White House refusing to rein in the attack dogs, the group has unveiled another ad. This one specifically attacks Kerry's 1971 congressional testimony opposing the war, saying he "demoralized" American soldiers and "dishonored his country...he just sold them out." The ad's producers have evidently learned their lesson from the firestorm over the false accusations in the first ad, restricting this one to showing angry reactions which cannot be definitively refuted. The fact that none of the men shown in the ad ever served with Kerry or even claim to have met him is apparently irrelevant.
Meanwhile, more information is coming out about the allegedly independent group's connections to the Bush campaign:
One would think the Bush campaign would learn from its mistakes and call a halt to this particular character-assassination campaign. But after four years of smearing political opponents as unpatriotic, we know better.
With the White House refusing to rein in the attack dogs, the group has unveiled another ad. This one specifically attacks Kerry's 1971 congressional testimony opposing the war, saying he "demoralized" American soldiers and "dishonored his country...he just sold them out." The ad's producers have evidently learned their lesson from the firestorm over the false accusations in the first ad, restricting this one to showing angry reactions which cannot be definitively refuted. The fact that none of the men shown in the ad ever served with Kerry or even claim to have met him is apparently irrelevant.
Meanwhile, more information is coming out about the allegedly independent group's connections to the Bush campaign:
- Benjamin Ginsberg, the campaign's chief outside counsel, also advised the Swift Boat group on legal matters. He resigned from the campaign after his dual role was made public.
- Kenneth Cordier, who appeared in a Swift Boat ad saying "[Kerry] betrayed us in the past," was on the Bush campaign's Veterans Steering Committee. He resigned from the campaign as well after his activities were revealed.
- A Bush campaign office in Florida handed out fliers publicizing a Swift Boat event.
- Bob Perry, the group's primary financial backer, has close political and personal ties with Bush's chief political strategist, Karl Rove.
One would think the Bush campaign would learn from its mistakes and call a halt to this particular character-assassination campaign. But after four years of smearing political opponents as unpatriotic, we know better.
8/23/2004
Denied
Haley Waldman is eight years old. She lives in New Jersey and is something of a tomboy who doesn't like wearing dresses. But as a faithful Roman Catholic, she spent a long time looking forward to her first Holy Communion. So in May she put on her best white dress, went with her mother to church, and ate the ritual wafer which Catholics believe represents the body of Jesus.
And then the Catholic Church declared her Communion invalid.
You see, Haley has a rare medical condition called celiac sprue disease which makes it impossible for her to digest the wheat-based protein called gluten; eating wheat would damage her intestines and possibly lead to cancer. So she cannot eat the regular wheat-based wafer used in Roman Catholic ceremonies. And while low-gluten wafers exist, they do not work for all celiac patients.
Her mother, Elizabeth Pelly-Waldman, informed her parish priest and asked that Haley be allowed to eat a rice wafer instead, but her request was refused. So Haley ended up taking her first Communion at another local church, one with a priest who did make an exception -- only to have Trenton Bishop John Smith rule it invalid, claiming that Communion wafers must be wheat-based.
"This is not an issue to be determined at the diocesan or parish level," Smith said in a statement, "but has already been decided for the Roman Catholic Church throughout the world by Vatican authority."
One has to wonder what in the world Smith was thinking when he denied Haley's Communion. After all, it's not like she asked for a rice wafer because she just doesn't like wheat, it was because she physically cannot eat wheat. She loves the Church and was eager to receive her first Communion, but was denied that sacrament by someone who does not know her and who evidently does not care about her health.
Does the Church really have no provision whatsoever for medical necessity? Or is it because the Church is such a slave to doctrine that no exceptions are possible under any circumstances for any reason? Alcoholics are in a similar position, as the use of grape juice as a substitute for wine during Communion is likewise forbidden. (Sadly, this is not limited to Christianity. Most religions have their super-adherents who block out everything which does not fit into their neat little world.)
Meanwhile, Pelly-Waldman has appealed to the Pope for help. "This is a church rule, not God's will," she wrote in a letter to the Vatican, "and it can easily be adjusted to meet the needs of the people, while staying true to the traditions of our faith."
Haley Waldman is devout, believes in God and Jesus, and is willing to go the distance to be a good Catholic, but quite reasonably not at the expense of her health. Why is the Church refusing to meet her halfway?
And then the Catholic Church declared her Communion invalid.
You see, Haley has a rare medical condition called celiac sprue disease which makes it impossible for her to digest the wheat-based protein called gluten; eating wheat would damage her intestines and possibly lead to cancer. So she cannot eat the regular wheat-based wafer used in Roman Catholic ceremonies. And while low-gluten wafers exist, they do not work for all celiac patients.
Her mother, Elizabeth Pelly-Waldman, informed her parish priest and asked that Haley be allowed to eat a rice wafer instead, but her request was refused. So Haley ended up taking her first Communion at another local church, one with a priest who did make an exception -- only to have Trenton Bishop John Smith rule it invalid, claiming that Communion wafers must be wheat-based.
"This is not an issue to be determined at the diocesan or parish level," Smith said in a statement, "but has already been decided for the Roman Catholic Church throughout the world by Vatican authority."
One has to wonder what in the world Smith was thinking when he denied Haley's Communion. After all, it's not like she asked for a rice wafer because she just doesn't like wheat, it was because she physically cannot eat wheat. She loves the Church and was eager to receive her first Communion, but was denied that sacrament by someone who does not know her and who evidently does not care about her health.
Does the Church really have no provision whatsoever for medical necessity? Or is it because the Church is such a slave to doctrine that no exceptions are possible under any circumstances for any reason? Alcoholics are in a similar position, as the use of grape juice as a substitute for wine during Communion is likewise forbidden. (Sadly, this is not limited to Christianity. Most religions have their super-adherents who block out everything which does not fit into their neat little world.)
Meanwhile, Pelly-Waldman has appealed to the Pope for help. "This is a church rule, not God's will," she wrote in a letter to the Vatican, "and it can easily be adjusted to meet the needs of the people, while staying true to the traditions of our faith."
Haley Waldman is devout, believes in God and Jesus, and is willing to go the distance to be a good Catholic, but quite reasonably not at the expense of her health. Why is the Church refusing to meet her halfway?
8/19/2004
A Bedtime Story
This was actually written by someone else, but it's too good not to include here:
Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction, honey.
Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we still didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q: That doesn't make sense, Daddy. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons to fight us back with?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.
Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.
Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway.
Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.
Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men, Fifteen of them Saudi Arabians, hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings, killing over 3,000 Americans.
Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too.
Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the Mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q: So the Soviets - I mean, the Russians - are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.
Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French Fries and French Toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.
Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.
Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.
Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.
Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.
Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.
Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a Godless un-American Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.
Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A: Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.
Good night, Daddy.
Elmer Bernstein, 1922-2004
Any movie buff knows the chords and strings of Elmer Bernstein's music; after all, there is certainly a lot of it. When he died yesterday at the age of 82, he left behind the scores for well over two hundred films and TV shows, including some of the most memorable in movie history.
Who doesn't think of a vast sweep of Western scenery when one hears the theme from The Magnificent Seven? Or walk in step and with a slightly martial air to the music from The Great Escape? (It has become one of the most instantly recognizable theme songs in all of cinema, enough to be parodied on a Simpsons episode some years back.) Or feels just a tiny shudder at the crashing, biblical music of The Ten Commandments?
Bernstein's prolific success is all the more remarkable because his film career was nearly destroyed right at the beginning, in the early 1950s. Like many of his artistic colleagues, he was sympathetic to the Soviet Union in the 1930s and 1940s, but he remained a self-proclaimed Communist even after Josef Stalin's tyranny became evident. (Interestingly, Stalin's relentless persecution of Soviet Jews never seemed to sway this Jewish composer.) Never one to keep his opinions to himself, he continued to champion leftist causes and criticized what he called the excesses of capitalism.
As the House Un-American Activities Committee and other super-patriots relentlessly purged American institutions of political unreliables, Bernstein saw opportunities disappear. But since he was not in front of the cameras like actors, nor high-profile like directors or writers, he was able to find some work, even if it was scoring such notorious clunkers as Robot Monster or Cat-Women of the Moon.
It took Otto Preminger to bring him back from exile, hiring him to write the music for 1955's The Man with the Golden Arm. Cecil B. DeMille also recruited him to score his 1956 Exodus epic, The Ten Commandments. It was not the only way DeMille faced down the blacklist; he also tapped Edward G. Robinson, who made his mark playing tough-guy gangsters in movies like Key Largo before his political views made him untouchable, to play the Hebrew overseer Dathan.
From then on, Bernstein worked constantly, turning out film scores by the bushel. From To Kill a Mockingbird to Birdman of Alcatraz to Devil in a Blue Dress, he composed some of the best movie music of the 20th century. He kept on working right through his 70s, with his last film being 2002's The Rising of the Moon. And yet, with all his work and all his films, he won only one Oscar, for 1967's Thoroughly Modern Millie, out of fourteen nominations.
And now Elmer Bernstein has ridden off into the sunset, doubtless to the strains of The Magnificent Seven. Movie fans everywhere will miss him.
Who doesn't think of a vast sweep of Western scenery when one hears the theme from The Magnificent Seven? Or walk in step and with a slightly martial air to the music from The Great Escape? (It has become one of the most instantly recognizable theme songs in all of cinema, enough to be parodied on a Simpsons episode some years back.) Or feels just a tiny shudder at the crashing, biblical music of The Ten Commandments?
Bernstein's prolific success is all the more remarkable because his film career was nearly destroyed right at the beginning, in the early 1950s. Like many of his artistic colleagues, he was sympathetic to the Soviet Union in the 1930s and 1940s, but he remained a self-proclaimed Communist even after Josef Stalin's tyranny became evident. (Interestingly, Stalin's relentless persecution of Soviet Jews never seemed to sway this Jewish composer.) Never one to keep his opinions to himself, he continued to champion leftist causes and criticized what he called the excesses of capitalism.
As the House Un-American Activities Committee and other super-patriots relentlessly purged American institutions of political unreliables, Bernstein saw opportunities disappear. But since he was not in front of the cameras like actors, nor high-profile like directors or writers, he was able to find some work, even if it was scoring such notorious clunkers as Robot Monster or Cat-Women of the Moon.
It took Otto Preminger to bring him back from exile, hiring him to write the music for 1955's The Man with the Golden Arm. Cecil B. DeMille also recruited him to score his 1956 Exodus epic, The Ten Commandments. It was not the only way DeMille faced down the blacklist; he also tapped Edward G. Robinson, who made his mark playing tough-guy gangsters in movies like Key Largo before his political views made him untouchable, to play the Hebrew overseer Dathan.
From then on, Bernstein worked constantly, turning out film scores by the bushel. From To Kill a Mockingbird to Birdman of Alcatraz to Devil in a Blue Dress, he composed some of the best movie music of the 20th century. He kept on working right through his 70s, with his last film being 2002's The Rising of the Moon. And yet, with all his work and all his films, he won only one Oscar, for 1967's Thoroughly Modern Millie, out of fourteen nominations.
And now Elmer Bernstein has ridden off into the sunset, doubtless to the strains of The Magnificent Seven. Movie fans everywhere will miss him.
8/18/2004
Gee, Thanks
"We want to continue to perfect this [missile defense] system, so we say to those tyrants who believe they can blackmail America and the free world: you fire, we're going to shoot it down."
-- President Bush at a Pennsylvania rally, evidently forgetting that the last time he made such a "bring 'em on" boast, he was taken seriously and hundreds of American soldiers in Iraq were killed as a result
-- President Bush at a Pennsylvania rally, evidently forgetting that the last time he made such a "bring 'em on" boast, he was taken seriously and hundreds of American soldiers in Iraq were killed as a result
The Amazing Vanishing Vote
Suppose that you walk into your local voting precinct this Election Day and encounter not the standard pull-lever-to-register-your-vote voting machine, but a computerized system instead. You touch the screen to cast your vote for the candidate of your choice, get a message saying your vote was recorded, and leave. That night, the local news says that Candidate A won in your town, and won big.
You think back over the last few weeks. That can't be right, you say to yourself. Everyone's been talking about the upcoming election, and a whole lot of people said they were going to vote for Candidate B. Others have this same feeling, and contact the county clerk's office, demanding a recount. The clerk's office reruns the vote count and comes up with the same result. Only then do you learn there is no paper record of people's votes or any other way to verify the election was accurate. With no way to prove otherwise, Candidate A is officially declared to be the winner.
You and a lot of other people go to bed that night positive that the election was stolen right out from under your noses, but there is no way to show it.
Fantasy? Maybe, maybe not. But the potential is certainly there.
Numerous studies have revealed that electronic voting machines are highly vulnerable to hacking and similar manipulation, making it relatively easy for an intruder to rig election results. Independent programmers who have examined the programming code are appalled at the many and obvious security flaws. Standardized setups, insecure physical machinery, and unencrypted data transmissions all make the machines a security nightmare.
Normally, this would not be a major concern, should the manufacturers be on the ball in fixing these issues. But they're not. Companies such as Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia, which build the machines, have repeatedly refused to make them accessible for independent audits, and they have consistently failed even simple security tests. Leaked internal E-mails from Diebold reveal that the company's own engineers said the system was not sufficiently secure and was rushed into production.
The machines' performance in the 2002 elections leaves much to be desired. Widespread problems included machines which could not boot up, systems which crashed and wiped out vote tallies, machines which recorded votes differently than the way people actually voted, and so on. And yet the machines are being used anyway for the 2004 election, in various states and localities around the country.
(As if all that weren't enough, Diebold CEO Walden O'Dell, who raised enough money for President Bush to be listed as a "Pioneer" on the campaign web site, sent out a fund-raising letter in 2003 saying he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President next year.")
A relatively simple solution is to have voting machines print out and store a physical paper receipt, visible to the voter and clearly showing the vote that was cast. That way, a paper trail exists for recounts and tally checks, and voters can be satisfied that the machine is recording their votes accurately.
The manufacturers, however, have consistently fought such a solution, claiming it would be unnecessary and too costly. Basically, their attitude is "trust us." Voting without a paper trail, however, calls into question the whole fairness and accuracy of an election, and no price is too high to pay for that. After all, we would never use an ATM that did not provide a paper receipt, so why should we accept it from a voting system?
Fortunately, there is an alternative for voters in electronic-only districts. You can request an absentee paper ballot which physically exists for recounts and verifiability and cannot be vaporized into random electrons.
Meanwhile, having already delivered the 2000 election to his brother, Florida Governor Jeb Bush has done his partisan part for electoral fairness by fighting independent audits for voting machines on the one hand and telling Republican voters to use absentee ballots on the other. "The new electronic voting machines do not have a paper ballot to verify your vote in case of a recount," says a recently distributed GOP flier. "Make sure your vote counts. Order your absentee ballot today." What a surprise.
The very basis of American democracy is the standard that all votes will be counted fairly and accurately. Electronic systems that are insecure, have no paper trail, and have no way to tell that the vote count is real all but wear a sign saying "Steal This Vote." Democracy itself demands something better.
(For more information on the promise and peril of electronic voting, check out the Verified Voting and Black Box Voting web sites.)
You think back over the last few weeks. That can't be right, you say to yourself. Everyone's been talking about the upcoming election, and a whole lot of people said they were going to vote for Candidate B. Others have this same feeling, and contact the county clerk's office, demanding a recount. The clerk's office reruns the vote count and comes up with the same result. Only then do you learn there is no paper record of people's votes or any other way to verify the election was accurate. With no way to prove otherwise, Candidate A is officially declared to be the winner.
You and a lot of other people go to bed that night positive that the election was stolen right out from under your noses, but there is no way to show it.
Fantasy? Maybe, maybe not. But the potential is certainly there.
Numerous studies have revealed that electronic voting machines are highly vulnerable to hacking and similar manipulation, making it relatively easy for an intruder to rig election results. Independent programmers who have examined the programming code are appalled at the many and obvious security flaws. Standardized setups, insecure physical machinery, and unencrypted data transmissions all make the machines a security nightmare.
Normally, this would not be a major concern, should the manufacturers be on the ball in fixing these issues. But they're not. Companies such as Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia, which build the machines, have repeatedly refused to make them accessible for independent audits, and they have consistently failed even simple security tests. Leaked internal E-mails from Diebold reveal that the company's own engineers said the system was not sufficiently secure and was rushed into production.
The machines' performance in the 2002 elections leaves much to be desired. Widespread problems included machines which could not boot up, systems which crashed and wiped out vote tallies, machines which recorded votes differently than the way people actually voted, and so on. And yet the machines are being used anyway for the 2004 election, in various states and localities around the country.
(As if all that weren't enough, Diebold CEO Walden O'Dell, who raised enough money for President Bush to be listed as a "Pioneer" on the campaign web site, sent out a fund-raising letter in 2003 saying he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President next year.")
A relatively simple solution is to have voting machines print out and store a physical paper receipt, visible to the voter and clearly showing the vote that was cast. That way, a paper trail exists for recounts and tally checks, and voters can be satisfied that the machine is recording their votes accurately.
The manufacturers, however, have consistently fought such a solution, claiming it would be unnecessary and too costly. Basically, their attitude is "trust us." Voting without a paper trail, however, calls into question the whole fairness and accuracy of an election, and no price is too high to pay for that. After all, we would never use an ATM that did not provide a paper receipt, so why should we accept it from a voting system?
Fortunately, there is an alternative for voters in electronic-only districts. You can request an absentee paper ballot which physically exists for recounts and verifiability and cannot be vaporized into random electrons.
Meanwhile, having already delivered the 2000 election to his brother, Florida Governor Jeb Bush has done his partisan part for electoral fairness by fighting independent audits for voting machines on the one hand and telling Republican voters to use absentee ballots on the other. "The new electronic voting machines do not have a paper ballot to verify your vote in case of a recount," says a recently distributed GOP flier. "Make sure your vote counts. Order your absentee ballot today." What a surprise.
The very basis of American democracy is the standard that all votes will be counted fairly and accurately. Electronic systems that are insecure, have no paper trail, and have no way to tell that the vote count is real all but wear a sign saying "Steal This Vote." Democracy itself demands something better.
(For more information on the promise and peril of electronic voting, check out the Verified Voting and Black Box Voting web sites.)
8/17/2004
Our S.O.B.
There is a story about President Franklin D. Roosevelt in which somebody complained to him about one of the more unsavory dictators the United States was sponsoring in Central America. "He may be an S.O.B.," FDR is said to have responded, "but by God, he's our S.O.B."
Iyad Allawi, the handpicked Prime Minister of Iraq, is rapidly turning out to be our S.O.B. in Baghdad. Formerly the leader of the Iraqi National Accord, Allawi spent the 1990s running a bombing campaign under CIA direction, among the targets of which were movie theaters and school buses. Now, after taking nominal power in the June 28 "handover of sovereignty," Allawi and his new administration have made their mark in a number of ways:
1. Allawi is said to have personally executed six blindfolded and handcuffed prisoners by shooting them in the head in front of U.S. military and Iraqi police witnesses at the Al-Amariyah Security Center in Baghdad on June 17. These reports have barely been mentioned in the American press.
2. In a separate incident, Allawi personally cut off a prisoner's hand to force him to confess to allegedly terrorist activities.
3. Al-Jazeera's Baghdad office was ordered closed for 30 days on the grounds that the TV network had been causing unspecified "problems." Allawi said Al-Jazeera's staffers were given "a chance to readjust their policy against Iraq."
4. A "Higher Media Commission" was established to censor all press reports in Iraq. Among the news articles destined for redlining is any "unwarranted criticism" of Allawi.
5. More than a few former torturers have been recruited to serve in Iraq's new secret police.
6. Allawi has suggested more than once that promised elections may be delayed or even cancelled if he does not like the "security situation." Which means that if he's likely to lose, the election is history.
7. U.S. military personnel who witnessed the brutal beating and torture of prisoners by Iraqi plainclothesmen at the Interior Ministry were ordered not to intervene. The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad made a pro forma attempt to raise the issue with the Ministry, then let it drop.
This is not a good sign. Aided and abetted by his patrons in Washington, Allawi is on his way to becoming Saddam Lite. He may not have the mass graves or chemical attacks that Hussein did, but by muzzling critical expression and personally shooting blindfolded men, he's certainly got the potential. The difference between Hussein and Allawi, of course, is that Allawi knows how to follow orders (for the moment) and he is not as brutal as Hussein (also for the moment).
Pre-invasion propaganda said we had to invade Iraq to overthrow a tyrant and turn the country into a democracy. Now the word out of Washington is that Iraq needs a tyrant who can impose martial law, ban protest, and use secret police to deal with opposition while putting democracy on the back burner.
And we wonder why our national credibility is in the toilet.
Perhaps we might take a few baby steps towards repairing our shattered world image if we paid more than lip service to the idea of Iraqi democracy instead of merely exchanging one thug for a more palatable thug. How about setting up immediate elections and let the Iraqi people decide who should be their leader?
Nah, that would be too easy.
Iyad Allawi, the handpicked Prime Minister of Iraq, is rapidly turning out to be our S.O.B. in Baghdad. Formerly the leader of the Iraqi National Accord, Allawi spent the 1990s running a bombing campaign under CIA direction, among the targets of which were movie theaters and school buses. Now, after taking nominal power in the June 28 "handover of sovereignty," Allawi and his new administration have made their mark in a number of ways:
1. Allawi is said to have personally executed six blindfolded and handcuffed prisoners by shooting them in the head in front of U.S. military and Iraqi police witnesses at the Al-Amariyah Security Center in Baghdad on June 17. These reports have barely been mentioned in the American press.
2. In a separate incident, Allawi personally cut off a prisoner's hand to force him to confess to allegedly terrorist activities.
3. Al-Jazeera's Baghdad office was ordered closed for 30 days on the grounds that the TV network had been causing unspecified "problems." Allawi said Al-Jazeera's staffers were given "a chance to readjust their policy against Iraq."
4. A "Higher Media Commission" was established to censor all press reports in Iraq. Among the news articles destined for redlining is any "unwarranted criticism" of Allawi.
5. More than a few former torturers have been recruited to serve in Iraq's new secret police.
6. Allawi has suggested more than once that promised elections may be delayed or even cancelled if he does not like the "security situation." Which means that if he's likely to lose, the election is history.
7. U.S. military personnel who witnessed the brutal beating and torture of prisoners by Iraqi plainclothesmen at the Interior Ministry were ordered not to intervene. The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad made a pro forma attempt to raise the issue with the Ministry, then let it drop.
This is not a good sign. Aided and abetted by his patrons in Washington, Allawi is on his way to becoming Saddam Lite. He may not have the mass graves or chemical attacks that Hussein did, but by muzzling critical expression and personally shooting blindfolded men, he's certainly got the potential. The difference between Hussein and Allawi, of course, is that Allawi knows how to follow orders (for the moment) and he is not as brutal as Hussein (also for the moment).
Pre-invasion propaganda said we had to invade Iraq to overthrow a tyrant and turn the country into a democracy. Now the word out of Washington is that Iraq needs a tyrant who can impose martial law, ban protest, and use secret police to deal with opposition while putting democracy on the back burner.
And we wonder why our national credibility is in the toilet.
Perhaps we might take a few baby steps towards repairing our shattered world image if we paid more than lip service to the idea of Iraqi democracy instead of merely exchanging one thug for a more palatable thug. How about setting up immediate elections and let the Iraqi people decide who should be their leader?
Nah, that would be too easy.
8/16/2004
Facts are Stupid Things
Once upon a time, while trying to say the aphorism "facts are stubborn things," Ronald Reagan mangled it into "facts are stupid things." Perhaps he was looking forward by two decades to the White House's current occupant.
Whatever else one might say about George W. Bush, he is at the very least consistent. He will not change his mind about anything. It doesn't matter if his original position is proved to be exaggerated, false or simply wrong. Once he gets an idea in his head, there is no shifting it, no way, no how. He apparently thinks that reconsidering anything under any circumstances at all is a sign of weakness.
Case in point is the aftermath of the Iraq invasion. In the pre-war propaganda campaign, Bush and his compatriots in the White House kept on saying ad nauseum that Saddam Hussein was armed to the teeth with chemical and biological weapons, and he was working on building nuclear weapons. They said he was thick as thieves with al Qaeda, and they planted the suggestion through endless repetition that he was behind 9/11.
Of course, none of this turned out to be true. One would think that Bush and company just might feel a touch self-conscious about having put such a load of malarkey over on the American people. Unfortunately, one would be wrong. The President's know-nothing rhetoric has not changed in the slightest.
"Knowing what I know today," Bush said recently, "I would have made the same decision [to invade Iraq]." And just to make sure everyone understands, he added, ''I know what I'm doing when it comes to winning this war, and I'm not going to be sending mixed signals."
Is the leader of the free world that far removed from reality?
But since he said it, let's take a moment to assume that everything we know now really was known two years ago, when the White House started the war drums a-beating. Let's assume that Bush was fully aware that Hussein did not possess WMD stockpiles, that a few extremely rudimentary development programs were in total chaos, that he was not about to give al Qaeda the time of day because the two sides hated each other's guts, and that he had nothing to do with 9/11 -- in short, that he was not even remotely a threat. (By a staggering coincidence, this is exactly what large numbers of CIA, State Department and Pentagon analysts said before the invasion, but they were studiously ignored. After all, when the ideological decision to invade has already been made, any inconvenient facts which counter that decision must be discarded.)
Would he really still have decided to disrupt his own War on Terror by attacking the wrong target, bogging American troops down in a desert quagmire, turning friends into enemies, blowing away all our post-9/11 goodwill, and giving al Qaeda a gold-plated recruiting poster?
Bush's don't-bother-me-with-the-facts answer is highly disturbing and should signal the death of his re-election efforts. It reveals the most powerful man in the world as utterly unable to consider any possible alternate course of action, for any reason, once the initial decision has been made. He genuinely believes that changing his mind for any reason at all is "sending mixed signals." Sticking with a decision no matter what, on the other hand, shows shows strength and resolve. That would be true -- if the decision were a good one.
But if all the available evidence says that the decision was a bad one, that's not strength, that's blind arrogance. After all, if you're digging a hole and the water is pouring in, the first rule is to stop digging and find a way to climb out.
Bush's response to criticisms over the war has been to point out that Senator John Kerry voted for the resolution giving Bush the power to go to war, therefore he must have agreed with it. Kerry's painful attempts to respond aside, he did indeed vote yes, in large part based on false information, but once the truth was revealed, he changed his mind and refused to continue supporting Bush's war. Hence his vote against pouring an additional $87 billion into the Iraq occupation. Bush sneeringly calls this "flip-flopping."
I don't know about you, but when I get a choice between someone who is capable of recognizing and reconsidering a bad decision and someone who sees it as a sign of weakness, I'll pick the first guy. And I'll do it every time.
Whatever else one might say about George W. Bush, he is at the very least consistent. He will not change his mind about anything. It doesn't matter if his original position is proved to be exaggerated, false or simply wrong. Once he gets an idea in his head, there is no shifting it, no way, no how. He apparently thinks that reconsidering anything under any circumstances at all is a sign of weakness.
Case in point is the aftermath of the Iraq invasion. In the pre-war propaganda campaign, Bush and his compatriots in the White House kept on saying ad nauseum that Saddam Hussein was armed to the teeth with chemical and biological weapons, and he was working on building nuclear weapons. They said he was thick as thieves with al Qaeda, and they planted the suggestion through endless repetition that he was behind 9/11.
Of course, none of this turned out to be true. One would think that Bush and company just might feel a touch self-conscious about having put such a load of malarkey over on the American people. Unfortunately, one would be wrong. The President's know-nothing rhetoric has not changed in the slightest.
"Knowing what I know today," Bush said recently, "I would have made the same decision [to invade Iraq]." And just to make sure everyone understands, he added, ''I know what I'm doing when it comes to winning this war, and I'm not going to be sending mixed signals."
Is the leader of the free world that far removed from reality?
But since he said it, let's take a moment to assume that everything we know now really was known two years ago, when the White House started the war drums a-beating. Let's assume that Bush was fully aware that Hussein did not possess WMD stockpiles, that a few extremely rudimentary development programs were in total chaos, that he was not about to give al Qaeda the time of day because the two sides hated each other's guts, and that he had nothing to do with 9/11 -- in short, that he was not even remotely a threat. (By a staggering coincidence, this is exactly what large numbers of CIA, State Department and Pentagon analysts said before the invasion, but they were studiously ignored. After all, when the ideological decision to invade has already been made, any inconvenient facts which counter that decision must be discarded.)
Would he really still have decided to disrupt his own War on Terror by attacking the wrong target, bogging American troops down in a desert quagmire, turning friends into enemies, blowing away all our post-9/11 goodwill, and giving al Qaeda a gold-plated recruiting poster?
Bush's don't-bother-me-with-the-facts answer is highly disturbing and should signal the death of his re-election efforts. It reveals the most powerful man in the world as utterly unable to consider any possible alternate course of action, for any reason, once the initial decision has been made. He genuinely believes that changing his mind for any reason at all is "sending mixed signals." Sticking with a decision no matter what, on the other hand, shows shows strength and resolve. That would be true -- if the decision were a good one.
But if all the available evidence says that the decision was a bad one, that's not strength, that's blind arrogance. After all, if you're digging a hole and the water is pouring in, the first rule is to stop digging and find a way to climb out.
Bush's response to criticisms over the war has been to point out that Senator John Kerry voted for the resolution giving Bush the power to go to war, therefore he must have agreed with it. Kerry's painful attempts to respond aside, he did indeed vote yes, in large part based on false information, but once the truth was revealed, he changed his mind and refused to continue supporting Bush's war. Hence his vote against pouring an additional $87 billion into the Iraq occupation. Bush sneeringly calls this "flip-flopping."
I don't know about you, but when I get a choice between someone who is capable of recognizing and reconsidering a bad decision and someone who sees it as a sign of weakness, I'll pick the first guy. And I'll do it every time.
8/12/2004
The Swift Boat Smear
A major point of Senator John Kerry's character profile is that he enlisted in the military to fight in the Vietnam War and earned three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star. In highlighting his military experience, he is not-so-subtly distinguishing himself from President Bush, who avoided going to Vietnam by enrolling in the Texas Air National Guard instead. (Not to mention the persistent allegations that Bush never even finished his service, instead going AWOL and being rescued by his family connections from facing the music.)
The Republicans, of course, cannot let this go unchallenged. First they attacked Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War activity and congressional testimony, claiming he was "disloyal" and "aided the enemy" by opposing the war in which he had earlier fought. Then they claimed that he had thrown away his medals, then said it was his ribbons. Everything was designed to make Kerry look like some America-hating hippie.
And now we have something called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," a group whose centerpiece is a 60-second TV ad called "Any Questions," featuring various Vietnam veterans all saying that Kerry lied about his military record, betrayed his comrades by opposing the war, didn't deserve his Purple Hearts because he wasn't really wounded that badly, and in general is some America-hating hippie.
But no sooner did the ad appear than it started falling apart. To start with, none of the men featured in the ad actually served with Kerry on the Swift Boat he commanded all those years ago. The closest it gets is by quoting George Elliott, Kerry's former commanding officer, as saying "John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam." But after the ad appeared, Elliott recanted his statement. And at the time, Elliott was the one who actually recommended Kerry for his Bronze and Silver Star medals.
Dr. Louis Letson also appears in the ad, claiming that Kerry was insufficiently wounded to get his first Purple Heart, saying "I treated him for that injury." The only problem is that Letson is not listed anywhere on Kerry's medical record at the time. Several other people are quoted as saying that Kerry lied about the circumstances under which he won the Bronze Star -- but their claims are flatly contradicted by the testimony of Kerry's shipmates.
Since Kerry has made a great deal out of his war record, it is, of course, fair game for scrutiny and criticism. And if Kerry lied about his record, then of course it should be exposed. But most of this criticism seems to be based not on what Kerry actually did while he was in Vietnam, but rather on his antiwar activities after he returned to America. As with Jane Fonda, many Vietnam veterans have never forgiven Kerry for publicly opposing the war, and running for President makes him a tempting and very public target.
But by calling Kerry a traitor, a coward and a liar, it all adds up to something that looks more like a smear than any genuine critique.
The fine print at the end says that the ad is "not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee." It's hard to believe, though, that the Bush campaign is not supportive of the ad and its contents. The group's number-one financial backer, Bob Perry, gave them $100,000, making up two-thirds of their reported receipts. Now, it just so happens that Perry has also given a quarter of a million dollars to Republican candidates since 2000, making him one of the top GOP donors in Texas. It's a safe bet that he doesn't want Kerry to win the election.
Interesting coincidence, isn't it? Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and their "Any Questions" ad looks less like a genuine veterans' organization than a Republican front group, a way for the GOP to smear Kerry without looking like they're the ones actually doing it. Are they more interested in getting to the truth, or just in getting Kerry?
The Republicans, of course, cannot let this go unchallenged. First they attacked Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War activity and congressional testimony, claiming he was "disloyal" and "aided the enemy" by opposing the war in which he had earlier fought. Then they claimed that he had thrown away his medals, then said it was his ribbons. Everything was designed to make Kerry look like some America-hating hippie.
And now we have something called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," a group whose centerpiece is a 60-second TV ad called "Any Questions," featuring various Vietnam veterans all saying that Kerry lied about his military record, betrayed his comrades by opposing the war, didn't deserve his Purple Hearts because he wasn't really wounded that badly, and in general is some America-hating hippie.
But no sooner did the ad appear than it started falling apart. To start with, none of the men featured in the ad actually served with Kerry on the Swift Boat he commanded all those years ago. The closest it gets is by quoting George Elliott, Kerry's former commanding officer, as saying "John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam." But after the ad appeared, Elliott recanted his statement. And at the time, Elliott was the one who actually recommended Kerry for his Bronze and Silver Star medals.
Dr. Louis Letson also appears in the ad, claiming that Kerry was insufficiently wounded to get his first Purple Heart, saying "I treated him for that injury." The only problem is that Letson is not listed anywhere on Kerry's medical record at the time. Several other people are quoted as saying that Kerry lied about the circumstances under which he won the Bronze Star -- but their claims are flatly contradicted by the testimony of Kerry's shipmates.
Since Kerry has made a great deal out of his war record, it is, of course, fair game for scrutiny and criticism. And if Kerry lied about his record, then of course it should be exposed. But most of this criticism seems to be based not on what Kerry actually did while he was in Vietnam, but rather on his antiwar activities after he returned to America. As with Jane Fonda, many Vietnam veterans have never forgiven Kerry for publicly opposing the war, and running for President makes him a tempting and very public target.
But by calling Kerry a traitor, a coward and a liar, it all adds up to something that looks more like a smear than any genuine critique.
The fine print at the end says that the ad is "not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee." It's hard to believe, though, that the Bush campaign is not supportive of the ad and its contents. The group's number-one financial backer, Bob Perry, gave them $100,000, making up two-thirds of their reported receipts. Now, it just so happens that Perry has also given a quarter of a million dollars to Republican candidates since 2000, making him one of the top GOP donors in Texas. It's a safe bet that he doesn't want Kerry to win the election.
Interesting coincidence, isn't it? Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and their "Any Questions" ad looks less like a genuine veterans' organization than a Republican front group, a way for the GOP to smear Kerry without looking like they're the ones actually doing it. Are they more interested in getting to the truth, or just in getting Kerry?
8/11/2004
The Right (Wing) Man for the Job
When George Tenet fell on his sword to protect President Bush, he loyally took the rap for the CIA's failure to prevent 9/11 as well as for the hyped Iraq intelligence. (Here's a new definition of chutzpah for you: Pressure your team of professional intelligence analysts to tell you only what you want to hear, then turn around and blame them when it turns out to be wrong.) Now, in the aftermath of the 9/11 commission's recommendations on how to reform the intelligence community and less than three months before the election, Bush has made his choice to replace Tenet as CIA director: Representative Porter Goss, Republican of Florida and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. As Bush pointed out when announcing the nomination, Goss was with the CIA before running for Congress, so he has experience in the world of intelligence.
But is he the right man for the job?
As we saw so painfully clearly in the run-up to the Iraq invasion and its aftermath, intelligence must remain nonpolitical and independent. Politicizing or otherwise skewing intelligence to please those in power tends to make it worthless. And since attitude flows down from the top, it stands to reason that the job of CIA director must be similarly nonpartisan.
Goss, however, is anything but nonpartisan. As one of the White House's most ferocious defenders in Congress, Goss has gone out of his way numerous times to protect the President and attack his critics. In fact, he was appointed by the Bush campaign to rebut a major speech by Senator John Kerry back in June on the subject of intelligence, calling Kerry's comments "me-tooism."
He attacked the Democrats in general and Kerry in particular, saying "the Democratic party [does] not support the intelligence community." With "somebody send me a blue dress and some DNA, I'll have an investigation," he rejected requests for a committee investigation of the vengeful "outing" of a CIA agent in retaliation for her husband's saying the White House lied when claiming that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa as part of a nuclear program. He led party-line votes blocking investigations of the Abu Ghraib prison-abuse scandal and Administration dealings with former Iraqi favorite son Ahmad Chalabi.
These raise serious doubts that Goss can run the CIA with the political independence it so badly needs.
Goss' CIA history also raises concerns that he may well be too closely intertwined with the intelligence system to run it effectively. The 9/11 commission's final report recommended the appointment of a single official responsible for coordinating the intelligence work currently conducted by various agencies, including the CIA and the Defense Department. Rather than seize the opportunity to make real and badly needed changes, Goss' first reaction to the report was instinctively to protect his former colleagues, putatively embracing the commission's findings while stalling as much as possible.
And if that weren't enough, the timing of the nomination gives Republicans an opening to bash Goss' critics. Any inconvenient questions can be answered with a broadside attacking the questioner as unpatriotically standing in the way of intelligence reform, making it a wedge issue for the election.
To their credit, when his name was first floated after Tenet's resignation, some Republicans in Congress saw a Goss nomination as politically a lost cause. The battle to confirm such an obviously partisan nominee to what should be a nonpartisan position would be so bruising to be ultimately not worth it. But after the nomination was announced yesterday, all dissent was squashed, and the GOP loyally fell into lockstep.
Goss' history as a political partisan and his reluctance to embrace change even when needed makes his nomination to head the CIA a troubling one. At the very least, acting Director John McLaughlin should stay on the job until after the election, when the issue loses its political sting.
But is he the right man for the job?
As we saw so painfully clearly in the run-up to the Iraq invasion and its aftermath, intelligence must remain nonpolitical and independent. Politicizing or otherwise skewing intelligence to please those in power tends to make it worthless. And since attitude flows down from the top, it stands to reason that the job of CIA director must be similarly nonpartisan.
Goss, however, is anything but nonpartisan. As one of the White House's most ferocious defenders in Congress, Goss has gone out of his way numerous times to protect the President and attack his critics. In fact, he was appointed by the Bush campaign to rebut a major speech by Senator John Kerry back in June on the subject of intelligence, calling Kerry's comments "me-tooism."
He attacked the Democrats in general and Kerry in particular, saying "the Democratic party [does] not support the intelligence community." With "somebody send me a blue dress and some DNA, I'll have an investigation," he rejected requests for a committee investigation of the vengeful "outing" of a CIA agent in retaliation for her husband's saying the White House lied when claiming that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa as part of a nuclear program. He led party-line votes blocking investigations of the Abu Ghraib prison-abuse scandal and Administration dealings with former Iraqi favorite son Ahmad Chalabi.
These raise serious doubts that Goss can run the CIA with the political independence it so badly needs.
Goss' CIA history also raises concerns that he may well be too closely intertwined with the intelligence system to run it effectively. The 9/11 commission's final report recommended the appointment of a single official responsible for coordinating the intelligence work currently conducted by various agencies, including the CIA and the Defense Department. Rather than seize the opportunity to make real and badly needed changes, Goss' first reaction to the report was instinctively to protect his former colleagues, putatively embracing the commission's findings while stalling as much as possible.
And if that weren't enough, the timing of the nomination gives Republicans an opening to bash Goss' critics. Any inconvenient questions can be answered with a broadside attacking the questioner as unpatriotically standing in the way of intelligence reform, making it a wedge issue for the election.
To their credit, when his name was first floated after Tenet's resignation, some Republicans in Congress saw a Goss nomination as politically a lost cause. The battle to confirm such an obviously partisan nominee to what should be a nonpartisan position would be so bruising to be ultimately not worth it. But after the nomination was announced yesterday, all dissent was squashed, and the GOP loyally fell into lockstep.
Goss' history as a political partisan and his reluctance to embrace change even when needed makes his nomination to head the CIA a troubling one. At the very least, acting Director John McLaughlin should stay on the job until after the election, when the issue loses its political sting.
8/09/2004
It's Not Carpetbagging When We Do It
Remember when Hillary Clinton decided to run for the Senate from New York? The Republicans jumped all over her like white on rice, calling her a carpetbagger, sneering at how she was from Arkansas but had to go all the way to New York to find people to vote for her. Red-meat commentator Alan Keyes put in his two cents by saying, "I deeply resent the destruction of federalism represented by Hillary Clinton's willingness to go into a state she doesn't even live in and pretend to represent people there. So I certainly wouldn't imitate it."
Now the GOP has hauled out the carpetbag for one of their own, all the while strenuously denying that anything of the sort is happening.
Back in June, the candidacy of Jack Ryan, the Republican contender for the Senate from Illinois, messily imploded over allegations that he had taken his then-wife, Star Trek and Boston Public actress Jeri Ryan, to sex clubs and tried to get her to do the nasty in front of a crowd. (Personally, my take is that as long as only consenting adults are involved and nobody gets hurt, people's private lives are their own business. After all, politicians are only human and they have the same drives as everyone else. Ryan, however, ran as a holier-than-thou "family values" candidate, and few things are more delicious than a hypocrite hoist on his own petard.) With Ryan out of the picture, and since Democratic candidate Barack Obama wowed the Democratic convention two weeks ago with his rousing keynote speech, the GOP had to find a candidate, and fast.
Enter none other than Alan Keyes. Despite the fact that he lives in Maryland and that his previous attempts at running for office all ended in disaster, he was quickly drafted to be the GOP candidate for the Senate from Illinois.
Why Keyes? The answer is simple: being ideological, conservative, and black, he is the GOP's perfect token black candidate; there is no better way to put it. Despite his loud and long-held opposition to basing any decision on race, he seems to have no problem with it when he's the beneficiary. I did not hear any kicking and screaming on his part when the Republicans asked him to step up.
When GOP House Speaker Dennis Hastert appeared on NBC's Meet the Press yesterday, Tim Russert asked him why it's acceptable for Keyes to mount a carpetbagging campaign when it was unacceptable for Clinton to do so. He replied by making a rambling comparison to a football team drafting players from out of state, saying that since no one in Illinois was willing to do the job, he had to bring in a ringer. And when Russert pointed out what Hastert studiously avoided mentioning -- that Keyes was picked almost entirely because of his race -- his response was, "Well, I tell you what, I was out of town when that happened. That -- sure. But I went five levels. I've been working for five weeks trying to find a candidate. Here we are."
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That clarifies everything.
It seems to be perfectly acceptable for the GOP to import a candidate, especially when he is of a particular color. But when the Democrats try to import a candidate -- well, we saw what Clinton had to put up with four years ago.
Once again, we see the Republicans' double standard. What's OK for us is not OK for you.
Now the GOP has hauled out the carpetbag for one of their own, all the while strenuously denying that anything of the sort is happening.
Back in June, the candidacy of Jack Ryan, the Republican contender for the Senate from Illinois, messily imploded over allegations that he had taken his then-wife, Star Trek and Boston Public actress Jeri Ryan, to sex clubs and tried to get her to do the nasty in front of a crowd. (Personally, my take is that as long as only consenting adults are involved and nobody gets hurt, people's private lives are their own business. After all, politicians are only human and they have the same drives as everyone else. Ryan, however, ran as a holier-than-thou "family values" candidate, and few things are more delicious than a hypocrite hoist on his own petard.) With Ryan out of the picture, and since Democratic candidate Barack Obama wowed the Democratic convention two weeks ago with his rousing keynote speech, the GOP had to find a candidate, and fast.
Enter none other than Alan Keyes. Despite the fact that he lives in Maryland and that his previous attempts at running for office all ended in disaster, he was quickly drafted to be the GOP candidate for the Senate from Illinois.
Why Keyes? The answer is simple: being ideological, conservative, and black, he is the GOP's perfect token black candidate; there is no better way to put it. Despite his loud and long-held opposition to basing any decision on race, he seems to have no problem with it when he's the beneficiary. I did not hear any kicking and screaming on his part when the Republicans asked him to step up.
When GOP House Speaker Dennis Hastert appeared on NBC's Meet the Press yesterday, Tim Russert asked him why it's acceptable for Keyes to mount a carpetbagging campaign when it was unacceptable for Clinton to do so. He replied by making a rambling comparison to a football team drafting players from out of state, saying that since no one in Illinois was willing to do the job, he had to bring in a ringer. And when Russert pointed out what Hastert studiously avoided mentioning -- that Keyes was picked almost entirely because of his race -- his response was, "Well, I tell you what, I was out of town when that happened. That -- sure. But I went five levels. I've been working for five weeks trying to find a candidate. Here we are."
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That clarifies everything.
It seems to be perfectly acceptable for the GOP to import a candidate, especially when he is of a particular color. But when the Democrats try to import a candidate -- well, we saw what Clinton had to put up with four years ago.
Once again, we see the Republicans' double standard. What's OK for us is not OK for you.
8/05/2004
Couldn't Have Put It Better Myself
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
President Bush, while signing a Defense Department spending bill into law
President Bush, while signing a Defense Department spending bill into law
October Surprise?
The term "October Surprise" comes from the 1980 Presidential campaign, when the Republicans feared that President Jimmy Carter would pull off a political hat trick and secure the release of the Americans being held hostage in Iran right before the election. (White House staffer Gary Sick later wrote a book of the same name in which he charged that the Republicans secretly cut a deal with Iran promising military equipment in return for not releasing the hostages until after the election. The accusations have never been adequately proved.) Given the Bush Administration's propensity for timing events for political purposes, and with three months to go until Election Day, one has to wonder whether they are planning an October Surprise of their own.
Such an event would likely take one or more of three forms:
1. Osama bin Laden is killed, captured, or found to have died.
2. Massive WMD stockpiles are found in Iraq.
3. A massive al Qaeda attack is loudly and publicly prevented in the nick of time right before the election.
Such political/temporal skullduggery may well have already begun. On July 25, Pakistani troops captured Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a leading al Qaeda terrorist and the alleged mastermind behind the 1998 bombings of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. But The New Republic reports that the Pakistani government delayed announcing Ghailani's capture for four days until midnight Pakistan time (mid-afternoon Washington time) on July 29 -- and did so at the request of the White House.
And what else happened on July 29? Why, nothing less than John Kerry's acceptance speech at the Democratic convention.
This may not be a coincidence. The magazine had earlier reported that the White House leaned on Pakistan to publicly capture a high-value target (HVT) during the week of the convention. Apparently, a White House aide told Pakistani intelligence chief Ehsan ul-Haq that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July."
Did the Bush Administration deliberately plan a July Surprise to overshadow the Democratic convention? If The New Republic's reporting is correct, the answer is yes. When Homeland Security secretary Tom Ridge scarily announced a supposed al Qaeda plot on Sunday (which just happened to push the Democrats out of the spotlight), amid the widespread skepticism over the announcement's timing, a few people wondered why such a thing did not happen during the convention itself and prevent Kerry from taking the spotlight to begin with.
If the magazine is correct, the Administration tried just that with the timed Pakistani announcement. The capture was supposed to have been the first story of that night's TV news, pushing Kerry and the Democrats off center stage. The only problem is that it didn't work, so something stronger had to be done.
The perception that the White House lets politics influence the War on Terror is not a new one. Earlier this year, the Army confidently announced that bin Laden would be captured in 2004. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have repeatedly been let off the hook sdespite their demonstrably shaky commitments to taking on al Qaeda and radical Islam in general. And as we saw earlier this week, the Administration has a habit of announcing terror alerts at politically expedient times. From all that, considering a full-blown October Surprise to lock up the election is not much of a stretch.
On the other hand, an October Surprise only works if people are not expecting it. After all, the magic trick of pulling a rabbit be pulled out of a hat just doesn't work if people are looking for it. So if the White House is aware that they are being watched, they might not try to pull such a stunt. But on the other other hand, that has never stopped them before; why should they start now?
The Bush Administration has already shown it will interfere with its own War on Terror for political purposes. It remains to be seen whether that interference will extend to winning the election.
Such an event would likely take one or more of three forms:
1. Osama bin Laden is killed, captured, or found to have died.
2. Massive WMD stockpiles are found in Iraq.
3. A massive al Qaeda attack is loudly and publicly prevented in the nick of time right before the election.
Such political/temporal skullduggery may well have already begun. On July 25, Pakistani troops captured Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a leading al Qaeda terrorist and the alleged mastermind behind the 1998 bombings of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. But The New Republic reports that the Pakistani government delayed announcing Ghailani's capture for four days until midnight Pakistan time (mid-afternoon Washington time) on July 29 -- and did so at the request of the White House.
And what else happened on July 29? Why, nothing less than John Kerry's acceptance speech at the Democratic convention.
This may not be a coincidence. The magazine had earlier reported that the White House leaned on Pakistan to publicly capture a high-value target (HVT) during the week of the convention. Apparently, a White House aide told Pakistani intelligence chief Ehsan ul-Haq that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July."
Did the Bush Administration deliberately plan a July Surprise to overshadow the Democratic convention? If The New Republic's reporting is correct, the answer is yes. When Homeland Security secretary Tom Ridge scarily announced a supposed al Qaeda plot on Sunday (which just happened to push the Democrats out of the spotlight), amid the widespread skepticism over the announcement's timing, a few people wondered why such a thing did not happen during the convention itself and prevent Kerry from taking the spotlight to begin with.
If the magazine is correct, the Administration tried just that with the timed Pakistani announcement. The capture was supposed to have been the first story of that night's TV news, pushing Kerry and the Democrats off center stage. The only problem is that it didn't work, so something stronger had to be done.
The perception that the White House lets politics influence the War on Terror is not a new one. Earlier this year, the Army confidently announced that bin Laden would be captured in 2004. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have repeatedly been let off the hook sdespite their demonstrably shaky commitments to taking on al Qaeda and radical Islam in general. And as we saw earlier this week, the Administration has a habit of announcing terror alerts at politically expedient times. From all that, considering a full-blown October Surprise to lock up the election is not much of a stretch.
On the other hand, an October Surprise only works if people are not expecting it. After all, the magic trick of pulling a rabbit be pulled out of a hat just doesn't work if people are looking for it. So if the White House is aware that they are being watched, they might not try to pull such a stunt. But on the other other hand, that has never stopped them before; why should they start now?
The Bush Administration has already shown it will interfere with its own War on Terror for political purposes. It remains to be seen whether that interference will extend to winning the election.
8/03/2004
Perfect Timing
Hmm...we've got another threat to President Bush's approval ratings and re-election prospects, so it must be time to publicize another scary terrorist plot!
Have you ever noticed that the really big and splashy alerts just happen to be mounted whenever the Administration gets into trouble? Earlier this year, when the Abu Ghraib prison-abuse scandal was poised to (further) demolish the White House's credibility, Attorney General John Ashcroft loudly announced that seven supposed al Qaeda terrorists were on the loose in America. The only problem was that they were already known to law enforcement and there was no reason to believe they were actually in the country. And to top it off, other departments, including Homeland Security, the FBI and local law enforcement, were not notified before Ashcroft went before the cameras. A few weeks later, when Bush's approval ratings hit a new low, out came a warning saying al Qaeda wanted to disrupt the Presidential election in November.
Now we have what may be the latest example. On Sunday afternoon, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge announced on live television the uncovering of a new al Qaeda plot to attack financial buildings using car or truck bombs. "In light of new intelligence information," he said gravely, "we have made the decision to raise the threat level for this sector, in these communities, to bring protective resources to an even higher level."
He specifically mentioned the New York Stock Exchange and the Citicorp building in New York, the Prudential Financial building in Newark, and the IMF and World Bank buildings in Washington as possible targets.
"The quality of this intelligence, based on multiple reporting streams in multiple locations, is rarely seen and it is alarming in both the amount and specificity of the information," he said.
It was loud, it was scary, and it had all the media buzzing.
But it also started to gather skepticism even before the end of the news cycle for several reasons:
1. The "new intelligence" was not new at all, it was actually several years old (pre-9/11, in fact) and had been ignored until now.
2. Ridge finished his announcement by saying, "We must understand that the kind of information available to us today is the result of the President's leadership in the war against terror."
3. It was announced right after the Democratic convention, wiping out any post-convention "bounce" Senator John Kerry might have enjoyed in the polls.
One senior law enforcement official was quoted in the Washington Post as saying, "There is nothing right now that we're hearing that is new." Others questioned the alert's timing as well.
So here we are again, with what suspiciously sounds like more of the same. Doubtless, whenever such a very public announcement is made, some al Qaeda elements might be scared off of whatever they're plotting by the increased security. But it also has the effect of scaring the American people as well, and when people are scared, we instinctively rally round the leader.
And it just so happens that this alert was loudly announced right after the Democratic convention, pushing Kerry out of the spotlight after several days of uninterrupted coverage.
Coincidence? Maybe. But the Bush Administration has had too many such coincidences before. Whenever something ugly is uncovered or a Democrat takes center stage on anything, a loud and frightening terror alert hits the airwaves more often than not, and the nation's attention is instantly brought back to the Oval Office and its current occupant.
The White House is naturally shocked, shocked at any suggestion that politics might play a role in such alerts. But having been caught at it before, they have only themselves to blame for such speculation.
Some things really should just be above being exploited for political gain, the nation's security being one of them. It remains to be seen whether the Bush Administration will ever realize that.
Have you ever noticed that the really big and splashy alerts just happen to be mounted whenever the Administration gets into trouble? Earlier this year, when the Abu Ghraib prison-abuse scandal was poised to (further) demolish the White House's credibility, Attorney General John Ashcroft loudly announced that seven supposed al Qaeda terrorists were on the loose in America. The only problem was that they were already known to law enforcement and there was no reason to believe they were actually in the country. And to top it off, other departments, including Homeland Security, the FBI and local law enforcement, were not notified before Ashcroft went before the cameras. A few weeks later, when Bush's approval ratings hit a new low, out came a warning saying al Qaeda wanted to disrupt the Presidential election in November.
Now we have what may be the latest example. On Sunday afternoon, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge announced on live television the uncovering of a new al Qaeda plot to attack financial buildings using car or truck bombs. "In light of new intelligence information," he said gravely, "we have made the decision to raise the threat level for this sector, in these communities, to bring protective resources to an even higher level."
He specifically mentioned the New York Stock Exchange and the Citicorp building in New York, the Prudential Financial building in Newark, and the IMF and World Bank buildings in Washington as possible targets.
"The quality of this intelligence, based on multiple reporting streams in multiple locations, is rarely seen and it is alarming in both the amount and specificity of the information," he said.
It was loud, it was scary, and it had all the media buzzing.
But it also started to gather skepticism even before the end of the news cycle for several reasons:
1. The "new intelligence" was not new at all, it was actually several years old (pre-9/11, in fact) and had been ignored until now.
2. Ridge finished his announcement by saying, "We must understand that the kind of information available to us today is the result of the President's leadership in the war against terror."
3. It was announced right after the Democratic convention, wiping out any post-convention "bounce" Senator John Kerry might have enjoyed in the polls.
One senior law enforcement official was quoted in the Washington Post as saying, "There is nothing right now that we're hearing that is new." Others questioned the alert's timing as well.
So here we are again, with what suspiciously sounds like more of the same. Doubtless, whenever such a very public announcement is made, some al Qaeda elements might be scared off of whatever they're plotting by the increased security. But it also has the effect of scaring the American people as well, and when people are scared, we instinctively rally round the leader.
And it just so happens that this alert was loudly announced right after the Democratic convention, pushing Kerry out of the spotlight after several days of uninterrupted coverage.
Coincidence? Maybe. But the Bush Administration has had too many such coincidences before. Whenever something ugly is uncovered or a Democrat takes center stage on anything, a loud and frightening terror alert hits the airwaves more often than not, and the nation's attention is instantly brought back to the Oval Office and its current occupant.
The White House is naturally shocked, shocked at any suggestion that politics might play a role in such alerts. But having been caught at it before, they have only themselves to blame for such speculation.
Some things really should just be above being exploited for political gain, the nation's security being one of them. It remains to be seen whether the Bush Administration will ever realize that.
8/01/2004
Un-American
It is hardly a secret that both Democrats and Republicans tend to give speeches before people guaranteed to support them with a minimum of pesky dissent. For example, President Bush gives many speeches for military groups, while Senator John Kerry addresses union crowds. While such practices may not be strictly cricket from a public-participation standpoint, campaigns are generally not in the habit of actively excluding anyone who doesn't support them 100%.
Until now.
Vice President Dick Cheney was in Rio Rancho, New Mexico yesterday to give a campaign speech. Now, this being America, one would think that people have the right to see public officials in public settings on public property without being required to support them politically. Apparently not, for the Albuquerque Journal reported that when the state Republican party provided public passes to see Cheney, there was one small condition. You see, anyone who wanted to see their Vice President had to sign a sheet of paper endorsing Bush for President and giving the campaign the right to use their names. Republican State Senator Dan Foley said the policy was put in place because a "known Democrat operative group" was planning to mount a protest at the rally.
You mean people might actually (gasp!) speak out and say they disagree with our elected officials? No, no, no, can't have that! The GOP has to make it look like all right-thinking Americans support the President and his policies, and that everyone who doesn't is some hippie Commie Saddam-loving gay-marrying flag-burning jihadist. And that means keeping anyone who might possibly react with anything other than complete and total adoration far far away.
And what's the best way to keep the infidels from polluting the ranks of the faithful? Why, with a good old-fashioned loyalty oath, that's how!
Yes, the Republicans have turned the clock back to the early 1950s, when teachers, writers, actors and others were required to sign oaths pledging complete allegiance to the United States on pain of blacklisting. Only total supporters are allowed, and everyone else can cool their heels in the Free Speech Zone and think about the price of disagreeing with those in power. (This ungodly concept, of whose name George Orwell would be proud, is designed to manufacture an image of unanimity and unquestioning support by relegating all protestors to a point far away from the actual event and the press. To wit, protestors at the Rio Rancho rally were penned in a full half-mile from the event.)
Once again, the GOP has showed its boundless talent for ham-handed stupidity. Staging rallies in front of generally supportive groups is one thing, but making people sign an endorsement as the price for seeing their elected representatives is way out of line. Loyalty oaths have always been un-American, but it seems that the Republicans just don't get it.
Until now.
Vice President Dick Cheney was in Rio Rancho, New Mexico yesterday to give a campaign speech. Now, this being America, one would think that people have the right to see public officials in public settings on public property without being required to support them politically. Apparently not, for the Albuquerque Journal reported that when the state Republican party provided public passes to see Cheney, there was one small condition. You see, anyone who wanted to see their Vice President had to sign a sheet of paper endorsing Bush for President and giving the campaign the right to use their names. Republican State Senator Dan Foley said the policy was put in place because a "known Democrat operative group" was planning to mount a protest at the rally.
You mean people might actually (gasp!) speak out and say they disagree with our elected officials? No, no, no, can't have that! The GOP has to make it look like all right-thinking Americans support the President and his policies, and that everyone who doesn't is some hippie Commie Saddam-loving gay-marrying flag-burning jihadist. And that means keeping anyone who might possibly react with anything other than complete and total adoration far far away.
And what's the best way to keep the infidels from polluting the ranks of the faithful? Why, with a good old-fashioned loyalty oath, that's how!
Yes, the Republicans have turned the clock back to the early 1950s, when teachers, writers, actors and others were required to sign oaths pledging complete allegiance to the United States on pain of blacklisting. Only total supporters are allowed, and everyone else can cool their heels in the Free Speech Zone and think about the price of disagreeing with those in power. (This ungodly concept, of whose name George Orwell would be proud, is designed to manufacture an image of unanimity and unquestioning support by relegating all protestors to a point far away from the actual event and the press. To wit, protestors at the Rio Rancho rally were penned in a full half-mile from the event.)
Once again, the GOP has showed its boundless talent for ham-handed stupidity. Staging rallies in front of generally supportive groups is one thing, but making people sign an endorsement as the price for seeing their elected representatives is way out of line. Loyalty oaths have always been un-American, but it seems that the Republicans just don't get it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)