Here's What's Left

The Big Move

The day has come, and we're moving to Chicago. Because we wouldn't miss any more of the Republican convention than we absolutely have to, the cable guy is coming tomorrow to set up the TV and the computer. So you can look forward to more leftism soon from Barack Obama land.

In closing the GA chapter of our bloggings, we'd like send a special shout out to President Carter and Sen. Cleland, as well as to Mayor Franklin and Congresswoman McKinney. Thanks for being there for us. And to Zell Miller... bugger off, as Monty Python would say. Our new home is going to be picking up the seat that you're giving away to the Repubs.

See you tomorrow.

-- Michael and Heather

Zell Miller just doesn't get it

The Democratic Party of GA has a great new ad, and it's running on the Cable News Channels during the Republican Convention. The ad is also on a new website, listentothisvoice.com. Go give it a watch. The watch it again. Selections from his keynote address during the 1992 Democratic Convention. Here's the text of the ad:

Announcer: There was a time when Zell Miller stood with working families. There was a time when he made us proud. There was a time when Zell Miller did get it. There was a time.

Miller in '92: Americans cannot understand why the rich can buy the best health care in the world, but all the rest of get is rising costs and cuts in health coverage or no health insurance at all, and George Bush doesn't get it.

Americans have seen plants closed down, jobs shift overseas, and our hopes fade away as our economic position collapses right before our very eyes. And George Bush does not get it!

George Bush just doesn't get it. He doesn't see it, he doesn't feel it, and he's done nothing about it. That's why cannot afford 4 more years.

Announcer: Let's remember what Zell Miller was and forgive him for what he's become.

The website invites you to donate to real Democrats in Zell Miller's name. I invite you to give generously. Good for the GA dems. The GA dems have a great quote from Paul Begala, who wrote Zell's '92 speech:

Zell was the Democratic keynote speaker in 1992. He was the Platform Committee Chairman in 1996. He co-chaired Al Gore's leadership PAC in 2000. And now, all of a sudden, in 2004 he's decided the party's too liberal? What's changed? On what issue has the party moved to the left from where it was when Zell was writing our platform?

Kick his ass, guys.

-- Michael

Republicans, Night I

For future reference, here's the GOP convention website. You'll notice at the top of the page it says: wWw.gopconvention.com. At first it looked like a mistake to me. But I hope you'll agree with me how cute it is.

I'll say one positive thing about Republicans -- they know how to put on a show. The big speakers tonight, John McCain and Rudy Guiliani, were good choices and good speakers. One funny thing about Guiliani's speech:

It was here in 2001 in lower Manhattan that President George W. Bush stood amid the fallen towers of the World Trade Center and said to the barbaric terrorists who attacked us, “They will hear from us.”

They have heard from us. They heard from us in Afghanistan and we removed the Taliban. They heard from us in Iraq and we ended Saddam Hussein’s reign of terror. They heard from us in Libya, and without firing a shot Qaddhafi abandoned weapons of mass destruction. They are hearing from us in nations that are now more reluctant to sponsor terrorists. So long as George Bush is President, is there any doubt they will continue to hear from us.

Environment-worshipping wackos want to shut down the economy

Environmentalists are so silly, aren't they. They just want to make out with trees and not shave their armpits and stuff.

According to an article on CNN.com:

One of every three lakes in the United States, and nearly one-quarter of the nation's rivers contain enough pollution that people should limit or avoid eating fish caught there...[EPA Administrator Mike] Leavitt said mercury pollution from industry is decreasing, though he cited figures only as recent as five years ago...But he also acknowledged that virtually every acre of lakes and mile of rivers could eventually be covered by advisories...Earlier this month an environmental advocacy coalition released a report citing EPA figures to claim that 76 percent of fish samples collected from 260 bodies of water exceeded the agency's mercury exposure limits for children under 3.

Mmmm. I personally like to substitute mercury for butter in all my cooking, especially when I have 3-year-olds over for dinner. Here's what it does:

Exposure to high levels of metallic, inorganic, or organic mercury can permanently damage the brain, kidneys, and developing fetus. Effects on brain functioning may result in irritability, shyness, tremors, changes in vision or hearing, and memory problems.

Short-term exposure to high levels of metallic mercury vapors may cause effects including lung damage, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, increases in blood pressure or heart rate, skin rashes, and eye irritation.

And yet water pollution is a seen as an issue for weirdo fringe groups. And Sean Hannity says all the fuss over this one dumb little poison that makes you stupid is "silly." Can someone please tell me why bad water is not a concern for everyone who drinks water or eats food that comes from water?

Fortunately, the mercury problem applies mostly to fish caught recreationally and not fish produced commercially. So we don't have to worry about the possibility that the economy will be shattered by "environment worship," as was recently suggested on Fox News by probable high-volume-of-recreationally-caught-seafood-eater John Kasich.

--H.

Why do Republicans hate the 1st amendment?

Apparently, the anti-RNC protests in NYC today drew as many as 400,000 people. Which is great, as far as I'm concerned. The news organizations underestimated their strength. This afternoon, the headline on the NYTimes website was:

Tens of Thousands Join Protests Against Bush in New York City

But which, as of 7:40 this evening, had been changed to:

Hundreds of Thousands Join Protests in N.Y.

Which is nice.

Now, I'm not here to endorse all of the protests or the protesters, though I imagine I probably agree with most of them on most things. Nor am I here to talk about the tactics of protesters, some of which I don't agree with (though I don't think there's been anything violent so far, only dumb things like people taking off their clothes, which in my opinion just undermines the strategic goal). What I am interested in is the Republican party's take on the protesters.

Now it gets interesting

Alright, I'm not going to make a big deal out of this. But if someone else makes a big deal of this, I say it's what the Bush campaign gets for leashing their attack dogs on Kerry. Here is the video (click on either of the choices that say "Excerpt of Barnes on getting Bush into the National Guard"). Here is the text of what he says. He is Ben Barnes, former speaker of the House of Representatives in Texas:

Let’s talk a minute about John Kerry and George Bush and I know them both. And I’m not name dropping to say I know ‘em both. I got a young man named George W. Bush in the National Guard when I was Lt. Gov. of Texas and I’m not necessarily proud of that. But I did it. And I got a lot of other people into the National Guard because I thought that was what people should do, when you're in office you helped a lot of rich people. And I walked through the Vietnam Memorial the other day and I looked at the names of the people that died in Vietnam and I became more ashamed of myself than I have ever been because it was the worst thing that I did was that I helped a lot of wealthy supporters and a lot of people who had family names of importance get into the National Guard and I’m very sorry about that and I’m very ashamed and I apologize to you as voters of Texas.

As I said, I'm not going to make a big deal out of it. I would prefer that it not happen. But the Bush campaigns deserves what it gets.

-- Michael

Zig-zag Zell

As we call him down here. Lest you think that Georgia Democrats are too conservative, you should know that there was a major protest in front of Zell Miller's headquarters yesterday. Here's what the AJC had to say about it:

Democratic Sen. Zell Miller plans to travel to New York on Sunday for his week at the Republican National Convention, but the Zell festivities actually begin here Friday, with a protest outside Miller's Colony Square office at noon.

It won't be the first time that a coalition of Atlanta groups outraged at Miller's endorsement of George W. Bush has gathered outside his office.

Atlanta Police surveillance of previous protests "has only increased our determination to expose untruths," said Bobbie Paul, director of the Atlanta chapter of Women's Action for New Directions -- WAND.

Don't be surprised, incidentally, if Miller's cable television appearances don't prompt Democrats to throw some of his old words back at him in ads.

Apparently it involved a lot of honking of horns.

Jay Bookman, the AJC's associate editorial page editor and a very smart fellow, had a column on everyone's favorite Republicrat:

That passage gets to the heart of Miller's dispute with Democrats. It is not, for the most part, a difference rooted in policy. Miller believes that his longtime party has become so elitist that it is no longer capable of appreciating and communicating with white Southerners. He believes the party condescends to the South, and if you know the man, you know that nothing angers him more than the thought that somebody, somewhere, might be looking down his nose at Zell Miller...

Another part of the problem is style. On issues such as the economy, Social Security, health care and taxation, the Democratic Party ought to be at least competitive in attracting the votes of white Southerners. Too often, though, Democrats try to sell their populist policies by using elitist rhetoric, while Republicans sell elitist policies using populist rhetoric. Not surprisingly, the Republicans often win.

Some Democrats are finally beginning to rethink that approach. Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean recently said he wants to be "the candidate for guys with Confederate flags and their pickup trucks. We can't beat George Bush unless we appeal to a broad cross section of Democrats." He's right: For too long, national leaders in the Democratic Party have indeed written off much of the white South in the mistaken belief that racial issues made their votes unattainable.

Dean's point echoed that of Miller, who preaches the need to reach "Joe Six-pack in the Wal-Mart parking lot." But instead of welcoming a new ally, Miller once again reacted in abject terror that somebody might be making fun of him. He ripped Dean for stereotyping Southerners, claiming that "Howard Dean knows about as much about the South as a hog knows about Sunday."

I'll have a lot to say about this, and about Zig-zag Zell, especially since he's giving the key-note address at the Republican convention, but this is just to get the conversation started.

-- Michael

The party of chickens and hawks

The weird confluence of the release of the Abu Ghraib reports and the SBVT truth "controversy" has me thinking. The Republicans, over the last two decades (or at least 1980 - 2000) became increasingly known as the party of the military. They get more of the military vote than Democrats do (especially since the advent of an all-volunteer military), and generally they support larger increases in funding for the Pentagon (so much so that supporter huge increases in such spending is counted as one of Ronald Reagan's signature achievements and credited with all kinds of supernatural things), and they're willing to used the armed forces more recklessly than Democrats.

It's been great for the Republican Party. The conventional wisdom has been this way for so long that President Bush doesn't have to do much but wear an American flag pin on his lapel to create the impression that he's the friendly candidate towards people in uniform.

Extra! Extra! Bush campaign remains ruthless

According to the NYTimes:

FARMINGTON, N.M., Aug. 26 - President Bush said on Thursday that he did not believe Senator John Kerry lied about his war record, but he declined to condemn the television commercial paid for by a veterans group alleging that Mr. Kerry came by his war medals dishonestly.

Mr. Bush's comments, in a half-hour interview with The New York Times, undercut a central accusation leveled by the veterans group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, whose unproven attacks on Mr. Kerry have dominated the political debate for more than two weeks.

Good, finally. Later in the article:

Mr. Bush did not hesitate when asked about the central charge issued by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the veterans' group that has leveled unsubstantiated attacks against Mr. Kerry's record in Vietnam. "I think Senator Kerry should be proud of his record,'' Mr. Bush said. "No, I don't think he lied.''

But when pressed repeatedly if he would specifically denounce the advertisements, which Mr. Kerry has said were being run with the tacit approval of the Bush campaign, the president refused to condemn then. Instead, he said he would talk only of the "broader issue'' of the political committees that take to the airwaves with attack advertisements.

I think this lays to rest any doubt that these commercials are anything other than the very worst and most despicable kind of attack politics. The president, whose campaign has connections to the veterans group, says that the central charges in the ad are false. But he refuses to condemn the ads.

So let's do some logic here. If the President says that Senator Kerry didn't lie about his record, that must mean that the people who are on TV saying that Kerry did lie about his record are themselves lying or are unwittingly telling an untruth.

It cannot be true both that Kerry lied and did not lie at the same time. The president says the latter. Why, therefore, is he not willing to make explicit the obvious logical corollary of his statement?

I'll tell you why:

President Bush has pulled ahead of Democratic challenger John Kerry for the first time this year in a Los Angeles Times poll, the newspaper reported on Wednesday in its on-line edition.

The survey taken Saturday through Tuesday showed that 49 percent of registered voters favored Bush, while 46 percent preferred Kerry.

The president, everyone's favorite "principled man" and "strong leader" and "guy with moral clarity" won't condemn something that he must logically realize is a lie, and that he doesn't believe personally. And ya know why? That's right, folks, it's all politics. In case anyone had any doubts. The world's most well-known Methodist is letting people bear false witness against his opponent. But the preznit believes in free speech. What a principled guy. At least he doesn't let the truth get in the way of these principles.

Though the most poignant part of the article is the part where Bush gives us a peak into his own personal grief about the issue: "I understand how Senator Kerry feels - I've been attacked by 527's too." I shed a tear for his pain and hope that the attack wasn't too hard on his family.

-- Michael

Remember Abu Ghraib?

I'm not sure how intentional this has been, but certainly one thing the Bush campaign has really gotten out of the Swiftees controversy (even though it's not really a controversy), and the subsequent and somewhat predictable media focus on it, is media time taken away from discussing actual things going on in the world. Like the fact that not one, but two reports on the Abu Ghraib abuses were issued yesterday and the day before.

One was the Army's internal report on military intelligence, by Major General George Fay, which is here. I haven't read it, but apparently it describes a wider circle of people involved in the abuse than previously thought, and doesn't exonerate civilian officers either. There's some pretty fucked up stuff. According to the Guardian:

The report... makes it clear that the scale of the abuse at the prison outside Baghdad went far beyond the seven military police guards facing charges. It included sexual abuse and the deliberate use of dogs to terrify teenage inmates.

Asked if the treatment amounted to torture, Gen Fay said: "It's a harsh word but unfortunately in a few cases it was appropriate."

Torture, you remember, is a world that Donald Rumsfeld specifically refused to use: "I won't address the 'torture' word," he said (somewhat bizarrely, since he actually said the word).