We, the government

Former Vice-President Al Gore gave a speech last night at Georgetown University. In it, he made a statement that I think is very revealing:

Truly, President Bush has stolen the symbolism and body language of religion and used it to disguise the most radical effort in American history to take what rightfully belongs to the American people and give as much of it as possible to the already wealthy and privileged.

Hindrocket from Powerline says he can't figure out what in the world Gore is talking about; I think he's talking about the tax cuts. I wish I could find the whole speech somewhere so I could see this quote in its full context. But from the bits and pieces that I can find on the web, this is the only sensible way I can find to interpret his remarks.

Now, if Gore is talking about the tax cuts when he says that Bush has tried to "take what rightfully belongs to the American people and give as much of it as possible to the already wealthy and privileged," then what does he mean by 'the American people'? How is a tax cut TAKING what belongs to the American people? Isn't it GIVING BACK to the American people? That doesn't fit. But from the meager context available to us, it sure seems like he is talking about the tax cuts.

So we have to parse the statement more closely. Perhaps the communication breakdown is caused by Gore defining terms differently than I do. So, let's try this: Who exactly is getting their money taken away? And who is getting money given to them? Hmm... How about this:

the American people = the government

the already wealthy and privileged = taxpayers

Now the quote makes perfect sense! From this point of view, when I get less money because of taxes it's not because the IRS takes my money and gives it to pathologically counterproductive bureaucraticies. No, because it's not my money. That money belongs to the American people, and they should keep it. As a DNC fundraiser once told Lileks: “Well, why is it your money? I think it should be their money.”

Well, Mr. Gore, as a certain Texan is fond of saying, "We have a fundamental difference of opinion."

--DOC HUNTSVILLE

Ask a stupid question

Since John Kerry and John Edwards are trying to open up a national dialogue on homosexuality in America, I have a few questions. Why is it that gay people support Kerry/Edwards even though they state that their position on gay marriage is exactly the same as the Bush/Cheney position?

Is there some other gay issue in this election that I'm not aware of? I wonder why Bush doesn't get more credit for putting out more money to fight AIDS than all other American presidents put together. Then again, Kerry says it's not enough and that he'll do more. All right.

I wonder why Bush doesn't get more credit for overthrowing a regime (Taliban) that executed many, many people for committing homosexual acts. I wonder why Bush doesn't get more credit for creating (or trying to create) two new democratic regimes in which Islamic values are tempered with western respect for human rights-- and consequently homosexuality is not a capital offense.

What is it about Bush that gay people don't like? Is it that he's an evangelical Christian? Is it that his administration includes evangelical Christians like John Ashcroft? Is it that he is supported by evangelical Christians like Pat Robertson? Does that scare them? Do they feel threatened? I've learned from liberals that when straight people feel threatened by homosexuals, this means that way deep down they really are homosexuals. So doesn't this Robertson-phobia reveal the hidden shameful truth that gay people secretly really ARE evangelical Christians? Or worse, Republicans?

Anybody care to enlighten me?

--FABULOUS J

Player Haters Ball

Thanks to Kerry Haters for linking to my previous post. Welcome to the House of Payne. While you're here, feel free to look around. For the curious, here are a couple of posts that you might find interesting:

Great crossover potential - If Michael Moore is right about Republicans, then John Kerry is an even worse candidate than we thought.

The flaming tire of patriotism - Dan Rather used to be a patriot first, and a reporter second. But that was when a Democrat was in the White House.

Not justified - Does the American occupation of Iraq justify the beheading of civilians?

Good old UN - Why I am glad John Kerry's favorite international institution is not more involved in Iraq.

Republicans in Soth Georgia - My response to a far-out leftist who can't understand why I would vote for George W. Bush.

Thanks again for visiting!

--REDBEARD

War of choice

Last night Gwenn Ifill asked Sen. John Edwards a very important question, and I'm glad she did.

IFILL: You and Senator Kerry have said that the war in Iraq is the wrong war at the wrong time. Does that mean that if you had been president and vice president that Saddam Hussein would still be in power?

Good question. In fact, I think this is one of the most crucial questions of the campaign, as well as one of the most interesting and one of the most difficult for Kerry/Edwards to answer.

Would hypothetical President Kerry have left Saddam in power? The Bush campaign made this charge, which the Kerry campaign angrily sort of denied.

With her question, Ifill gave Sen. Edwards the chance to explicitly refute the charge. Here is his complete response:

EDWARDS: Here's what it means: It means that Saddam Hussein needed to be confronted. John Kerry and I have consistently said that. That's why we voted for the resolution. But it also means it needed to be done the right way.

And doing it the right way meant that we were prepared; that we gave the weapons inspectors time to find out what we now know, that in fact there were no weapons of mass destruction; that we didn't take our eye off the ball, which are Al Qaida, Osama bin Laden, the people who attacked us on September the 11th. Now, remember, we went into Afghanistan, which, by the way, was the right thing to do. That was the right decision. And our military performed terrifically there.

But we had Osama bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora. We had the 10th Mountain Division up in Uzbekistan available. We had the finest military in the world on the ground. And what did we do?

We turned -- this is the man who masterminded the greatest mass murder and terrorist attack in American history. And what did the administration decide to do?

They gave the responsibility of capturing and/or killing Saddam -- I mean Osama bin Laden to Afghan warlords who, just a few weeks before, had been working with Osama bin Laden.

Our point in this is not complicated: We were attacked by Al Qaida and Osama bin Laden.

We went into Afghanistan and very quickly the administration made a decision to divert attention from that and instead began to plan for the invasion of Iraq.

And these connections -- I want the American people to hear this very clearly. Listen carefully to what the vice president is saying. Because there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of September 11th -- period.

The 9/11 Commission has said that's true. Colin Powell has said it's true. But the vice president keeps suggesting that there is. There is not. And, in fact, any connection with Al Qaida is tenuous at best.

Let me get this straight. If Kerry had been president, he would have confronted Saddam, but he would not have rushed into war like Bush did. And further, the pre-war global testing would have taken enough time for us to figure out that Iraq had no WMD.

So that's the answer, isn't it? No WMD, and no connection to Al Qaeda, according to Edwards. So no reason to invade, right? So, in other words: Yes, if Kerry and Edwards had been president and vice president 2000-2004, then Saddam Hussein would still be in power today. No elections for you, Iraqis.

Is there another way to read this?

--YAHYA AL-RIIFI

Condoms and consequences

My internet ninja brother points to a great post from Hog on Ice about sexually-transmitted disease.

It's a pretty controversial post, to say the least. Here's one of the more inflammatory claims: "[C]ondoms don't work. They stop some diseases pretty well, but there are other diseases that go right around them."

I agree that a condom is not a "magical" shield against the consequences of sex. However, some folks, many of them well-meaning Christians, believe that a condom is nearly useless. One of my brothers told me once that encouraging Africans to use condoms would only further the spread of AIDS because condoms don't prevent the transmission of HIV. That's not true. Condoms are something like 95 or 99% effective at preventing HIV transmission.

Let's tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may. Condoms protect you from some, but not all, of the consequences of sex. And condoms are certainly not 100% effective at preventing anything. Abstinence is. A condom is better than nothing. But monogamy is better than a condom.

--SOLOMON MBANASO

Metro journalists

There's been a bit of diablog about Fox News (briefly) posting a Kerry story with a bunch of joke quotes on their website. Joshua Micah Marshall of TPM thinks that this compares to CBS using phony memos on a story about Bush's national guard duty, and that the reporter responsible (Carl Cameron) should be taken off the Kerry campaign beat. That sounds pretty reasonable to me, mostly because I wonder how this guy is supposed to get his job done after this. I don't think I would talk to Cameron if I were a Kerry staffer.

Anyway, Ace of Spades thinks that the Cameron microscandal is better compared to a Washington Post reporter's sarcastic reporting of a Bush meeting on the Hill. (Sample: " The big news of the day was made when our protagonist spoke about education. He declared that education is 'a passion for me.' In addition to this startling revelation, he made a case for free trade and his faith-based initiative. .")

I do not think that Milbank's snide commentary is as bad as Cameron's made-up joke quotes. Lots of journalists do what Milbank did, although it's usually a little more subtle. And I think if Cameron had merely commented snidely about Kerry's manicure without making up funny quotes, he would have been fine.

But what Cameron did was suitable for the Onion, or Scrappleface. (Well, it wasn't quite funny enough, but you get the idea.) So I find it understandable that Joshua Micah Marshall would get upset about Cameron and not about Milbank.

Anyway, the important thing about the Cameron teapot-tempest is that Fox discovered the screw-up quickly, took down the offending material, put up an apology, and disciplined the offender. All this within hours of its posting. Marshall can complain that he doesn't know if Cameron has been punished enough, but all of us know that Dan Rather hasn't been punished at all. And CBS, unlike Fox News, still maintains that what they gave us was fake, but accurate.

Now, for my money, quoting John Kerry showing off his manicure... THAT is fake, but accurate.

--JOHANNES CLERK

Kiss of death

When discussing the fall of Governor Howard Dean, most people talk about The Scream-- but this was a result of his decline, not a cause. Dean's meltdown happened in a pep rally with his supporters on the night of his Iowa defeat. The scream, though it got lots of play on cable news shows afterwards, does not explain how Dean went from first place in Iowa to third in the course of a few short weeks.

So what caused it? I remember right after Gore endorsed Dean as the Democratic candidate and told the other hopefuls to be good party soldiers and get in line, Mickey Kaus (I think) jokingly suggested that this endorsement would be the kiss of death for Dean. And if I remember correctly, the week of Gore's endorsement was Dean's high-water mark, poll-wise. From that point on, he sank steadily downward, and became a loser, a joke.

Was it Gore? Now that Gore is in Senator Kerry's corner, will Kerry go down, Dean-like, to a humiliating defeat? Los Carniceros de Llamas dicen: Sí.

--JUAN PENA

PS - One way or another, I find it interesting that so many of the Democrat party heroes are people famous for losing, like Gore and Max Cleland. Then again, Bob Dole recently resumed his role as a Republican party hatchet-man, so maybe this is bipartisan phenomenon.

Texas Air National Fnord

Now that it is clear that the new documents brought forward by CBS as proof of President Bush shirking his Guard duty were forged, I have only one question. Who will be the first lefty to say, "These documents were such obvious frauds that they must have been planted by the Republicans in order to discredit the Democrats." First paranoid to say it gets an ice cream sundae, my treat. (Disclaimer: The sundae will be purchased with filthy imperialist blood-for-oil money.)

UPDATE (10:48 AM): Too late! Should have got up out of bed last night and posted this when I thought of it. Apparently, Chris Lehane is already the winner. Congratulations, Chris! Next time you're in the Davis Square area, look me up for your free sundae.

--J. F. WEISHAUPT

Was blind but now I see

A quick post before dinner. For the Llamas.

Since Zell Miller's fiery speech at the Republican National Convention, he has attracted the ire of Democrat-and-allied bloggers not just for what he said at the convention but because of his allegedly racist past. Nobody raised this issue in 1992 when he gave a keynote address for the Democrats, but we all know Republicans are racist, so I guess it's relevant now.

Ridiculous. I will say the same about Senator Miller as I said about Senator Byrd. Words and deeds from forty years ago would only serve as evidence that he WAS a racist, not that he IS a racist. And there is nothing wrong with being an EX-racist. In fact, we can go further and say that being an EX-racist is right and good. Turning your back on evil is a virtue to be lauded.

So, if the sin has been repented of, stop bringing it up. And if the sin hasn't been repented of, then find some new evidence. Stop talking about what the man said in 1964.

--EL DOLOR

PS - For the Kerry fans among my imaginary readers, remember that it is only a virtue if you forsake the sin. I would not care what John Kerry said in 1971 if he later recanted. But he hasn't. In fact, his post-war/anti-war activities were the ways that John Kerry repented of the sin of his military service. This is why I find it hard to understand his current stance: proud to have served, and proud to have been ashamed to have served.

Conventional wisdom

My apologies for the title. I frequently make fun of journalists for throwing lame not-quite-puns into their coverage for no good reason. And now I start off a post with a title like that. What a slave to convention I am.

Okay, I'm done.

Anyway, I have two thoughts about the convention that I would share with my roommates, except that the one who works is already in bed and the one who goes to school is still out.

Thought one: Zell Miller would intimidate the devil himself. And when I say "the devil," I mean the junior senator from Massachusetts. Tonight Zell Miller showed me the fires of hell, and I have seen the light. Hallelujah! Deliver me from Kerry!

Zell Miller also intimidated Chris Matthews. I will let other people make the obvious points about declining respect for mainstream media, etc. Me, I just want to see the tape again, because that was crazy. Jeff Goldstein on little red pills crazy.

Thought two: I have never paid a lot of attention to conventions before, but I can not imagine that so much time has been spent sucking up to the US military ever before. The Democrats certainly spent an enormous amount of time talking about how much they love soldiers (so much that they want to bring them home so they are always be within hugging distance). An unbelievable amount of time. I thought at the time that if Republicans were to spend so much time talking about how they love soldiers, people would think that they were bloodthirsty warmongers, or hypernationalistic hawks, or wacko gun nuts, or something.

But watching the convention tonight I wondered how it would be different if the only people voting were soldiers and vets. Not much different, I think. And that worries me.

I realize that we're in a war and everything, but defense is not the only issue out there. It's okay to talk about other things. And even when we're talking about defense issues, soldiers are not always right. Soldiers deferring to civilians makes for a healthy democracy. Civilians deferring to soldiers makes for trouble.

I miss Eisenhower. Not literally. Before my time, Ike. But he certainly didn't defer to the Defense Department. No. He surveyed the international threat environment and examined the nation's finances. And he chose a grand strategy that would address the threats without breaking the bank. And the military did not like the changes that his strategy required of them. But what could they do? He beat Hitler.

There is no one in the United States today who could do that. The generals have acquired too much expertise in bureaucratic infighting. (See: Powell, Colin.) And the politicians have lost the expertise in military affairs. When a politician tells a general to cowboy up, the general calls a press conference and talks about how some politicians just don't realize the importance of national defense, etc. And so the pork keeps getting barrelled up and shipped out.

I am tired of hearing about how President Bush is going to give our boys everything they need to win the war. I'm not worried about that. I have faith that our boys will win the war, even with crummy equipment. (See: Sherman tank.) What they need to win the war is leadership, not servility.

Kerry's worse. The other JFK would have told the DoD what he told everyone else: "Ask not what your country can do for you..." He was not afraid to tell them to do things they thought were foolish, but which he believed were necessary to defeat the America's enemies. (See: Green Berets; Special Warfare School.)

It's nothing, I know. We're not going to have a coup and be ruled by a junta. But Eisenhower was right about the military-industrial complex. And Washington and the rest were right about standing armies. The defense budget is now almost half a trillion dollars right now if you count everything. And lots of that money is going to things that have nothing to do with the war on terror because no one in this country has the standing to challenge the military, like Ike did. Bush doesn't. Rumsfeld doesn't. Kerry sure doesn't. Good grief. If there's one thing I've learned from the Swift Boat Vets it's that Kerry can not stand up to the military-- He's not Nixon enough to take that trip to China.

Perhaps Senator McCain has the right stuff. He's an enemy to waste and pork, and his patriotism and his defense credentials are unimpeachable. And he sure seems to be scratching Bush's back right now. Maybe he will get the SecDef post if Bush wins. And maybe he can take his medals

Hope is on the way!

--MAJOR BLUDD