If anyone doubts that the Mainstream Media (MSM) has given up the fight to remain relevant, the February 25 Lou Dobbs Tonight show erased those doubts.
Rather than being a forum to bring news and information to the public, the show became a propaganda vehicle for the GOP. Substituting for Lou Dobbs was Kitty Pilgrim and she interviewed Charlie Jarvis, Chairman & CEO of USA NEXT.
USA Today reported that USA Next is the group that plans an initial $10 million campaign accusing AARP of a "shameful record of liberal activism," including backing gay marriage. USA Next had an Internet ad last week that asserted AARP supports gay marriage. It included a picture of two men kissing at what appeared to be their wedding over the words, "The real AARP agenda."
Laughable as it may seem that people would believe such nonsense, many of those involved in the USA Next campaign are alumni of the Swift Boat ad campaign which used lies and distortions to hurt John Kerry's presidential campaign and may have provided the key difference in Bush tiny win in Ohio which put him over the top.
So on Lou Dobbs, with a chance to challenge the ads, Kitty gave up and instead asked the following "tough question."
Let me ask you a tough one, though. Some of the your consultants advised the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. That turned into a very, very ugly fight. Do you anticipate this becoming as vituperative as that previous problem?
Not 'while your Kerry ads were successful, they were discredited, and will that hurt the effectiveness of the new ads?'
Not 'why is you ad untruthful?'
Not even 'are you going to make this discussion as ugly as the presidential campaign?'
Instead it was - will this be 'vituperative,' like anyone is going to know what that means (containing or characterized by verbal abuse).
After turning the show over to Jarvis Kitty closed with Well, we encourage energetic debate on this program certainly.
We encourage energetic debate? Not on this day.
Monday, February 28, 2005
Friday, February 25, 2005
Chickens Come Home
Stealing the 2000 election U.S. presidential election apparently finally caught up with George W. Bush on Thursday as he figured out he really didn't have a leg to stand on when criticizing other countries' commitment to democracy.
For weeks Bush and the Right had implied that when he got to Russia he was going to give President Vladimir Putin a piece of his mind about upholding democracy. Unfortunately for Bush, foreigners read the news critically and are able to add 2 + 2 together and come up with 4.
As the New York Times pointed out, "While raised, Western concerns about the decline in the development of democracy in Russia were muted after a period in which Mr. Bush heightened expectations with soaring language on the irresistible lure of freedom and democracy."
Using a trick William Safire used to do in his kooky New York Times columns, imagine you're in Vlad's mind as Bush is speaking. Don't you think the 2000 Presidential election crossed Vlad's mind, also how the GOP targets politicians who both support and oppose them, and how Bush avoids public town hall events with people who don't agree with him?
One could imagine ol' Vlad thinking Georgie was quite the hypocrite. Perhaps at that point Georgie looked into Vlad's soul and figured out he needed to shut up, now.
The Times pointed out "some political analysts took the public comments as evidence that Mr. Bush had ceded an opportunity to challenge Mr. Putin forcefully on his increasingly autocratic stand."
How could Bush challenge Putin? He has no moral authority to speak on democracy, a point some had predicted would happen because of the 2000 Florida debacle and Bush taking an office he lost, much like the guy in the Ukraine tried to do.
Bush may believe the 2004 election gave him credibility, but while half of Americans are willing to tolerate a hypocrite, the percentage isn't so high elsewhere.
For weeks Bush and the Right had implied that when he got to Russia he was going to give President Vladimir Putin a piece of his mind about upholding democracy. Unfortunately for Bush, foreigners read the news critically and are able to add 2 + 2 together and come up with 4.
As the New York Times pointed out, "While raised, Western concerns about the decline in the development of democracy in Russia were muted after a period in which Mr. Bush heightened expectations with soaring language on the irresistible lure of freedom and democracy."
Using a trick William Safire used to do in his kooky New York Times columns, imagine you're in Vlad's mind as Bush is speaking. Don't you think the 2000 Presidential election crossed Vlad's mind, also how the GOP targets politicians who both support and oppose them, and how Bush avoids public town hall events with people who don't agree with him?
One could imagine ol' Vlad thinking Georgie was quite the hypocrite. Perhaps at that point Georgie looked into Vlad's soul and figured out he needed to shut up, now.
The Times pointed out "some political analysts took the public comments as evidence that Mr. Bush had ceded an opportunity to challenge Mr. Putin forcefully on his increasingly autocratic stand."
How could Bush challenge Putin? He has no moral authority to speak on democracy, a point some had predicted would happen because of the 2000 Florida debacle and Bush taking an office he lost, much like the guy in the Ukraine tried to do.
Bush may believe the 2004 election gave him credibility, but while half of Americans are willing to tolerate a hypocrite, the percentage isn't so high elsewhere.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Will the Chickens Come Home to Roost?
Ever since George Bush was awarded the 2000 Presidential election thanks to his brother's efforts in Florida (where Bush "won" by 537 votes despite having nearly 180,000 votes left uncounted), one has wondered if his fraudulent election would ever come back to haunt him.
Luckily for Bush the media has been too willing not to question him personally on this or many other topics. As Dan Froomkin, who writes the White House Briefing for the Washington Post, said in an online discussion It's amazing how he has avoided public confrontation about either the 2000 election or what is increasingly looking like widespread torture of Iraqis at the hands of our troops and spies.
Rather than finally being personally questioned by Americans or the American press, it might be left to those protectors of democracy, the Russians, to finally challenge his legitimacy face to face.
Russian ambassador to the United States, Yuri Ushakov, indicated in response to questions from the New York Times regarding Bush's upcoming trip to Russia and his plans to scold Russian President Vladimir Putin that "there are others who are highly critical of your electoral system."
Bush administration officials suggested that he was referring to such matters as ..... the 2000 presidential election, in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mr. Bush in a recount dispute, effectively securing his victory.
More than four years later this could be the first real pointed questioning Bush has faced about his legitimacy. And as Froomkin pointed out - What irony it would be if Putin brought them up.
Luckily for Bush the media has been too willing not to question him personally on this or many other topics. As Dan Froomkin, who writes the White House Briefing for the Washington Post, said in an online discussion It's amazing how he has avoided public confrontation about either the 2000 election or what is increasingly looking like widespread torture of Iraqis at the hands of our troops and spies.
Rather than finally being personally questioned by Americans or the American press, it might be left to those protectors of democracy, the Russians, to finally challenge his legitimacy face to face.
Russian ambassador to the United States, Yuri Ushakov, indicated in response to questions from the New York Times regarding Bush's upcoming trip to Russia and his plans to scold Russian President Vladimir Putin that "there are others who are highly critical of your electoral system."
Bush administration officials suggested that he was referring to such matters as ..... the 2000 presidential election, in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mr. Bush in a recount dispute, effectively securing his victory.
More than four years later this could be the first real pointed questioning Bush has faced about his legitimacy. And as Froomkin pointed out - What irony it would be if Putin brought them up.
Sunday, February 13, 2005
Magic Asterisk
The recent debates over the future of Social Security makes one wonders if George Bush has finally found Ronald Reagan's magic asterisk.
As David E. Rosenbaum of the New York Times pointed out "The budgets prepared by David A. Stockman, Mr. Reagan's first budget director, adopted what was called a "rosy scenario" - impossibly optimistic predictions about future growth, inflation and interest rates. They also included what was called the "magic asterisk" - a gimmick that allowed for the budgeting of unspecified, and never intended, spending cuts.
Starting in 1983 the Reagan administation began relaying on excess Social Security fund to limit deficits and slow calls for higher taxes. One wonders if in 1986 there had not been the Social Security fund to raid it the tax code revisions would have been different.
Instead Republicans relied on excess Social Security taxes to keep the deficit down and to champion irresponsible tax cuts in the new century. While the excess funds helped keep the deficit down, one would have thought that eventually there would come a day when they would have to be paid.
Apparently not. Conservatives are now preaching that there is no trust fund, just paper receipts. But if there is no trust fund, then nothing has to be paid back. In a Feb. 11 column, Dan Froomkin pointed out that Bush is now saying "Social Security's $1.8 trillion trust fund doesn't really exist."
But his best point was "Let's assume that the president really believes that the Social Security trust fund doesn't exist. And let's just forget about the past two decades, during which workers overpaid more than a trillion dollars in payroll taxes. We'll write that off to an unfortunate misunderstanding.Maybe because Bush has found Reagan's magic asterisk?
As David E. Rosenbaum of the New York Times pointed out "The budgets prepared by David A. Stockman, Mr. Reagan's first budget director, adopted what was called a "rosy scenario" - impossibly optimistic predictions about future growth, inflation and interest rates. They also included what was called the "magic asterisk" - a gimmick that allowed for the budgeting of unspecified, and never intended, spending cuts.
Starting in 1983 the Reagan administation began relaying on excess Social Security fund to limit deficits and slow calls for higher taxes. One wonders if in 1986 there had not been the Social Security fund to raid it the tax code revisions would have been different.
Instead Republicans relied on excess Social Security taxes to keep the deficit down and to champion irresponsible tax cuts in the new century. While the excess funds helped keep the deficit down, one would have thought that eventually there would come a day when they would have to be paid.
Apparently not. Conservatives are now preaching that there is no trust fund, just paper receipts. But if there is no trust fund, then nothing has to be paid back. In a Feb. 11 column, Dan Froomkin pointed out that Bush is now saying "Social Security's $1.8 trillion trust fund doesn't really exist."
But his best point was "Let's assume that the president really believes that the Social Security trust fund doesn't exist. And let's just forget about the past two decades, during which workers overpaid more than a trillion dollars in payroll taxes. We'll write that off to an unfortunate misunderstanding.
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Stealing is Wrong but We Won't Stop
One of the points the Republicans have made in their effort to "reform" Social Security is that the trillion dollars collected above the needs for the program no longer exists.
"There is no cash in the Social Security trust fund, and there never has been any," a paper from the Heritage Foundation claims. Many conservatives go on to claim that in 2018 the Social Security system will no longer be able to cover its bills and will have to use the bonds in the trust fund. However, the government will have to raise taxes to cover those special government bonds issued to the Social Security system, causing great fiscal harm.
But as economist Paul Krugman says. "the only way Social Security gets in trouble is if Congress votes not to honor U.S. government bonds held by Social Security. That's not going to happen. So legally, mechanically, 2018 has no meaning."
Excess Social Security funds helped cover the Reagan and Bush deficits and if the government hadn't been able to take the excess money from the Social Security fund then they would have had to borrow it from other sources and, whether in 2018 or some other time, the government would have had to raise taxes to pay for that borrowing.
But conservatives like to claim there's no money there. If so, doesn't that mean that the government basically took money it wasn't entitled to? Isn't that stealing? And if that's stealing, shouldn't it be stopped today?
Oh, but then the Bush Administration would actually have to admit what Fiscal Failures they have been and it's doubtful they would want to do that. No, the Bush Adminstration will keep taking the extra money but have it's minions claim it's disappearing. That's dishonest or unethical, but then those are words the Bush Administration lives by.
"There is no cash in the Social Security trust fund, and there never has been any," a paper from the Heritage Foundation claims. Many conservatives go on to claim that in 2018 the Social Security system will no longer be able to cover its bills and will have to use the bonds in the trust fund. However, the government will have to raise taxes to cover those special government bonds issued to the Social Security system, causing great fiscal harm.
But as economist Paul Krugman says. "the only way Social Security gets in trouble is if Congress votes not to honor U.S. government bonds held by Social Security. That's not going to happen. So legally, mechanically, 2018 has no meaning."
Excess Social Security funds helped cover the Reagan and Bush deficits and if the government hadn't been able to take the excess money from the Social Security fund then they would have had to borrow it from other sources and, whether in 2018 or some other time, the government would have had to raise taxes to pay for that borrowing.
But conservatives like to claim there's no money there. If so, doesn't that mean that the government basically took money it wasn't entitled to? Isn't that stealing? And if that's stealing, shouldn't it be stopped today?
Oh, but then the Bush Administration would actually have to admit what Fiscal Failures they have been and it's doubtful they would want to do that. No, the Bush Adminstration will keep taking the extra money but have it's minions claim it's disappearing. That's dishonest or unethical, but then those are words the Bush Administration lives by.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)