August 2003 Archives
I don't know much about the military, and I don't live in Colorado Springs anymore but this would certainly be an interesting development for the local economy.
Some in the Army are predicting that the 1st Armored Division, based in Germany, will never go back to Europe once its rotation ends in Iraq next year. Instead, the division of 20,000-plus soldiers will relocate stateside, perhaps at Fort Riley, Kan., or Fort Carson, Colo.
For the record, our new senator has said she was not interested in the presidency. So has former Vice President Al Gore, who might be rethinking his own future. Not for the record, though, Hillary and her advisers, including her husband the ex-president, her money men and pollsters, will meet shortly after Labor Day - Sept. 6, I hear - to discuss whether she should go for it. It is a decision that has to be made earlier rather than later because of November and December filing deadlines for the early primary elections that will almost certainly (and very quickly) identify the 2004 Democratic nominee.
[via Political Wire]
Wesley Clark is coming ever closer to declaring and while I've been intrigued by the possibility since Senator Hart decided not to run, many observers - myself included - have been getting antsy and letting their attention wander while the General makes up his mind. Now, with his promised decision drawing closer Washington Monthly has a must-read piece on why he might be able to win the primaries despite the late start.
Arguably, Clark matches each of the strengths of the current crop of contenders, and then raises them one. His Army background--stretching from Vietnam to Kosovo--out-oomphs Kerry's military record. His service as commander of NATO forces compares favorably to Dean's executive experience as governor of a small New England state. He adds gravitas to Edwards's aesthetic appeal, charisma to Lieberman's thoughtfulness, and sincerity to Gephardt's liberal policies.That's why more and more Democratic insiders are beginning to argue that--at least in theory--Clark is the best candidate to beat Bush in a general election. The problem, they say, is that it's too late for Clark to make a primary run. Campaigns and Elections 101 teaches that it takes time to acquire name recognition, to build a field organization, to raise the funds to be competitive, to gain endorsements, and to acquire the myriad of intangible skills that it takes to run a winning campaign.
But this time, the conventional wisdom may be wrong.
[via Political Wire]
TNR takes a look at Dean's move to the right. Contrary to some who think think the inevitable collision between Dean's centrist credentials and many of his early supporter's loony leftism will cause a problem for the campaign, TNR believes the loss of the wing-nuts will help.
Why? For one thing, Dean has already gotten more mileage out of the far left-wing than he could have reasonably hoped for, having used their early support to cement his image as coming from the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." Now that he's trying to strengthen his centrist bona fides, their support isn't so important. And given that he's held these particular centrist positions for years, it was only a matter of time before some groups started to raise eyebrows. In any case, their votes were hardly secure--these are people who typically vote Nader, who long ago indicated that he would run against Dean if he got the nomination. Nor are we talking about all that many people--as noted in &c. today, the vast majority of progressives are still on board.But most of all, their defection is the best possible advertising for Dean's centrism, and a solution to one of his campaign's stickier problems. Indeed, while he has always had mainstream credentials, his antiwar image has ensured that people will greet his attempts to tack to the middle with skepticism. But when you get criticism from The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, even the most doubting of centrists have to rethink their assumptions about Dean's supposedly ideological tendencies. So for now, it seems that the Dean folks have managed to have their cake and eat it, too.
Here is a thought that has been floating around for a bit but now looks like it might be gathering steam. Gary Hart should re-take his old Senatorial seat from Ben Nighthorse Cambell. The Denver Post writes up the feelings of several prominent Democratic leaders that want Hart to run. Senator Hart is too valuable to stay in the political wilderness any longer.
Thanks to Colorado Luis - PolState's Colorado correspondent and, as of late, the proprietor of his own blog - for mentioning this article which I would have otherwise missed in the throes of moving.
Attorney General Ken Salazar and U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, a Boulder Democrat, who had talked about possible candidacies, have not stepped into the race. That leaves Democrats shopping for a candidate to oppose Campbell - who is expected this winter to announce his bid for a third Senate term.Democratic Party brass say they aim to back a millionaire who could bankroll a campaign that's expected to cost up to $10 million or a well-known political veteran who could help snag that money through fundraising.
As party operatives tell it, Hart has the experience and name recognition to beat Campbell.
"I have heard from people all over the state of Colorado that they would love someone of Gary Hart's stature to take a look at the Senate race," Gates said. "Gary Hart still has an incredible contribution to make to the state of Colorado and the entire nation."
99% of my stuff is now moved to my new place. One of the problems with moving from a very large place to a relatively small place is that your stuff doesn't fit well. Unfortunately, I can't remember where I packed my camera - and if I could I probably couldn't get to it - or I'd take some pictures of all the stuff occupying the entire bottom floor. In any case, the new place rules. I'll have some pictures and such once I track down my camera. Oh, and since I'm now a Denver resident, I've added a Denver category, and plan on posting a bit more on local issues.
Today's Denver Post has an interesting look at the future plans of billionaire Walmart-in-law and Denver sports magnate Stan Kroenke.
Kroenke, 55, is negotiating with fellow billionaire Philip Anschutz to buy the Colorado Rapids soccer team. He has expressed interest in building the nation's third soccer-specific stadium, mirroring Anschutz's popular Home Depot Center outside Los Angeles. And he's considering plans to broadcast the goals, points and scores pouring from his sports realm on his own sports network.
Not quite sure what to think of this, but as part of an extensive redesign, Denverpost.com has added "Bloghouse". So far it appears to have blogs from Lou from Littleton from 950 The Fan, Democratic activist Dani Newsum and an interesting journal of a 'forest steward' up in the mountains. I'll withold judgement on the completely non-blog-esque format (it ain't a blog without permalinks and syndication!) and complete lack of a theme for now and we'll see what happens.
Apologies for my recent absence. I'm working on getting moved into my new place and in the midst of all this I've had to deal with two emergency power-outages at work in the past week, including the big mess in NYC, which makes for a WHOLE lot of unexpected off-hours work. I hope to be back in the swing of things by Labor Day. Until then, don't expect much in this space.
The Anti Defamation League is worried about Mad Mel's Movie. Their concerns?
- The film portrays Jewish authorities and the Jewish "mob" as forcing the decision to torture and execute Jesus, thus assuming responsibility for the crucifixion.
- The film relies on sinister medieval stereotypes, portraying Jews as blood-thirsty, sadistic and money-hungry enemies of God who lack compassion and humanity.
- The film relies on historical errors, chief among them its depiction of the Jewish high priest controlling Pontius Pilate
- The film uses an anti-Jewish account of a 19th century mystical anti-Semitic nun, distorts New Testament interpretation by selectively citing passages to weave a narrative that oversimplifies history, and is hostile to Jews and Judaism.
- The film portrays Jews who adhere to their Jewish faith as enemies of God and the locus of evil.
Incidentally, lets not forget the raves a sneak preview got with the conservative Washington establishment.
[via Drudgereport]
Remember that Iraqi scientist who revealed that he had hidden unranium enrichment centrifuge equipment under a rosebush in his back yard? It was big news a month or so back when it was presented as the beginning of a flood of Iraqi scientists coming forward with mea culpa's and secret treasure maps to WMD nirvana. Wonder why you haven't heard more from that scientist? Now you know.
But for the Bush administration, things quickly began to go wrong with the Obeidi story. True, Obeidi said he’d buried the centrifuge equipment, as he’d been ordered to do in 1991 by Saddam’s son Qusay Hussein and son-in-law Hussein Kamel. But he also insisted to the CIA that, in effect, that was that: Saddam had never reconstituted his centrifuge program afterward, in large part because of the Iraqi tyrant’s fear of being discovered under the U.N. sanctions-and-inspections regime. If true, this was a terribly inconvenient fact for the Bush administration, after months in which Secretary of State Colin Powell and other senior officials had alleged that aluminum tubes imported from 11 countries were intended for just such a centrifuge program. Obeidi denied that and added that he would have known about any attempts to restart the program. He also told the CIA that, as the International Atomic Energy Agency and many technical experts have said, the aluminum tubes were intended for rockets, not uranium enrichment or a nuclear-weapons program. And he stuck by his story, despite persistent questioning by CIA investigators who still believed he was not telling the full truth.
He's currently being held incommunicado by the CIA in a Kuwaiti safe house. Safe, that is, from the press and uncomfortable questions.
[via Talking Points Memo]
Atrios posted a response from the Van Impe's on the White House "request" for an outline on the apocalypse.
"On July 7th or 8th we received a call from Justin Bush of the Office of Public Liaison for the White House asking Dr. Van Impe to attend a meeting with Dr. Condoleezza Rice and a few other faith-based leaders to discuss President Bush's "Roadmap to Peace in the Middle East.""Due to a busy taping schedule for his weekly TV program, Dr. Van Impe was not able to go to Washington for this meeting, but we told Justin Bush that he would be taping a video the following Saturday that will be sent to Dr. Rice as soon as it is finished. That tape, "The Roadmap to Peace: Potholes & Road Rage" is currently in post-production and will be sent to Dr. Rice and President Bush upon completion."
"It seems like all the great innovators die young," said Ken Morrow, a defenseman on the 1980 team and now a scout for the New York Islanders. "Coach may have been the greatest innovator the sport has ever had."Brooks was behind the bench when the Americans pulled off one of the greatest upsets ever, beating the mighty Soviets with a squad of mostly college players.
This is almost certainly not true, but it would be interesting to see why Jack Van Impe thinks the White House contacted him. I suspect it's because he's batshit insane. Someone ask Chuck "The Omen" Ohman.
Dear Washington Press Corps, here's an easy one for you. Could someone please verify if Jack Van Impe Ministries International was really contacted by the Office of Public Liason of the White House and Condoleezza Rice to prepare an outline on the coming apocalypse?
Glenn Reynolds is coming around on the WMD as political club theory I presented a few weeks back. I'll note that John-Paul scoffed.
If true, this would tend to support the "rope-a-dope" theory that Bush is letting his critics make a big deal out of WMD, so that he can completely undercut them by producing the weapons at a politically opportune moment. I've been skeptical of that theory, but, well, this is some degree of support for it.
The Scrum has a good post on Al Gore's speech. I have no real feelings on whether he should enter the Presidential race, but he did manage to put together a more concise critique of the current Administration than any of the current candidates. Someone needs to be making these points. The Scrum boils the speech down to its most important passage:
...there is a big difference between [occasional rhetorical excesses and leaps of faith] and a systematic effort to manipulate facts in service to a totalistic ideology that's felt to be more important than the mandates of basic honesty.And, unfortunately, I think it is no longer possible to avoid the conclusion that what our country is now dealing with in the Bush presidency is the latter. That's really the nub of the problem, in my view, and the common source for most of the false impressions that have been frustrating the normal and healthy workings of our democracy....
The Bush administration routinely shows disrespect for that whole basic process. And I think it's partly because they seem to feel as if they already know the truth and are not very curious to learn about any facts that might contradict what they believe they already know.
An interesting Friedman column on the early impact of Iraqi liberation on the Arab world.
Shortly after the 25-member Governing Council was appointed in Iraq, the head of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, questioned the U.S.-appointed Council's legitimacy. "If this Council was elected," complained Mr. Moussa, "it would have gained much power and credibility."I love that quote. I love it, first of all, for its bold, gutsy, shameless, world-class hypocrisy. Mr. Moussa presides over an Arab League in which not one of the 22 member states has a leader elected in a free and fair election. On top of it, before the war, Mr. Moussa did all he could to shield Saddam Hussein from attack, although Saddam had never held a real election in his life. Yet, there was Mr. Moussa questioning the new U.S.-appointed Iraqi Council, which, even in its infant form, is already the most representative government Iraq has ever had.
But I also love Mr. Moussa's comment for its unintended revolutionary message: "power and credibility" come from governments that are freely "elected." If only that were the motto of the Arab League. Alas, it is not, but it might be one day, and that brings me to the core question of this column: What has been the Arab reaction to Iraq?
His conclusion: very early indications seem to be bearing out the "Pagano Doctrine" of Middle East democratization-by-example.
[via CalPundit]
Can I finish, can I finish? Can. I. Finish?
Is Ross Perot plotting a return to the national stage in time for the 2004 elections? Judging from a well-written 95-page book proposal making its way through the New York publishing circuit, a copy of which arrived unbidden in my e-mail, the crazy aunt in the basement wants to sing again.
[via Political Wire]
The Clintons, Jimmy Carter, Jesse Jackson and Noam Chomsky worse than Charles Manson, John Wayne Gacy and Timothy McVeigh? Why is the right objectively pro-homicidal-maniac?
[...] without further adieu, the worst figures in American history are as follows (with the number of votes following each selection)...Honorable Mentions: Ted Bundy (5), Jane Fonda (5), John Wayne Gacy (5), John Walker Lindh (5), Joe McCarthy (5), Michael Moore (5), Boss Tweed (5)
17) Franklin Delano Roosevelt (6)
17) John Walker (6)
17) Lee Harvey Oswald (6)
17) Robert Byrd (6)
16) Aldrich Ames (7)
14) Richard Nixon (8)
14) Aaron Burr (8)
12) Al Sharpton (9)
12) Charles Manson (9)
8) Timothy McVeigh (10)
8) Lyndon Johnson (10)
8) Hillary Clinton (10)
8) John Wilkes Booth (10)
7) Alger Hiss (12)
6) Noam Chomsky (13)
4) Jesse Jackson (14)
4) Jimmy Carter (14)
3) Bill Clinton (15)
2) Benedict Arnold (19)
1) The Rosenbergs (15) & Julius Rosenberg (5) (20 total votes)
My favorite quote from the intro:
Also, it's worth keeping in mind that this was a fairly conservative group of bloggers and their selections reflected that.
I'll keep that in mind and so should you.
Don't miss the right-wingers crying foul in Oliver's comments. And then read their attempts at a defense at A Small Victory. The hypocrisy is thick and deep.
Please note that this post is a stylistic tribute to pre-Iraq-war right-wing commie/democrat/leftist betrayal hysteria
Larry Flynt would like us all to say a prayer.
"Dear (God/Allah/Buddha/other entity of your choice), we ask you to afflict Bill O'Reilly with a brain aneurysm that will lead to his slow and painful death. O, Lord, may his blood vessels bulge out of his head and explode without mercy. May he writhe in agony on his office floor at Fox studios right after taping The O'Reilly Factor. O, God, may he reach for the phone to call 911 and accidentally dial 411. May he desperately gasp for breath and recall all the people he shouted down with no mercy. May he lay on the floor and twitch uncontrollably as he contemplates his worthless life. O, Lord, may he lose control of his bowels in those final moments so that the last and only warm feeling he ever experiences is his own shit. We ask this in all sincerity and humbleness, Amen."Disclaimer: Prayer parody. However, if Bill O'Reilly dies, it must be God's will.
[via Oliver Willis]
...by a (former) Pentagon insider on the "odd set of circumstances" that's gotten us into a mess in Iraq.
I am now retired. Shortly before my retirement I was allowed to return to my primary office of assignment, having served in NESA as a desk officer backfill for 10 months. The transfer was something I had sought, but my wish was granted only after I made a particular comment to my superior, in response to my reading of a February Secretary of State cable answering a long list of questions from a Middle Eastern country regarding U.S. planning for the aftermath in Iraq. The answers had been heavily crafted by the Pentagon, and to me, they were remarkably inadequate, given the late stage of the game. I suggested to my boss that if this was as good as it got, some folks on the Pentagon's E-ring may be sitting beside Saddam Hussein in the war crimes tribunals.
BusinessWeek is running an article covering Dean's conservative credentials. I think if Dean ran as Dean (aka fiscally conservative, socially progressive) he would have a good chance in the general election. My concern is that his swing to the left for the primary season, specifically his ardent anti-war stance, is going to hurt him. I don't see how he can recover a reasonable stance that will appeal to swing voters after heading so far to the left on this very important issue.
Still, Dean had a knack for positioning himself and never lost an election. Those who know him best believe Dean is moving to the left to boost his chances of winning the nomination. "But if he gets the nomination, he'll run back to the center and be more mainstream," predicts Stenger. Says Garrison Nelson, a political science professor at the University of Vermont: "Howard is not a liberal. He's a pro-business, Rockefeller Republican."
[via Political Wire]
TNR's got the scoop from an official who's read the mysterious 28 pages. Why aren't all those tossing accusations of objective-pro-saddamism tossing accusations of objective(hah)-pro-saudism at the President right about now? What on earth could be the national security implications requiring these pages be classified? Why do conservatives hate America so?
"There's a lot more in the 28 pages than money. Everyone's chasing the charities," says this official. "They should be chasing direct links to high levels of the Saudi government. We're not talking about rogue elements. We're talking about a coordinated network that reaches right from the hijackers to multiple places in the Saudi government."
[via Talking Points Memo]
More on Mad Mel's Movie from the International Herald Tribune. A good summary for those that didn't want to pay to read the TNR article mentioned previously.
"The Jews didn’t kill Christ," my stepfather was fond of saying. "They just worried him to death." Nonetheless, there was palpable relief in my Jewish household when the Vatican officially absolved us of the crime in 1965. At the very least, that meant we could go back to fighting among ourselves.These days American Jews don’t have to fret too much about the charge of deicide — or didn’t, until Mel Gibson started directing a privately financed movie called "The Passion," about Jesus’ final 12 hours. Why worry now? The star himself has invited us to. Asked by Bill O’Reilly in January if his movie might upset ‘‘any Jewish people,’’ Gibson responded: "It may. It’s not meant to. I think it’s meant to just tell the truth."
[via DrudgeReport]
TNR's &c distills an interesting point from Krugman's latest take on the California recall. Why isn't the White House all over the recall effort? &c covers the convential wisdom, but they offer this as their best guess:
It creates a dicey political precedent. After all, the ostensible reason California Republicans are so intent on booting Davis out of office is that he's badly mishandled the state's finances. But, of course, there's another high-profile chief executive who's presided over a California-style fiscal deterioration--George W. Bush--and he's up for reelection next fall. In fact, according Krugman, the federal deficit (if you don't count Social Security revenues) is higher as a share of spending than California's.
