I never saw "Journey with George," but Alexandra Pelosi's "Diary of a Political Tourist" is a very entertaining look at the Democratic primary. Bush's down-home charisma is on display, as is Kerry's stiffness. WOW this guy is just not funny, no matter how hard he tries...
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Sunday, October 17, 2004
Troop withdrawal doesn't meet the global test
The Bush administration has agreed to phase the withdrawal of troops from South Korea over 3 years, after objections from South Korea to the original plan.
Maybe they need freedom too...
From the Economist: "Georgia's separatist Abkhazia region is to hold new elections, after a controversial vote on October 3rd saw the main pro-Moscow candidate come second. Voters are expected to get it right next time round."
UN Elects to Ignore Genocide
Although Kofi Annan acknowledged that the Sudanese government has ignored a Security Council resolution ordering it to curb the janjaweed militia, the UN declines to impose sanctions (subscription required).
Deficit? What deficit?
The most distressing aspect of the 2nd Presidential debate was the fact that neither candidate answered the question about the deficit (and Gibson allowed himself to be walked over, as throughout the debate).
When questioned by Russert on MTP, Edwards noted Bush's fiscal irresponsibility, and named parties who had called their plan for deficit reduction better than Bush's. Specific proposals quoted:
You can read the Kerry plan for yourself at http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/budget.pdf
When questioned by Russert on MTP, Edwards noted Bush's fiscal irresponsibility, and named parties who had called their plan for deficit reduction better than Bush's. Specific proposals quoted:
- roll back tax cuts for people earning more than $200,000/yr
- cut "corporate welfare" (heh) and close "corporate loopholes"
- "get rid of some beauracracies"
- impose pay-as-you-go rules
- roll back some expenditure plans if necessary
You can read the Kerry plan for yourself at http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/budget.pdf
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Economist Election Summary
The Economist has a terrific summary of the candidates' positions on the most important issues of the election. Start at the intro and follow the Related Links from there.
Monday, October 11, 2004
Edwards on MTP
Tim Russert held John Edwards' feet to the fire on Meet the Press this weekend.
Edwards was challenged over his assertion on CNN in Feb 2002 that Iraq was "the most serious and imminent threat to our country." After a week of asserting that Iraq was a distraction, Edwards was left to return to the uncomfortable position of yeah, but we didn't want Bush to do it THAT way...
Russert also noted Edwards' promise during his presidential campaign to "vote for what's necessary to support the troops," and his vote against the $87b supplemental 3 weeks later. Edwards was ready for that, though, responding that Bush didn't have a plan, and that it included a no-bid contract for Halliburton which he did not support.
Together with his performance in the VP debate, I am questioning my earlier belief that he would have been a better candidate than Kerry. It's hard to say, though, what an Edwards candidacy would have looked like since Edwards is having to fit himself into Kerry's contorted positions.
Edwards was challenged over his assertion on CNN in Feb 2002 that Iraq was "the most serious and imminent threat to our country." After a week of asserting that Iraq was a distraction, Edwards was left to return to the uncomfortable position of yeah, but we didn't want Bush to do it THAT way...
Russert also noted Edwards' promise during his presidential campaign to "vote for what's necessary to support the troops," and his vote against the $87b supplemental 3 weeks later. Edwards was ready for that, though, responding that Bush didn't have a plan, and that it included a no-bid contract for Halliburton which he did not support.
Together with his performance in the VP debate, I am questioning my earlier belief that he would have been a better candidate than Kerry. It's hard to say, though, what an Edwards candidacy would have looked like since Edwards is having to fit himself into Kerry's contorted positions.
Sunday, October 10, 2004
Battle of the bulge
Though I generally disdain conspiracy theories, the Bush administration has proven itself worthy of suspicion on more than one occasion.
I've seen the video footage, and it's fairly compelling... a square box on Bush's back, and what looks like a wire running up from it... was Bush wired during the first debate?
I've seen the video footage, and it's fairly compelling... a square box on Bush's back, and what looks like a wire running up from it... was Bush wired during the first debate?
Hamdi release
From the Economist:
An agreement was struck with Yaser Esam Hamdi, an American citizen held without trial as an “enemy combatant” since 2001, that allows him to leave the United States if he gives up his citizenship, renounces terrorism and promises not to sue the government.
So, this "enemy combatant," such a threat that he had to be detained in solitary confinement on a military brig for years and denied his constitutional rights to counsel or trial, will soon be released on the conditions that he promises to behave, and that he not hold the U.S. Government accountable for his treatment.
Hamdi was to be flown to Saudi Arabia, where he is to stay for at least five years. Unfortunately, it seems that the U.S. Government neglected to discuss this with Saudi Arabia, so Hamdi remains, for now, in a brig off the coast of South Carolina.
It is worth noting that the break in the case seemed to come with the Supreme Court's ruling in June that Hamdi had a right to counsel.
Is the concept of enemy combatants defensible? Perhaps... But if it is abused as it seems to have been in this case (do you believe we'd be letting a true threat go?), the risks will clearly outweigh any benefits.
An agreement was struck with Yaser Esam Hamdi, an American citizen held without trial as an “enemy combatant” since 2001, that allows him to leave the United States if he gives up his citizenship, renounces terrorism and promises not to sue the government.
So, this "enemy combatant," such a threat that he had to be detained in solitary confinement on a military brig for years and denied his constitutional rights to counsel or trial, will soon be released on the conditions that he promises to behave, and that he not hold the U.S. Government accountable for his treatment.
Hamdi was to be flown to Saudi Arabia, where he is to stay for at least five years. Unfortunately, it seems that the U.S. Government neglected to discuss this with Saudi Arabia, so Hamdi remains, for now, in a brig off the coast of South Carolina.
It is worth noting that the break in the case seemed to come with the Supreme Court's ruling in June that Hamdi had a right to counsel.
Is the concept of enemy combatants defensible? Perhaps... But if it is abused as it seems to have been in this case (do you believe we'd be letting a true threat go?), the risks will clearly outweigh any benefits.
Friday, October 08, 2004
Edwards whiffs
In Slate, Fred Kaplan offers a good synopsis of John Edwards' failure to take it to the house with some Cheney's comments in the debate... One that he didn't mention is that when Cheney kept noting the number of Iraqis lost in the "coalition," Edwards had, and wasted, a perfect opportunity to note how poorly trained the new Iraqi police and troops are.
Sunday, October 03, 2004
The Global Test
The Bush team is making hay with the phrase "global test," implying that Kerry would give the world veto power over his foreign policy decisions. Placed in context, that is the opposite of what Kerry said:
LEHRER: What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?
KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.
No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.
LEHRER: What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?
KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.
No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.
Debate reactions
It's interesting that people seem to think that Kerry overwhelmingly won the foreign policy debate. Yes, Bush smirked, and repeatedly reiterated his talking points... is this anything new? Yes, Kerry finally managed to be more plainspoken, but did he say anything groundbreaking? I suppose it's true that most people don't pay much attention until October....
I have been particularly interested in the press's take on the debate, because I think a lot of people wait to see what others think (somewhat the way Kerry's primary win started in Iowa).
I'm surprised that more hasn't been made of Bush's early slip-up: "Of course we're after Saddam Hussei... I mean bin Laden..."
Why did it take so long for Kerry to answer the flip-flop allegations with the obvious point that, ideally, change is an inevitable result of experience? Alternatively, he could have noted the administration's numerous "flip-flops" on Iraq tactics. Or how about the flip-flops on the rationale for tax cuts?
Kerry still hasn't responded to questions about his medals with a simple: "Forget the damn medals... I volunteered to go to war while you used connections to get into the Guard... NEXT!" The issue seems behind him for now, but the damage done by his team's poor response to the swift boat ads is extensive, and it didn't need to be.
If the debate is any indication, Kerry's new campaign staff seems to be an improvement. The debate was the best I've seen him -- though that standard is admittedly low....
I have been particularly interested in the press's take on the debate, because I think a lot of people wait to see what others think (somewhat the way Kerry's primary win started in Iowa).
I'm surprised that more hasn't been made of Bush's early slip-up: "Of course we're after Saddam Hussei... I mean bin Laden..."
Why did it take so long for Kerry to answer the flip-flop allegations with the obvious point that, ideally, change is an inevitable result of experience? Alternatively, he could have noted the administration's numerous "flip-flops" on Iraq tactics. Or how about the flip-flops on the rationale for tax cuts?
Kerry still hasn't responded to questions about his medals with a simple: "Forget the damn medals... I volunteered to go to war while you used connections to get into the Guard... NEXT!" The issue seems behind him for now, but the damage done by his team's poor response to the swift boat ads is extensive, and it didn't need to be.
If the debate is any indication, Kerry's new campaign staff seems to be an improvement. The debate was the best I've seen him -- though that standard is admittedly low....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
