The Man With the Hardest Job in America
Michael Gerson is leaving his job. Though few knew his name, his words have been widely disseminated. Over the past six years, he has served as George W. Bush's speechwriter. In other words, his job was to make our Mispronouncer-in-Chief sound presidential.

Former Clinton speechwriter David Kusnet discusses Gerson's legacy at TNR Online. He notes that in 2000 Bush's reputation as a public speaker was lacking, and his countless gaffes imposed limitations on his speechwriters: "...[F]ew listeners would have believed that he would naturally speak in complex sentences, use long words, or quote from an array of famous writers and thinkers."

Not every speechwriter acknowledges his/her employer's weaknesses and works within them. Kusnet mentions that Dan Quayle's speeches included quotes from Albert Einstein and the Talmud, which were comically incongruous with the way Quayle was seen by the masses -- he was not believable as a well-read man.

Wisely, Gerson did what speechwriters are supposed to do: He created the best possible plausible voice for his boss. With Gerson's texts, Bush speaks in short sentences, using simple words that are easily uttered and understood.

The trouble with Gerson, however, is that Bush's speeches have become legendary for candy-coating and outright deception. I suppose Karl Rove wouldn't have it any other way, so it isn't really Gerson's fault. But people look back on the speeches Gerson wrote and note that his words contradicted the Bush administration's actions.

[Bush] presented policies that would benefit a privileged few as if they were intended to help women, minorities, and the poor; and he embedded his most controversial policies (the Iraq war, tax cuts for the rich) in the most popular initiatives (the fight against terrorism, tax cuts for the middle class). As his presidency has dragged on, these disconnects have become more and more glaring.

I could cite a dozen more examples, as could anyone who has been paying attention for the past six years. One might expect me to name Gerson as "Bastard of the Day" for engaging in Rovian doublespeak. But I admire his skill too much for that. He not only accepted and worked within the constraints of his speaker's abilities, but he made his speaker look good in the process. And it's not easy to "dumb down" one's writing into clear, concise language. Look at how many authors fail in deceptively simple genres such as children's books. It takes a special kind of intellect to write below one's normal comprehension level. As a speechwriter, Gerson has been a true craftsman, regardless of how his words have provided cover for incredibly bad policies.

Labels: GW Bush

- posted by David Johnsen @ 2:59 PM 0 comments

 
Grandma's Diplomacy
When my mom was growing up, sometimes she would make her mother mad. And my grandmother had a way of dealing with that. She simply wouldn't talk to my mom... for days... even weeks.

Naturally, Grandma came to mind when I saw this headline: "Bush administration refuses to talk directly with its main foes." Bush won't let his people meet with representatives from North Korea, Iran, Syria, and others with whom he disagrees. What the hell kind of "diplomacy" is that? How do two parties reach an understanding without communication? I'm not the only one who sees this as wrongheaded at best, fatal hubris at worst.

"I believe that diplomacy is not simply meant for our friends. It is meant for our enemies," said Richard Armitage, the deputy secretary of state in President Bush's first term. "In fact, our enemies need diplomatic engagement more."

Condoleezza Rice argues, "We have people who know our views who talk with the Iranians. I don't think that the absence of communication is the problem here." Yeah, at least Grandpa still talked to my mom. But should the most powerful nation on Earth engage in critical discussions solely by proxy? I just don't get it. Maybe Grandma can explain it to me.

Labels: GW Bush, int'l politics

- posted by David Johnsen @ 4:08 PM 2 comments

 
Bastard of the Day
Today's bastard is a familiar one... Yes, once again President George W. Bush is the Bastard of the Day. Only a tool of the petroleum industry could look at current gasoline prices, weigh them against record profits for the oil companies (Exxon made the greatest profit of any company in history last year), and decide that the problem is that environmental requirements are too strict!

Frankly, I'm a free market guy when it comes to gas (not so much when it comes to other things, like healthcare). I live in the city, I use public transportation, and I walk to the grocery store unless I'm stocking up on heavy stuff. My wife drive 3.5 miles to work and I work at home (of course, last summer working on my book was a different story). We go through a tank of gas every 10-14 days, so a few extra dollars at the pump won't kill us (don't bother telling me that all prices will go up because of oil prices; I've already written about that). I think gas is still too cheap in America, and cheap gas has been abetting suburban sprawl and poor land use decisions for too long. Americans would be better off living closer together instead of being isolated in McMansions and driving ridiculous distances to work to pay for them. Automobiles are such a part of American mythology that they symbolize freedom when in fact, people are slaves to purchasing, fueling, insuring, and maintaining them.

Bush and his henchmen are almost always free market true believers. Heck, Republicans have been deregulating everything in sight since the Reagan years, all in the name of almighty free market capitalism. So we shouldn't be surprised that the only time Bush is willing to interfere with free markets is when he can strip away more of those pesky environmental regulations, the ones that coincidentally restrain the greenhouse effect, which Bush will tell you doesn't exist.

Of course, that's not all Bush is doing. He is also going to stop contributing to our strategic petroleum reserve to make more oil available. But Saudi Arabian Oil Minister Ali al-Nuaimi says that a supply shortage is not the reason for high oil prices. And isn't this the same strategic petroleum reserve that Bush scoffed at Gore for proposing to draw from in order to lower oil prices six years ago? You can say there is a difference between not contributing oil to it and withdrawing oil from it, but isn't that really just splitting hairs?

Bush also talks a good game about alternative fuels. But if he had promoted those fuels when he came into office rather than jumping on the bandwagon only this year, we would be a lot closer to actually using those alternatives today.

For what it's worth, the experts agree with me that Bush isn't really solving any problems here. He's just making life a little easier (and richer) for his cronies, the underlying objective of every policy decision he has ever made. For that, George "32% approval rating" Bush is a bastard, today and every day.

Postscript: I couldn't help laughing at the photo Reuters chose for the expert story linked above: "Gas prices are displayed at a 76 station in Beverly Hills, California, April 25, 2006." Do you think the average American is shedding any tears over high prices in Beverly Hills?!? Well, okay, maybe there are maids and landscapers who work there shedding tears, but that's about it.

UPDATE 04/26/2006 - Frank O'Donnell of Clean Air Watch dispels several of Bush's myths about the oil industry and high gas prices.

Labels: bastards, GW Bush, oil

- posted by David Johnsen @ 2:11 PM 0 comments

 
Bastard of the Day
This is such an obvious choice. How could I not pick George W. "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees" Bush? The videotape shows that he knew damn well that New Orleans was in danger of horrific flooding, and that he was told the levees could be topped. At the very least, he could have ended his vacation immediately and cancelled his jaunt to California. On the tape, Bush didn't even ask one question when he was told of the looming disaster. Would any other president in our history have been so disinterested or so thoroughly certain that he had heard all he needed to know? (Okay, maybe Reagan, but only if he was asleep.)

Those wacky White House spinmeisters are on top of this, of course:

"I hope people don't draw conclusions from the president getting a single briefing," Bush spokesman Trent Duffy said, citing a variety of orders and disaster declarations Bush signed before the storm made landfall. "He received multiple briefings from multiple officials, and he was completely engaged at all times."

Wait a minute, Duffster. When someone claims to have no idea about something but "a single briefing" shows that he did know about that thing, that is all we need to see. How can one not draw the conclusion that Bush was full of sh*t? And if he was "completely engaged," why was he screwing off in California as the bodies started floating through the streets of New Orleans? White House spokespeople must get tired of trying to cover for this guy all the time. It is now clear that Bush's contention that he was caught by surprise just doesn't, pardon the expression, hold water.

Bush and his cronies like to talk about running the country like a CEO runs a company. It is true that a good manager delegates and trusts his people, but when something really important is happening, any CEO worth his salt isn't out on the golf course or playing a guitar. He's on the spot making sure everyone is doing his/her job. And if they aren't doing it right, he finds someone else who can or steps in and gets it done himself. He doesn't just fly overhead and peer out the window at the problem.

I'll give a runner-up Bastard of the Day award to "Bruce," the boneheaded commenter here who tries to draw a distinction between levees being "topped" and "breached" to claim that Bush didn't lie at all. What a load of semantic bullsh*t. Regardless of whether levees are topped or breached, the end result is the same: you'd better grow some gills.

What will our fearless leader's response be? My bet is that he'll undertake an investigation to find out who leaked the tapes. Such a compassionate conservative. At this point, I'm starting to think Kanye West was right.

Labels: bastards, GW Bush

- posted by David Johnsen @ 5:52 PM 0 comments

 
Con Man In Chief
George McEvoy, a columnist for the Palm Beach Post, discusses President Bush's ability as a con artist. He begins by recalling the "Mission Accomplished" show on the USS Lincoln two years ago:

For a while, the most obvious con jobs worked for Bush the Younger. That landing on the aircraft carrier, with him squeezed into a flight suit, strutting across the deck in front of a huge sign reading "Mission Accomplished," was so blatant that, watching it on TV, I figured all those sailors and Marines would burst out laughing at any moment. But no, they must have been under orders to be cheerleaders for the head cheerleader. And the public fell for it all.

Then he moves on to Bush's phony video conference with soldiers in Iraq on October 13. Without even mentioning the video showing soldiers being coached beforehand by Pentagon official Allison Barber, McEvoy notes

What did them in was the language they used to answer questions. It obviously was scripted. When a captain from Idaho was asked whether the Iraqis wanted to fight and were capable of defending their homeland against the insurgents, he replied: "The Iraqi army and policy (sic) services, along with coalition support, have conducted many and mutiple (sic) exercises and rehearsals. It was impressive to me to see the cooperation and communication that took place among the Iraqi forces."

Then he moves in for the kill: "That's not the way soldiers, or any other group of Americans, talk. That's the way Pentagon or White House hacks write." Can anybody really be falling for this stuff?

Labels: GW Bush, US politics

- posted by David Johnsen @ 6:35 PM 0 comments

 
A New Sport In Washington?
Rachel Neumann has an amusing thought about Bush's "trust me" defense of Harriet Miers:

Bush says it comes down to a matter of trust. On the one hand, he trusts her and I don't trust him as far as I could throw him (though I'd like to see how far I could throw him). On the other hand, Bush has notoriously bad judgement, so if he thinks she won't change, maybe she will.

I would like to challenge Ms. Neumann to a POTUS-tossing tournament!

Labels: GW Bush

- posted by David Johnsen @ 1:49 PM 0 comments

 
What Does Harriet Miers Know?
President Bush threw the Senate a curveball last week. He looked at the long list of qualified candidates for the Supreme Court, and then he made it into a paper airplane and flew it out the Oval Office window. White House Counsel Harriet Miers picked it up off the lawn on her way into work. When she stopped by Bush's office to ask the boss if maybe he needed the list, he told her she was his choice for the nation's highest court. Just imagine if Barney, his Scottish terrier, had fetched it!

Everyone is talking about the obvious cronyism in this selection, even some Republicans. It is bad timing on Bush's part, considering the mess that political crony Michael Brown made of FEMA's Katrina response. The best comment I saw was from Steve Chapman, who said that this selection shows that the best bet to replace Alan Greenspan in January is the acccountant who does Bush's taxes.

As most people now know, Miers has never been a judge. In that respect, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is much more qualified, but the fundamentalist right would never support him because they want a strong anti-abortionist. However illogical it sounds, though, judicial experience is not essential for the Supreme Court, just as proven leadership ability is not a prerequisite for the presidency (a string of failed businesses and a figurehead governorship do not count). Still, the evangelicals are concerned that Miers hasn't demonstrated sufficient fealty to the anti-abortion cause. Maybe she should blow up a clinic or two; that would surely please them. Bush has tried to assure his "Christian" pals that there is nothing to worry about. In an encore to his dimwitted remark about Vladimir Putin, Bush said, "I know her heart. Her philosophy won't change." That's the silliest thing I've heard since I learned that Nancy Reagan used a psychic to schedule her husband's appointments, but in Bush's mind, that should be enough to satisfy his holy backers. Too bad Bush didn't know Miers' heart in 1988 when she gave money to Al Gore's presidential campaign. See, sometimes people do change philosophies. We can only hope she returns from the dark side when she dons that black robe.

The experience that Miers does have is more troubling. She has been the consummate corporate lawyer, defender of the powerful. That gives us faint hope that she will ever take the side of the "little people" on the bench. If a case challenging Bush's idea of "tort reform" (suppressing lawsuits from consumers, patients, etc. to "protect" corporations) ever comes to the Supreme Court, she will be there to affirm its constitutionality. And as a White House insider, she probably will defend and uphold the administration's controversial legal positions, such as those condoning torture. Unfortunately, Bush would not nominate anyone who doesn't wholly embrace his skewed legal philosophy, so criticism along these lines is irrelevant.

Most of us progressives were astounded to hear that Miers called Bush the most brilliant man she had ever met. Her poor judgement of intellect could be forgiven--she clearly bet on the right horse years ago in Texas and feels compeled to lavish praise as she rides that pony to the top. Plus her contrarian viewpoint was good for a guffaw or two. Whether she was being sincere or patronizing, I'm sure Ms. Miers will change her statement soon: I am inviting her to have lunch with me. Give me a call, Harriet!

What troubles me most about this nomination is not the cronyism rampant in this administration, nor is it Miers' lack of judicial experience. It is not her background as a corporate defender or her ridiculous praise of Bush's diabolical mind. The biggest question for me is, what does Miers know? When he ran for governor of Texas, Bush hired Miers to investigate his past to determine whether anything would cause him trouble in his political career. If he has anything to hide, she knows exactly where the bodies are buried. In fact, given Bush's previous bouts with the bottle, Miers probably has more knowledge of his past than he himself can recall. As a White House insider, Miers also knows exactly what lines Bush has crossed from a legal standpoint. And just to toss a bone to conspiracy theorists, Miers was accompanying Bush in Florida as staff secretary on September 11, 2001. With this nomination, Bush has bought Miers' eternal loyalty. Whatever she has in her head, she will carry it to the grave. She will not write a tell-all book after Bush leaves office. She won't sit down with Barbara Walters to explain how she worked around the legal system to further the administration's pernicious objectives. Plus, I'm sure her presence will come in handy when the inevitable criminal cases against administration officials begin.

What can the Democrats do about it? Alas, nothing. I am in the camp with those who grudgingly accept that anyone else Bush could pick would be worse. Someone with a heinous record a la Priscilla Owen (talk about judicial activism!) is undoubtedly a more dangerous choice than Miers, who at least has a remote chance of occasionally taking a moderate position. Scalia and Thomas are Bush's favorite justices, and if we do not accept Miers, Bush may nominate one of their proteges instead. The Katrina fiasco may tempt some Democrats to try to ride the wave of Bush opposition and fight Miers, but I think their limited leverage could be better used elsewhere.

Labels: GW Bush, US politics

- posted by David Johnsen @ 6:04 PM 4 comments

 
Sky News Gets It Right
Irish broadcaster Sky News reported a quote from President Bush about Katrina, but it didn't come out the way they intended... or did it?


(from Snopes via Wonkette via Lakshi Choudry)

Labels: GW Bush

- posted by David Johnsen @ 11:15 PM 0 comments

 
What Are Treasury Bonds Worth?
During his sixty-day, taxpayer-financed, propaganda tour aiming to "fix" social security through privatization, Bush repeatedly stated that the social security trust fund doesn't really exist. Here is the latest example from his prime time press conference on Thursday night:

You pay into the system through your payroll taxes and the government spends it. It spends the money on the current retirees and with the money left over, it funds other government programs. And all that's left behind is file cabinets full of IOUs.

In that press conference, Bush also talked about the investment options that people might have:

I know some Americans have reservations about investing in the stock market, so I propose that one investment option consist entirely of treasury bonds, which are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government.

But wait a minute... What are those "file cabinets full of IOUs" comprised of? Yes, those IOUs are U.S. treasury bonds! So if they are just worthless IOUs in the social security trust fund, what are they in my "personal account?" How can the bonds in my account be backed by the "full faith and credit of the United States government," whereas the bonds in the trust fund are not?

Bush's argument that the trust fund is just full of IOUs implies that when those funds are needed, the United States government will, for the first time in its history, go into default. Do you realize what that would mean to the U.S. economy? China and Japan have been buying piles of our bonds this century as our national debt grows unabated, exacerbated by Bush's tax cuts. Will they continue to buy our bonds if we default on the bonds held by the trust fund? I cannot understand why our President would publicly undermine our ability to pay our debts.

In order to privatize social security, Bush needs to borrow trillions of dollars to finance these "personal accounts." How will the U.S. get that money? We'll issue treasury bonds, of course! But if the bonds in the trust fund are just IOUs, what will the bonds issued to pay for the new scheme be?

If Bush wasn't so stubborn, this issue would have died months ago.

(If you aren't already sick of reading about this, Jim Hightower's "Neutering Social Security" is an excellent analysis and history.)

Labels: GW Bush

- posted by David Johnsen @ 7:12 PM 0 comments

 
The Diplomacy That Dare Not Speak Its Name
This is the funniest newspaper layout I have seen in a long time. Yesterday's Dallas Morning News published two stories side by side on the front page. The first is headlined "Bush, Saudi prince talk oil." Underneath is a photo of Bush and Prince Abdullah strolling hand in hand in front of a lush, lovely field of purple wildflowers. Not that there's anything wrong with that... Next to this photo is an article titled "House bans gay unions."

I always wondered about that term "gay unions." I imagine a bunch of leather-clad Teamsters on strike or something (not that I'm opposed to them--quite the opposite, I think gays should have the right to be as miserable as most married heteros are).

Nico (not the Velvet Underground chanteuse, as far as I know) points out that while Abdullah and Bush took time to walk among the flowers and call for democracy in Lebanon, they didn't say anything about bringing democratic reforms to Saudi Arabia. It must have slipped their minds.

UPDATE 06/02/2005: I just saw a repeat of Letterman's Late Show that included a hilarious Top Ten list regarding this photo.

Labels: GW Bush, media

- posted by David Johnsen @ 12:43 PM 1 comments

 
Bush to Seniors: "Don't Worry, I'm Just Going to Screw Your Kids and Grandkids"
That was the gist of his Social Security plan as described last night. He says that people over 55 will keep the old plan, but younger people will be covered under the new plan. I guess he's trying to get the AARP off his back. I'll be very disappointed in the AARP if they change their stance--shouldn't they stand up for retirees of the future as well as their current members?

There was an article in the Wall Street Journal today about how privatization has worked elsewhere. In short, it hasn't. I already knew about a couple of them. Argentina's privatized system eventually led to the country's economic collapse in December 2001. Britain privatized under Margaret Thatcher, and now they are looking to change again... to make their system like our current system (I don't know if that last fact was in the WSJ article). Add Bolivia to the list as well. Since the WSJ charges for access, here are some highlights at Think Progress, a new blog from the Center for American Progress.

Labels: GW Bush

- posted by David Johnsen @ 2:37 PM 0 comments

 
Power Up The B.S. Meters
Our dear President will be giving his State of the Union address tonight. He probably won't say anything important, but he'll try to put a happy face on his miserable approval ratings (the worst for a second-term president since Nixon during Watergate!). It's appropriate that today is Groundhog Day, because we're going to hear the same old things all over again.

Expect him to carry on and on about the election in Iraq. He'll probably reiterate the freedom theme of his inauguration speech. Don't expect a timetable for when we're going to get out of there so our soldiers stop getting killed. He may talk about the economy, but his words probably won't match your wallet. He'll say it's getting better. He won't talk about offshoring of jobs or the growing trade deficit. He certainly won't declare war on the corporatocracy that is holding down wages and benefits, ravaging the environment, reaping the benefits of deregulation and capitalist cronyism, and paying minimal taxes for the privilege of doing so. He won't brag about how this is the best time for big business since the 1920s. If he talks about health care, he'll probably blame it all on the trial lawyers and malpractice lawsuits. He won't mention how his tort reform plan will rob us of our only recourse against incompetent doctors and unregulated corporations. Hee won't mention that abortions are up or that his "abstinence-only" approach is not effective. Expect him to tell us how Social Security is in big trouble, and expect him to use the same bogus figures and logic that he has been using for the past month. Don't expect any concrete details about how he intends to implement privatization (which he now spins as "personal accounts"), and surely nothing about where those trillions of dollars will come from to fund it (hint: when you go the bathroom after the speech, look in the mirror, or better yet, look at your kids). Oh, and he'll probably mention God/Jesus a few times.

This begs the question, why bother having a State of the Union address? The informational purpose it once served has long been outdated, or "rendered quaint" as Alberto Gonzales might say. Nowadays it is more like the "Spin on my Policies" address.

I'd love to join you all to watch the show, but, uh, I have to wash my hair.

Labels: GW Bush, US politics

- posted by David Johnsen @ 9:02 AM 0 comments

 
Norwegian Intuition
This was one of the best stories from the inauguration: "Norwegians Confused by Bush Salute"

OSLO, Norway -- President Bush's "Hook 'em, 'horns" salute got lost in translation in Norway, where shocked people interpreted his hand gesture during his inauguration as a salute to Satan. That's what it means in the Nordics when you throw up the right hand with the index and pinky fingers raised, a gesture popular among heavy metal groups and their fans in the region.

As any college football fan knows, Bush was referring to the University of Texas Longhorns. Of course, the irony in this story is that many people throughout the world feel that Bush is indeed in league with the Prince of Darkness. This AP reporter is a bit naive, though; this gesture is not unique to Scandinavian metalheads. The burn-outs used to do it all the time in my high school, usually while professing their devotion to metal performer Ronnie James Dio.

The gesture also has a sexual meaning in Italy, at least according to an episode of JAG.

Labels: GW Bush

- posted by David Johnsen @ 12:16 AM 0 comments

 
Person Of The Year
At first I was irritated by the news that George W. Bush was named Time's "Person of the Year" for 2004. Then I remembered that Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Ayatollah Khomeini were previous winners. In fact, Stalin was a two-time winner just like Bush. So I guess Dubya is in good company.

Labels: GW Bush

- posted by David Johnsen @ 7:26 AM 0 comments

 
Presidential Hubris
I was shocked several weeks ago when Bush said we couldn't win the war on terror. Not only was he "flip-flopping" as he so childishly accuses Kerry of doing, but for once he was speaking the truth. Naturally, he changed his mind (got back "on message") the following day, lest he lose his deceitful reputation. This week, Kerry is saying that we can minimize terrorism, but we cannot eliminate it. Bush, with remarkable hubris even by his standards, says that Kerry is wrong and that we will indeed destroy terrorism.

We cannot win the war on terror. First of all, we would have to please all of the people all of the time. I don't see how Bush could think that our nation could do that internationally when he personally has aroused so much resentment just within our borders. Second, there is no way to deter someone from carrying out a terrorist act. If someone is willing to pay with his or her life, then what threat of punishment could we use to stop that person? Third, it is impossible to watch everyone all the time. No matter how many troops, police, video cameras, etc. the U.S. deploys, we cannot watch or catch every potential terrorist. The small and highly militarized country of Israel has been unable to eliminate terrorist acts within its borders, so how could we? If we can't eradicate gangs in the U.S., how could anyone presume that we could control the entire world? For an example of a similarly international and unmanageable controntation, look at the "war on drugs."

The Neo-Cons might compare the war against terror to the Cold War against communism, but they are completely different. To change a government, we don't have to convince everyone in a nation, just the "right people" (whether by persuasion or force). To "win" the war on terrorism, we would have to control every person in every nation--it only takes one dissenter to terrorize the world. There has always been terrorism in the world (for example, one could argue that our founding fathers were terrorists in the eyes of the British), and there always will be. No arrogant, self-righteous president can change that with bombs and soldiers. Bush is telling people what they want to hear, not the truth.

Labels: GW Bush, int'l politics

- posted by David Johnsen @ 4:51 AM 0 comments

 
Bush On Health Care
I don't want to compete with Slate's Bushisms page, but I cracked up when I read what Dubya said in a speech in Poplar Bluff, MO yesterday: "We've got an issue in America. Too many good docs are getting out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."

Labels: GW Bush

- posted by David Johnsen @ 3:42 PM 0 comments

 
Who's The Big Spender?
In his acceptance speech last night, Bush had the nerve to brand Kerry as a spendthrift. I found this amazing considering that the Bush administration has been anything but fiscally conservative. Andrew Sullivan agrees:

And Bush's astonishing achievement is to make the case for all this new spending, at a time of chronic debt (created in large part by his profligate party), while pegging his opponent as the "tax-and-spend" candidate. The chutzpah is amazing. At this point, however, it isn't just chutzpah. It's deception. To propose all this knowing full well that we cannot even begin to afford it is irresponsible in the deepest degree. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the only difference between Republicans and Democrats now is that the Bush Republicans believe in Big Insolvent Government and the Kerry Democrats believe in Big Solvent Government. By any measure, that makes Kerry - especially as he has endorsed the critical pay-as-you-go rule on domestic spending - easily the choice for fiscal conservatives.

That's a great distinction: insolvent versus solvent. After Bush squandered Clinton's budget surplus, I think that difference really makes the case for Kerry. I hope his campaign pushes that.

Labels: GW Bush

- posted by David Johnsen @ 6:13 PM 0 comments

 
Flip-Flopper-In-Chief
I thought the Republicans' "flip-flop" accusations against John Kerry were ridiculous the very first time I heard them. There is no law against changing one's mind. It is natural to revise an opinion when new information is available or circumstances change. Besides, many of Kerry's alleged flip-flops were really just a matter of supporting/opposing similar bills because of differences in their details, such as funding. This is a common practice in Congress among both parties.

The main reason the accusations bother me is that I know Bush has "flip-flopped" on many issues, too. One obvious example is that he said gay marriage was an issue for the states, then he decided to push for a constitutional amendment. Thanks to Eric Zorn, I now have a list of thirty Bush flip-flops from the American Progress Action Fund. Anyone who thinks Kerry is the only politician to change his mind ought to read this: President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief.

Labels: election04, GW Bush

- posted by David Johnsen @ 11:38 AM 0 comments