Random Thoughts

This may be minor, but.... a NYT article in today's paper entitled "Clintons E-Mail for Kerry Cash" (registration required - $ after a few days) misrepresents Kerry vs Bush success in raising money over the Internet. It states:

Using top-name Democrats to solicit contributions using e-mail, the drive comes as Mr. Kerry is ramping up his efforts to collect $80 million by the Democratic National Convention in July. He will start a 20-city tour this month, which could take in up to $20 million; the campaign has already raised $11.5 million over the Internet since March 3. President Bush, by contrast, has raised at least $159 million. (emphasis mine)

Sloppy writing. It's easy to assume that this means that Bush has raised $159m over the Internet since March 3. Grrrr. This kind of stuff drives me mad.

Anyone know how much Kerry vs Bush has raised over the net? Or a source for this info? I've serached, but can't find any up to date info specific to online fundraising....

I just heard on NBC news that the time between 9/11 and 3/11, the date of the attacks in Madrid, is 911 days. Creepy.

The blogs are atwitter with news of the results of Spain's elections. The terrorists behind the attacks in Spain have not been definitively identified as al Qaeda. But the evidence is coming in. Visit the blogs and you'll see that Josh Marshall is treading lightly. Calpundit has a brief and insightful view of the situation and I tend to agree with his view. Andrew Sullivan doesn't, and uses these attacks to support the assertion that there is a connection between the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq. In a posting entitled BIN LADEN'S VICTORY IN SPAIN, he writes:

But there's the real ironic twist: if the appeasement brigade really do believe that the war to depose Saddam is and was utterly unconnected with the war against al Qaeda, then why on earth would al Qaeda respond by targeting Spain? If the two issues are completely unrelated, why has al Qaeda made the connection? .

Well, it might be as simple as "the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The targeting of coalition countries after the fact doesn't prove in any way that the Iraq war was connected with the war against terrorism. That's true whether or not you supported the Iraq war.

Today's NYT has an article on the Bush administration's suppression of the real cost of the Medicare legislation that we recently learned will cost over $100b more than the administration told us. The money quote:

Mr. Scully denies threatening Mr. Foster but confirms having told him to withhold certain information from Congress.

So apparently it's okay to withhold information from Congress.

There should be bi-partisan outrage about this, since information was withheld from both parties. I'm encouraged to see criticism from the left and the right. Even the Heritage Foundation is critical. But the real zinger is at the end of the article:

At a press briefing on Jan. 30, the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, said Mr. Bush had been informed of the final higher cost estimate "just in the last two weeks."

But administration officials said they had known for months that, according to their own actuaries, the costs could far exceed $400 billion.

We now know that administration officials are withholding information from Congress. The question is whether they're withholding information from the president. If they are, Bush isn't really in charge. If they're not, then Bush is withholding information from Congress. Either way, Bush is in trouble.

If you want sympathy from France, just elect John Kerry? So says the Opinion Journal.

In Saturday's Opinon Journal, there's an interesting column by Jean-Marie Colombani. The general point is that Bush's unilateralism has created hostility in Europe and that Kerry's emphasis on building better international relations makes him inherently more attractive. The summary:

Today, "containment" has given way to "pre-emptive" war; and the logic of development and free-trade threatens to be replaced by a return of protectionism. In our interdependent and already multipolar world, the two main axes being wielded by Mr. Bush (as opposed to his father) are therefore a threat to the very foundation of the historical alliance between the U.S. and Europe. This is why John Kerry is, a priori, perceived with so much sympathy. He personifies the promise of an America that will get back on track--more just, more cohesive, more generous. In brief, less "unilateral." So that we can still all remain "American" in years to come.

It's unfortunate that the author used the word "sympathy". It's accurately used in the text, but creates the opportunity for the misleading subhead which ignores the real message of Europe's concern about Bush's unilateralism. Instead, the subhead seems to play on our residue of resentment over France's opposition to our war on Iraq and on the strange anti-Kerry accusations that Kerry looks French (horrors!) .

I know it's a opinion page, but does that mean inaccurate innuendo doesn't matter?

I keep reading that Bush has to come out earlly with ads against Kerry because he's hurt in the polls. And there may be some truth to that. But does anyone think that his real intent is to force Kerry to empty his coffers by responding to attack ads, leaving Kerry broke and the playing field wide open for Bush's positive spin ads? I do.

I've been thinking that maybe we're being too hard on Bush as he campaigns. He proclaims things that just aren't true: from Kerry's reputed but unreal flip-flopping, the mythical $900b tax increase he says Kerry is proposing (but isn't), the accusation that some unnamed democrats (i.e. Kerry) are isolationists and anit-trade when he's the one who put tarrifs on steel, etc. It seems pretty clear that we can easily say he's purposely misrepresenting the truth.

BUT. What if this is a parallel of the WMD issue? He's just getting bad intelligence?
In that case (as in the case with WMD), he's not a liar. He's just isolated and out of touch.

Throughout Bush's term in office, I've often thought of Orwell's book, 1984. Doublespeak was introduced there - where a thing was named as its opposite. The Ministry of Justice as a place of injustice, etc.

Listen to Bush speak and you'll get the feeling that he's mastered the art of doublespeak.

• The war in Iraq is about preserving peace (huh?)
  
• The "PATRIOT Act", which limits freedoms for which patriots have fought and died
  
• "Pro-growth Policies" that don't promote growth
  
• The "No Child Left Behind Act" that is underfunded leaving gifted students behind (and many others)
  
• A "Jobs and Growth Act" that's actually a package of tax cuts for businesses

The list goes on.

Doesn't anyone choke on this? Or have we become so cynical that we don't even notice?