CBS debate adds little, changes nothing
fter catching all but the first few minutes of the CBS-hosted Democratic candidates' debate today, here are some observations on the contenders, issues and interrogators.
   First, lame "Saturday Night Live" skits aside, Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards, Rep. Dennis Kucinich and the Rev. Al Sharpton are admirably intelligent, well-informed, determined and decent contenders. Each would be better for the country than what we've got.
   Perhaps owing to the closeness of Super Tuesday, maybe because of some the questioners' tactics, Kerry and Edwards seemed a bit uptight. Even so, they resisted the temptation to get personal or descend into brawling. Edwards tried to point up and amplify differences; Kerry responded effectively. We see no change in their respective standing.
    Sharpton has earned a reputation for bringing humor to the debates. But there's more to his presence than snappy retorts. He hasn't earned his stripes in the political arena the way the others have, yet Sharpton exhibits a solid grasp of issues and responds with down-to-earth answers that appeal to common sense. He won't win, but he has earned a lot of respect.
    Kucinich is a beacon of clarity and consistency. The most liberal of the bunch, proudly so, he laid out a coherent, sensible set of plans and principles at the start of his candidacy. He has honed steadfastly to both, making his case well. The only difference in this outing was that he set aside his trademark staccato bursts of rhetoric in favor of a purely conversational style. That played well.

   Kerry shouldn't let himself be drawn into discussions of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, states' rights or the semantics of the gay marriage issue. He'd do well to say, "marriage is for a man and woman; civil unions with equivalent rights and protections offer a fair accommodation for same-sex partnerships," and let it go at that.
   If pressed, Kerry should remind the questioner that this is not a matter the president decides, while good presidential leadership is desperately needed in areas such as job creation, making trade policy nondestructive for most Americans, securing health insurance for 47 million Americans — all of which are things he should be answering questions about.

   CBS' panel of questioners had a really bad habit of interrupting answers 10 or 15 words into the candidates' response. So did those on the previous CNN-Los Angeles Times-hosted debate.
   Come on, people, let the candidates give it their best shot. If they wander afield, dodge or go overboard with falling back on lines from their stump speech, viewers will notice and make suitable judgments. These debates are about what these contenders have to say to us, they're not about you and how precisely framed and brilliant your grilling is. Get over yourselves and let the candidates come up with and say what they have to say.

   Lastly, isn't it about time for President Bush to face intensive questioning on some kind of regular basis? Bush has held fewer, and insisted on more-controlled, press conferences than any president we can recall. It's high time the media started putting the heat on him to step up — and not just for a one-shot with a handpicked interviewer.
   If and when Bush does start taking his turns, he should not be tossed a series of softballs, with the questioners casting one nervous eye toward their prospects for future White House cooperation.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 7:11 PM

 
Capturing Osama — turnabout is fair play
   Sen. John Kerry criticized President Bush this week for letting local warlords take over — and fumble — a rare chance to capture or kill Osama bin Laden near Tora Bora three years ago.
   Republicans, with Sens. John Kyl of Arizona and Norm Coleman of Minnesota out front, countered indignantly that that decision was made by troops on the scene, not President Bush.
   Very well, then. Let's absolve President Bush and his leadership completely of having missed that chance to get bin Laden. It was the troops on the ground in Afghanistan who made a poor decision, not Bush.
   However, should bin Laden be captured before long — a welcome turn of events military and Bush administration people voice increasing optimism about — then let's have the same logic apply. The kudos will go to the troops or agents who take this vicious murderer down, not to Bush or his leadership.
   Realistically, it's more likely Bush will be as unassuming about grabbing the limelight and laurels for this outcome, should it occur, as he was during last year's aircraft carrier extravaganza. Time will tell.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 1:58 PM

 
Dowd has president's number
   Columnist Maureen Dowd isn't our favorite, although we credit her with getting off some good ones. Dowd's outing for today, "Sorry, Right Number," is solidly in that category.
   The following paragraph is particularly telling:
   "It is a triumph of chutzpah for Mr. Bush to thwart the investigation into 9/11 at the same time he seeks re-election by promoting his handling of 9/11 and scaring us with the specter of more terrorism. He's even using 9/11 memorials as the backdrop for his convention in New York."
   Stop by the New York Times' site to read the rest (free signup required).

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:31 PM

 
Blitzer does a number on Kerry, his speech
peaking at the University of Southern California-Los Angeles Friday, Sen. John Kerry roundly condemned the Bush administration's conduct of the war against terrorism.
   Later, CNN's "Wolf Blitzer Reports" included a segment on Kerry's speech. Or, more accurately Blitzer did a number on Sen. Kerry and his speech.
   Blitzer mentioned the segment at the beginning of the show, then with other blurbs prior to a commercial preceding the segment itself. But once back from the commercial, did Blitzer show Kerry making his speech? No, what followed was this:
   What's that got to do with a segment about Kerry criticizing Bush's handling of the war against terrorism? Well, if you're mission is to give Bush a boost, placing that tidbit about an "all smiles" meeting between the president and his German counterpart, who was extremely critical of Bush's pre-emptive war, ahead of the Kerry item serves to undermine one of Kerry's key points: Bush has soured relations with many of our traditional allies.
   Here, from the show's transcript, is what came next on Blitzer's show:
   Voila! Blitzer gets an A-plus for advancing his agenda of sticking it to Kerry, although he earns only a C-minus for subtlety in doing it.
   But wait, folks, the fun's not over.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:50 AM

 
Bush site accentuates the positive
   Anyone craving a dose of blue skies and warmth need only drop by the Bush-Cheney '04 Web site, where this sunny bit of news awaits:
   "The Department of Commerce today confirmed the strong economic growth rate in the fourth quarter of 2003 and revised it upwards to 4.1%. This brings economic growth for the last half of 2003 to a solid 6%, and comes on top of the 366,000 jobs created since August:
   "The Commerce Department said gross domestic product (GDP), the broadest measure of the economy, grew at a revised 4.1 percent annual rate in the quarter, compared with its initial estimate of 4 percent."

   Well, gee, that's a whopping 0.1 percent leap upward. That's an earthshaking 366,000 jobs — in six months.
   Not mentioned on the site, however, were a couple of other notable news items:
   The Commerce Department also reported Thursday that January orders for durable manufactured goods were down 1.8 percent.
   Meanwhile, the Labor Department reported that new claims for unemployment last week were up by 6,000, to 350,000.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 1:11 PM

 
Does it take $170 million to sell a good deal?
   Build a better mousetrap, the saying goes, and the world will beat a path to your door. It's a way of explaining that if a product or service is really good, word spreads and people seek it out and buy it.
   Many will remember the Windows 95 introduction. Although imperfect, it was a substantial improvement over Windows 3.1. People nationwide stood in line to buy it, helping build Bill Gates' fortune to its current $46 billion. Likewise, no sooner was Viagra introduced than it began breaking sales records for a new medication.
   Windows 95 and Viagra were both advertised, but it's reasonable to believe both would've been fabulously successful had their makers not spent a cent on promotion. Both filled a need and pre-release reviews indicated both worked well.
   In the world of recent politics, hundreds of thousands of Americans, at the least, saw and heard something in Gov. Howard Dean's message that caused them to buy into his candidacy. Dean started out lacking national name recognition. His campaign asked for $77 donations and people responded, building him a record-breaking $44 million war chest by the end of 2003. Nearly all of Dean's promotion and fund raising was through his Web site and appearances, not paid advertising.
   What, then, are we to make of President George W. Bush, who has raised $153 million already, much of it through "bundlers" who bring in sums totaling $100,000 to $500,000? And, according to today's news, Bush plans to spend much of the next two weeks raising more, in Washington, D.C., California and Texas.
   Right now, Bush's campaign fund is substantially bigger than the combined total of funds raised by all the Democratic primary candidates.
   Where will the money go? Much of it will go to TV and other major media corporations. A series of TV commercials is planned to begin airing in next week, $4.4 million worth. Many more will be bought and aired during the election year.
   Bush's massive fund-raising and media-buying plans lead us to this question: If the president were doing a really great job for the majority of Americans, would it be necessary to raise and spend the better part of $200 million to hard-sell the idea of re-electing him?
   Independents and those who only vote occasionally, especially, should consider this question. Stop and think just how far $150 million-plus worth of purchased hype is from being so good that people "beat a path to your door."

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 1:10 PM

 
Would someone put a ruler to Bush's nose?
   President Bush dropped in on Kentucky today to deliver his new stump speech and collect $1.2 million in campaign donations (news story).
   Bush combined a hard-sell pitch about making his tax cuts permanent with a complaint that Democratic opponents are offering only angry criticisms without providing alternatives to what he's doing with respect to the economy and fighting terrorism.
   "So far, all we hear is a lot of old bitterness and partisan anger," Bush said. "Anger is not an agenda for the future of America."
   Bush's new stump speech sounds exactly like the same tiresome, erroneous line Republicans have repeated like a mantra for the past year. As is typical, Bush is either badly misinformed or intentionally misleading.

   Here's a snippet from Sen. John Kerry's Web site, which is well worth a visit:
   Those sound like solid, specific and easily doable alternatives to Oh!pinion. So do these proposals for doing a better job in Iraq:
   Kerry goes on to delineate four steps that should be taken to win the peace in Iraq, advance the war on terrorism and rebuild our relations with traditional friends and allies.

   Sorry, Mr. President, but this isn't 2000. People have had nearly four years to become acquainted with how often you get things drastically wrong, shade the truth, try to distract from or suppress the truth, or tell them outright whoppers. The people are on to you. At least some of the media seem to have been roused from their long stupor. John Kerry is treading the campaign trail with a surer foot and steadier voice than Al Gore did.
   Sorry, Mr. President, but all those polls you claim to ignore indicate your stale arguments aren't working. Fittingly, that gives them something in common with millions of Americans you've served so badly.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 4:22 PM

 
Fired teacher's case flunks merit test
   Most of us have enough sense to know that if we're employed by Jay Dufus & Sons and announce to our co-workers that Jay is a jerk and his sons are worse, we're likely to be fired.
   While the Constitution's free-speech guarantee will keep the government from jailing or fining us for calling the boss a jerk, it doesn't protect us from the boss' wrath.
   This is simple stuff, but a Crystal City, Mo., schoolteacher and her attorney don't get it. According to the AP story, Jendra Loeffelman is taking her case to the full Missouri Court of Appeals or state Supreme Court after losing before a county judge and then an appeals court panel.
   Loeffelman's plea becomes harder to understand because of the utterances that got her fired. She reportedly told her class of eighth graders she opposes interracial marriage and that people in mixed-race marriage should be "fixed" so they can't have children. She also disparaged children of mixed-race families in front of her class, which included two kids fitting that description, according to the story.
   What a bigoted, pathetic piece of work. It's hard to imagine anyone seriously arguing that someone who would express such views to her class should be allowed to continue teaching, in Crystal City schools or anywhere.
   Certainly, Loeffelman has every right to have and express her views, but never to students in a school setting. Inability to understand that or unwillingness to abide by the obvious good sense of that is clearly disqualifying.
   Oh!pinion hopes Ms. Loeffelman will use some of her free time to become better educated. Is a remedial course in human decency being offered somewhere?

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:37 PM

 
The passion of the hype
   Are we alone in being sick and tired of the around-the-clock, saturation-level hype for Mel Gibson's new movie?
   Somehow, we suspect that Gibson's film company is tied in with CNN's corporate superstructure. If true, heaven forbid that the network's talking heads should let us know. The "news" network seemingly hasn't been able to make it through a single hour of its day, for days on end, without working some angle related to "The Passion of The Christ." It's much the same elsewhere in TV Land.
   CNN's weather forecast segments are few, far between and abbreviated to the point of ridiculousness. Even so, we fully expect to see one of these rare interludes begin with, "And today, people in Raleigh are lining up at theaters to see Mel Gibson's `The Passion of The Christ' under cloudy skies, with temperatures in the 50s . . ."
   Whether the film casts Jews as villains has been talked to death, with no consensus emerging. The reality is that individuals who see the film will make up their own minds about that. Results won't be available for months.
   At least those discussions have potential relevance. Segments detailing with a pathologist's thoroughness what a ghastly way to die crucifixion is come off as exploitation of the supermarket tabloid kind. Even the dimmest wit can appreciate the pain and horror of being nailed to a cross.
   Movie moguls beware, your overhyping can backfire. The static level about the Titanic film was so over the top, with so much of it shown on TV, that we felt no need to actually go see the movie. Besides, as with "The Passion," we already knew the ending!

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:12 AM

 
Small businesses gain little from tax cuts
   At least twice in recent months, during those live morning photo-op segments CNN likes to cover, we've heard President Bush extol the virtues of small business. These were speaking engagements at a small business and small-business organization, naturally.
   To hear Bush tell it, after Laura and the girls, there's nothing closer to his heart than the situation of small businesses. Which, he likes to point out, is why he's been so pro-active about cuttin' those unhelpful taxes and stampin' out those noxious regulations.
   Now, in an excellent item over at the Democratic National Committee's Kicking Ass site, comes the truth we've long suspected: What most of us consider small businesses have benefited precious little from Bush's tax cuts.
   It bears mentioning that economists and MBA types' idea of what constitutes a small business extended up to $1 billion in capitalization the last time we checked, which was about four years ago. It's probably more like $1.5 billion now. The DNC item does its figuring along lines that make more sense to most of us — and likely to most people who operate a small business.
   Categorization aside, it's clear Bush's tax cuts heavily favor an extremely small number of America's wealthiest people, which leaves out most small business owners and operators.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 4:56 PM

 
Publicity shorts Energy Dept. rules change
   Today's newspaper brings good news concerning safety, along with reaffirmation that the media spotlight can still help kill bad policy.
   Our Jan. 29 post, "Bush & Co. target nuke facility rules," commented on an Energy Department proposal to let contractors at some nuclear facilities choose the regulations they would follow. Yes, that sounds goofy on its face, but the Bush administration follows that old-time conservative religion, when it comes to exorcising what they consider the demons of regulation supposedly afflicting their corporate friends and backers.
   Now, the Associated Press reports, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham has written the director of the Defense Nuclear Safety Board that the loony proposal is being set aside while more suggestions are gathered.
   The story quotes Abraham as saying he's "deeply concerned by the perception" that the agency's proposed rule changes would endanger workers. The story notes that after a previous AP story on this, the Nuclear Safety Board, members of Congress and others weighed in against the rules change.
   Oh!pinion's view: As much as we'd like this episode to end on a happy note, let's keep in mind that the Energy Department lamebrain who came up with the rule-choosing idea is presumably still on the job — and bears close watching.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:40 PM

 
There's consistency and there's consistency
   With all the fanfare the Republican National Committee, Bush-Cheney campaign and right-wing media machinery could muster, President Bush launched his anti-Kerry offensive today. The vehicle was a speech to a Republican governors' conclave — not exactly a hotbed of skeptics.
   A main feature of his talk was assailing votes and positions Sen. John Kerry has taken that are seemingly inconsistent, including voting to give Bush authority to invade Iraq and then opposing the war, and Kerry presenting himself as a war hero and strong on defense after voting against various weapons and defense bills.
   This line of attack figures, coming from a president hidebound by rigid ideology, in hoc for his very soul to corporate fat cats, possessed of few ideas, dismissive of wonkish exploration of policy matters and oblivious to nuances. One possible saving grace of such a makeup is the likelihood of consistency.
   Unfortunately for we the governed by George W. Bush, his consistency falls largely on the wrong side of obtaining just outcomes and genuine economic gains and benefits for the majority of us. When his first foolishy large tax cut failed to bring the desired results, or anything like them, what else to do but pass another foolishy large tax cut? And then a third foolishly large tax cut, which like the first two mostly made the rich richer. When his grandly touted "coalition of the willing" to invade Iraq turned out to mostly be a modest band of the bribed and browbeaten, he followed up the war with a similar coalition of supposedly willing donors for Iraq's reconstruction. We still await announcement of the billions that were said to be coming our way real soon.
   Bush has also been consistent in relying on bait-and-switch to get what he wants. The war was about weapons of mass destruction, until it had to be about what a rotten S.O.B. Saddam Hussein was. The Medicare "reform" was only going to cost $390 billion, until shortly after the legislation passed and was signed. Then it was revealed to cost $520 billion.
   Yes, Bush is consistent — disgustingly so.
   As for Kerry's seeming inconsistencies, we hardly expected him, after learning Bush's pre-emptive war was a crock, based on industrial-strength fudging or self-serving stupidity, to throw good vote after bad about reconstruction. Much of that $87 billion should've been a loan. It's likely similar considerations lie behind other Kerry votes Bush cited.
   The good thing, this time around, is that Democrats have a candidate who's giving it back, promptly and forcefully, point for point. Consistency in that is a welcome development.


  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 8:58 PM

 
Nader announcement good news for Bush
   The man who put George W. Bush's 2000 campaign for president over the top today announced he's going to run for president again. But unlike 2000, when he headed the Green Party ticket, Ralph Nader will run as an independent.
   Nader announced his candidacy on NBC's "Meet the Press," restating his disdain for what he terms the two-party "duopoly" and denouncing Washington, D.C., as corporate-occupied territory. He also repeated his belief there's little difference between Democrats and Republicans, giving the former a D-plus, the latter a D-minus.
   Host Tim Russert devoted most of his questioning to Nader's justification for running, his response to people who say he's a spoiler and the difficulties facing someone entering the race this late, without party backing or ballot certification in the states. Nader gave his usual responses. The key one seems to be that he's going to have lots of volunteers and carry the banner for lots of disaffected progressives, moderate Democrats and even "liberal Republicans."
   In other responses, Nader gave a vague, muddled indication he wouldn't have the U.S. bolt from Iraq precipitously and does support making gay and lesbian marriages legal. Asked if he'll reveal all his finances, Nader said he would reveal what the law requires.

   Oh!pinion's view: Nader's vainglorious candidacy is cause for celebration only at the White House and Republican National Committee headquarters. He fancies himself the leader of progressives' cause but in reality he's their worst enemy.
   We don't doubt for a moment Nader will get a surprising injection of money and volunteers. We'd be willing to bet much of that support will come from behind-the-scenes Republican operatives. Those would be the same kind of people, maybe the same people, who recruited Arkansas State troopers in their effort to destroy Bill Clinton and later staged a "riot" by paid "volunteers" in Florida to stop the 2000 vote count.
   Nader decries the two-party system. He used the Greens in 2000, when they suited his purpose. Has he devoted his time, money and efforts to building that party into a real nationwide contender over the past three and a half years? Not that we can tell. Has he built a viable state or regional political base and run for office himself? Not at all.
   No, Nader's like the kid who wants to lick to frosting off the cupcake. He wants to run for president and do so on his own terms, no matter the consequences for everyone else.
   As stated in our Dec. 3, 2003, post, "Someone that selfish, with foresight and judgment that bad, ought never be elected president." The best thing Nader could do for America's progressives is just go away.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:15 PM

 
Bush economists good to go — soon
   When is the person who asks, "You want fries with that?" like, say, the operator of a machine pouring molten aluminum into huge molds? Apparently, it's when the president's Council of Economic Advisors gather to ruminate about what constitutes manufacturing.
   Or, it might be when CEA Chairman N. Gregory Mankiw and his circle of 19th-century deep thinkers sit around straining for ways to make their boss' economic policy look like something more and better than a scheme to reward big-money contributors and add to the wealth of other rich folks.
   That's because if fast-food workers were to be included in the manufacturing employment tally, large-scale job losses in that sector during George W. Bush's tenure would suddenly look less awful. Plus, Bush would be relieved of even the possibility of having to change one of his bad policies in favor of — who knows? — maybe even something that works to the benefit of average Americans.
   The possibility of altering the definition of manufacturing to include burger flipping and, no doubt, taco stuffing and pizza baking, was introduced in the CEA's annual report. The report first triggered an angry bipartisan reaction for an included statement: "When a good or service is produced at lower cost in another country, it makes sense to import it rather than to produce it domestically. This allows the United States to devote its resources to more productive purposes."
   Attention, 2.7 million dumped manufacturing workers: It makes sense to marginalize you, replacing your $18-an-hour-with-benefits job, after months of going jobless, with a service-sector position that pays $9 an hour, part time to start, few if any benefits.
   The report is also notable for indicating 2.6 million jobs will be created this year. Even Bush himself wouldn't endorse that one. (News story here. Good item at TAPPED here.)

   Oh!pinion's view: This country badly needs for the president's top economic adviser to be a bright, caring, insightful and innovative heavyweight. What we've got is a cheesy quarter pounder.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 6:32 PM

 
If the science hurts . . . do whatever?
   Science is all about inquisitiveness, facts and the truth. Without those, science becomes a charade and findings can't be trusted.
   Judging by its actions — experience shows its words aren't worth much — President George W. Bush's administration has a problem with science.
   That may be because inquisitiveness leads to politically inconvenient areas of investigation, sometimes yielding answers that don't sit well with financial backers. Facts get all mushy and come apart when subjected to spin, often drawing scrutiny and criticism. And, unlike political truth, scientific truth requires objective evidence and results that can be duplicated. That's why it's referred to as a discipline. Where politics is paramount, however, that discipline can be seen as a perfect setup for opening one can of worms after another.
   Evidence of the regard Bush and his people hold for science has piled up for three years. Now, an excellent story by Seth Borenstein of the Associated Press brings it together. The story's hook is that the administration was cited this week by a prestigious body of 60 scientists, including former presidential advisers and Nobel laureates, for distorting and manipulating scientific findings for political purposes.
   Few Americans are likely to read the group's 46-page report. But everyone ought to read the news story, which highlights what's been going on. Example: the censoring-out of a section on global warming from the EPA's annual report.
   The administration's attitude and actions are revealed as sophomoric, grossly dishonest and indefensible, where ethics and practicalities are concerned.

   Oh!pinion wonders about some nice Christian family in one of the so-called red states where supporting Bush is a given. Much of that red-state loyalty is attributable to Bush's well-crafted public persona of being a born-again Christian and "straight shooter." The red-state parents are undoubtedly raising their children to abide by the Ten Commandments, including the one about not bearing false witness.
   Will these good-Christian parents dismiss the scientists' rebuke of Bush as so much bashing by liberal elites? Or, will they take it to heart, as a crying of foul by real, dedicated people whose discipline and life's work are predicated on respect for inquisitiveness, facts and the truth?

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:14 PM

 
Neoconservatives may be in for downturn
nyone who's spent much time at the seashore knows you can't tell much about depth, undertow or tide direction by watching easily visible wave tops.
   The same can be true of American politics, where longer-term trends are usually ignored anyway, while the media, especially the punditocracy, focus on the day's buzz.
   Let's break from this norm to briefly consider the possibility 2004 might mark a shift from 25 years of rising fortunes — often literally rising fortunes — that pro-big business, pro-great-wealth neoconservatives have enjoyed.
   Looking back over U.S. political history, long-term trends tend to be at work, even when shorter-term circumstances are running counter. Back in the so-called Golden Age when 19th and early 20th century robber barons — the Rockefellers, Carnegies, Morgans, etc. — were amassing and enlarging their huge fortunes, aided by the best government cooperation their money could buy, setbacks happened. Like today's CEOs and corporate board members, the robber barons could think of a million reasons why regulation was not only completely unnecessary but morally wrong, politically foolhardy and economically ruinous.
   However, when democracy is working at all, people will demand limits. Even lavish palm-greasing and loud, indignant harrumphing couldn't keep a majority of congressmen and senators from voting for regulations to ensure purity in food and drugs, railroad safety and the like. After all, congressmen, senators and their loved ones, just like average Americans, ate canned and prepared foods, and rode the rails. So did presidents.
   Getting something done about a host of things that tended to help the rich keep getting richer, the poor poorer and middle-class suckers to rarely get an even break was another matter. Remedies came only after things reached a crisis.
   It took decades, but our ancestors tired of boom-and-bust business cycles. It sank in, over time, that while a few lucky, hardy or especially predatory souls became fabulously well off, not just in spite of, but actually because of, these recurring collapses, most people got hosed — losing their job, maybe their business and/or home, and their life savings.
   For about a half century following the post-Reconstruction days of the 1880s, boom-and-bust cycles were the American way. With each upward surge, robber barons big and little went to greater excess, became more predatory, many concentrating ever more wealth in their own hands. Common folk grumbled, adapted, weathered the worst in the downturns. Many even contributed to the Big Bust of 1929 — the straw that broke the camel's back.

   The Great Depression that followed, was so profoundly ruinous for so many that Americans in the millions turned, politically, onto a different path: reform. That's what President Franklin Roosevelt's first three terms in the White House were all about. That's why even some who'd criticized and cursed his every acronymed policy and program, all the while sharing in the benefits derived, felt a lump in the throat and a wetness in the eyes when, during his unprecedented fourth term, FDR died.
   Make-work programs responsible for so many schools, libraries, post offices and courthouses across the land, not to mention dams, highways and upgraded parks, stand today as lasting monuments to the New Deal. The full stomachs, along with restored hope and pride, inside millions of Americans came and, in time, went — as have most folks of that era.
   In between the lasting and the transient lie so many reforms enacted in the 1930s, '40s and, to a lesser extent, 1950s. They made banks safe, credit unions possible, investments much safer, unions viable and a good, middle-class life the American standard.
   But the trend over the last quarter century has been one of steady erosion of these reforms. This has occurred with the willing support of those too young to remember the consequences of boom and bust, too little educated to appreciate the risk and, ironically, too always protected by the reforms to sufficiently care.

   Now, with three years of a job-loss recovery; with real unemployment north of 10 million, underemployment widespread, average wage levels declining and jobs being sent to other countries by the tens of thousands a year; with our $495 billion trade deficit capping a decade of cancerous growth in trade deficits; with evidence of rampant criminality in one industry after another, costing millions of average Americans billions in needless losses; with bankruptcies at record highs; with the number of young people able to attend college in decline, although prisons are among the nations' growth industries; with a rabidly pro-big business president who really believes all the government can and should do is keep cutting taxes - maybe, finally, millions of average Americans are ready to turn onto a different path.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:20 PM

 
Kerry wins, Edwards scores, Dean has his say
   John Kerry needed to win the Wisconsin primary to maintain his front-runner momentum. He did, besting John Edwards by an apparent six percentage points.
   Edwards had hoped to score an upset and came tantalizingly close, reportedly forcing an alarmed Kerry to make a last-minute scramble to stay on top. Edwards gained an impression of gaining momentum.
   Howard Dean needed to win, period, which he did not. But failing that, he needed a moment in the spotlight to say that the long, uphill road from obscurity to front-runner, to also ran, was not traveled in vain. He needed that for himself and for his ardent supporters.
   Dean got his moment and made his point, with much of the driving certitude that served him so well in 2003 when he was ascendant. Understandably, he's come across in recent weeks as deflated and off balance. He's been through incredible ups and downs, after all, too busy campaigning to make the necessary emotional adjustment. He came across like his old self tonight, which was good.
   Edwards showed again that he's a formidable campaigner. Like Kerry, Edwards has a topnotch stump speech. Far better than Kerry, Edwards reads his crowds and modulates his speaking, better eliciting applause at key moments, and varying his tone, pitch and rhythm to keep them with him.
   TV's talking heads, often in favor of changes of fortune because they make for good stories, are buzzing about Edwards as a de facto winner for having made a real race of it. That's premature. If Edwards wins — actually wins — a cluster of delegate-rich states next month, he'll establish momentum that will change the whole dynamic of this contest. Anything less and he'll be an attractive also ran. That would be a substantial achievement in itself, putting Edwards high on the A-list for an invitation to fill second place on the 2004 ticket and a hot prospect for a future presidential race, if he wants that.
   For now, somebody better tell the fat lady to practice her scales and keep the gargle handy. It's not over yet.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:03 PM

 
Prosecutors closing in on DeLay PAC
   Legal consequences are looming in the wake of House Majority Leader Tom "The Hammer" DeLay's Texas takeover for Republicans.
   A New York Times report details how prosecutors and a grand jury in Austin are going after principals of Texans for a Republican Majority, the political action committee DeLay created to bring about the takeover.
   The legal sticking point is a Texas law against corporations and unions' donations to PACs being used to fund other than administrative-type activities. The law prohibits turning the funds over to candidates and campaigns. But, as the Times story indicates, there's plenty of reason to believe DeLay's pet PAC did just that, repeatedly, achieving the desired result.
   Having helped arrange for handpicked Republicans to take over the Texas House of Representatives, with his PAC's choice becoming speaker, DeLay is considered the driving force behind a redistricting plan that's a model of dirty politics and abuse of power. That plan is considered by many to virtually assure five more Republicans will be elected to Congress this year.
   This comes as more evidence, as if any were needed, that Texas has a way of spreading its bad-government people and ways far beyond the state's borders.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 4:36 PM

 
`Unprincipled' describes Bush on MTBE use
   President George W. Bush's priorities, agenda — and the secret of his $140 million campaign war chest — were made crystal clear again today, with news a proposal to ban MTBE is being "quietly shelved."
   As we pointed out in a November 19 post: "MTBE is a gasoline additive used for years, at the government's direction, to reduce harmful vehicle emissions. The potent, slow-to-break-down chemical was later found to be contaminating ground water and soil in 49 states. It was also found to be a potential cause of leukemia, lymphoma and other cancers."
   Now, why would Bush deliberately ensure that a likely cancer-causing, groundwater-fouling chemical will continued to be used widely throughout the country? It's certainly not because he's so devoted to the cause of clean air, given how his adminsitration has repeatedly acted to emasculate clean-air regulations, underfund and underman the agencies doing inspections, and turn responsibility over to the polluters.

   The answer, as today's report makes clear, is that the three biggest producers of MTBE have contributed $1 million to Bush and Republicans in Congress since Bush became president. They also kicked in $338,000 to Bush and other Republicans in 1999 and 2000.
   The MTBE big three getting the best government their money can buy are Lyondell Chemical and Valero Energy, both of Texas, naturally, and the Huntsman companies of Salt Lake City.
   Bush's red-state loyalists, who presumably prefer untainted water and are as subject to becoming cancer victims as everyone else, might want to stop watching reruns of the the Bush-Cheney campaign's "Unprincipled" smear video long enough to think about this. And then, to think about hypocrisy, deceit and where Bush's loyalties lie.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:05 PM

 
Misreading of productivity hurts U.S. workers
   "The economy is obviously in recovery, but as almost 10 million out-of-work Americans can now attest, job growth has not been part of this recovery. Economists blame a boom in worker productivity for the lack of new job creation. In the second half of 2003, productivity surged 9 percent. And the reason for that high productivity rate may be the high number of American jobs that have been exported overseas."
   With that, CNN's Lou Dobbs began a Feb. 4 segment providing good insight into a key aspect of the race to the bottom that bad economic policy and the greed of big-money interests have locked America's working people into. Here's the rest of the segment:
   Lisa Sylvester reports from Washington (begin videotape).
   Please, write to your U.S. representative and your senators. Tell them this is wrong and must be stopped.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:47 PM

 
Fringe types pin hopes on Drudge sludge
   With only a few of the country's lamest halfwits suitably inflamed by an ancient photo showing John Kerry at the same rally with Jane Fonda, the right-wing scandalmongering machine needed something more puerile to toss to the dogs.
   Never fear, because Matt Drudge is on the job. He's come up with just what we would expect from him: a salacious, unsubstantiated report from an undisclosed source that Kerry had something or other to do with an intern who is said to be hiding out in Africa. We're reminded that, fittingly, Drudge rhymes with sludge.
   Lame on its face, tenuous in the extreme, defying any logic, this allegation is nonetheless just enough to get blood pumping from the raisin-like hearts of the rabid-right fringe. The dittoheads, the Sean Hannity and Rich Lowry types, are all abuzz now, with visions of a cornered, humiliated Kerry wagging his finger and denying all, the way a clearly guilty Bill Clinton once did.
   May they continue to wait until they get a clue, which is to say until the Winter Olympics take place in hell.
   There's an especially good take on all this over at calpundit. It's a slow load if you're using dialup, but the item's a quick, fun read that's worth the wait.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 1:21 PM

 
Destroyed roses could've brought joy
   A bittersweet Valentine's Day story out of Miami informs us U.S. border agents have destroyed 10,000 illegal roses shipped into the country since late January. The roses' Colombian and Ecuadorean producers had not paid fees or royalties "on brands with trademarks," border officials said.
   Now, with officials still looking for illegal flowers, the growers say they will pay the fees. The story says information provided by industry people in Indiana and Holland made it possible for agents to identify the illegal roses.
   While it's good that U.S. growers' trademarks and brands are being protected and that the South American growers, belatedly, are going to comply with the law, we wish U.S. officials could've done something better with all those roses than destroy them.
   How much better it would've been if our officials had statutory authority — and the goodhearted inspiration — to distribute the flowers to low-income elderly people throughout South Florida. We're talking about people in senior care centers, especially in low-income areas, who have no one to call on them or send them flowers on special occasions. Seized roses could've been sent to hospices, to hospital dining rooms, to veterans hospitals. The handouts could all have been done without harming the rose industry or florists in the region.
   Regrettably, this is the kind of thing that probably requires congressional pressure or action to change. Yet, it's not the kind of thing people would write their representatives about.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 1:20 PM

 
Poll: Bush support slip-slidin' away
   The U.S. is virtually split down the middle when it comes to supporting President George W. Bush and his Iraq War, according to the latest ABC News-Washington Post poll.
   Fifty-two percent of those polled said they feel Bush is honest and trustworthy, while 42 percent said they do not — a striking shift downward. Fewer than half, 48 percent, support the war, while 50 percent said it's not worth fighting.
   Fifty-four percent said they think the Bush administration deliberately hyped the threat posed by Iraq prior to the war, although most of them did not go so far as to say they think they were lied to.
   On the economy, 47 percent said they see the economy having gotten worse on Bush's watch. Only 40 percent think Bush understands the problems of people like themselves.
   Not surprisingly, then, the survey found Sen. John Kerry beating Bush 51 to 43 percent, if the election were to be held now.
   While this and similar polls come much too early to offer sound reckoning of what the political situation will be months in the future, they offer evidence people are paying attention. They're taking stock of where Bush has led this country and what kind of results he's delivered.
   Oh!pinion finds that cause for optimism, even realizing how much mud slinging, how many dirty tricks and how many snow jobs Bush's as-yet-untapped $120 million campaign fund will buy.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:20 PM

 
Case of pot calling kettle black
   With President Bush's credibility already in tatters, his campaign field marshals decide to spam millions of people with a one-minute video hitting Sen. John Kerry for receiving donations from special interests.
   This is incredibly hypocritical, coming from backers of a president who has turned the federal government into one big vending machine for the country's corporate elite. Anyone skeptical of this charge need only spend some quality time at whitehouseforsale.org, then review Bush's sweetheart legislation deals such as the Medicare "reform" bill and the gargantuan energy bill which, thankfully, failed to pass.
   The Associated Press story on this says the video includes this supposed shocker: "An analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics in Washington found that Kerry, from Massachusetts, accepted the most campaign money from lobbyists over the past 15 years of anyone in the Senate — about $638,000." The Bush-Cheney flacks must expect viewers of the video will assume the $120 million or more in Bush's ditty bag was put there by the tooth fairy.
   Kerry's spokeswoman, Stephanie Cutter, gave the AP a really good comeback: "This White House has never met a special interest it didn't like. In fact, George Bush took more money from lobbyists in 2003 than John Kerry has in his entire career, and has managed to reward them handsomely for it too — at the expense of the environment, our economy and the middle class."

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 8:37 PM

 
Site helps Kerry-bashing games begin
   A surfing expedition somehow landed us at freerepublic.com, where an apparently avid following of right-wing types was all abuzz at the dredging up of the old photo showing John Kerry at a 1970 anti-war event also attended by Jane Fonda.
   Freerepublic repeats the photo umpteen times, generating comments each time, after having the image lightened and otherwise manipulated to make Kerry easier to spot in the background. The locals proceed to engage in a running exchange of demagoguery, bashing Fonda and a whole bunch of other people she's ever had anything to do with. They freely link her and some of her more outrageous activist-phase comments with the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, with Kerry, yada, yada, yada.
   Other photos are added to the page: Kerry with various politicians, Kerry at work at his desk. Gee whiz.
   Here's a sample of posts illustrating the level of discourse:
   These, too, are the folks we have to thank for George W. Bush's leadership. Even if Oh!pinion didn't much care for Kerry, which isn't the case, their online effluent would be enough to raise his stock with us.
   If morbid curiosity, or whatever, prompts you to wander through this site yourself, click here. Just be careful where you step.


  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:17 PM

 
GOP smear a dud, nipped in the bud
   Fresh off of his impressive wins in Tuesday's Virginia and Tennessee primaries, Sen. John Kerry was the target of a cheap-shot smear attempt today.
   Republicans are nervous about the large turnouts for Democratic primaries, about enthusiastic crowds pledging to support whoever emerges as the Democratic candidate — just so George W. Bush gets replaced in November — and Bush's eroding credibility in all areas.
   So today the GOP slime squad unleashed a 30-year-old photo showing Kerry at the same anti-war rally as Jane Fonda. Wow! That ought to energize the dittohead base.
   Then again, maybe not. Fonda long ago admitted she went too far with her Vietnam era anti-war rhetoric and stunts, and publicly apologized. Mention of the outspoken, award-winning actress' name just doesn't get the bile spewing the way it used to.
   Appearing on CNN today, Fonda was asked about the photo. She made it clear that at that time she didn't know Kerry, that they weren't there together, and that she viewed the attempted smear as despicable.
   Fonda was charitable. It was pathetic compared to what the Bush Republican slime specialists are really capable of. A good benchmark for that is the rumor they spread about Sen. John McCain in 2000, when he opposed Bush for the Republican nomination. The slime squad put it out in South Carolina that McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child, when the truth is that he has an adopted dark-skinned daughter. Nice folks, huh?

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 7:42 PM

 
Partisan hack made to order for Bush panel
ost Americans, regardless of political persuasion, would probably agree that a presidential candidate and his people have no business engaging in meetings with agents of an enemy regime. Not for any purpose, ever.
   While the Constitution gives presidents the lion's share of responsibility for the conduct of foreign policy, with advice and consent of the Senate, it makes no such provision for candidates.
   In 1980, Laurence Silberman, then a part of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush's campaign staff, was involved in meetings with agents of the regime of Iranian Muslim extremist dictator Ayatollah Khomeini. At the time, Iran was holding hostage dozens of Americans taken prisoner from the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Minutes after Reagan was sworn in as president, Iran announced the hostages would be released. Some have charged that the Reagan-Bush operatives who had met with the Iranians struck a deal — an illegal, dirty-politics, "October surprise" deal to provide Iran with U.S.-made weapons in return for withholding from incumbent President Jimmy Carter the chance to bring the hostages home on his watch and thus, just possibly, to get himself re-elected.
   A few years later, Reagan appointed Silberman to the U.S. District Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., one level below the Supreme Court. There, in 1990, Silberman helped overturn the conviction of Lt.Col. Oliver North, the Reagan national security aide involved with the Reagan administration's secret and illegal war in Nicaragua. North had facilitated the funneling of proceeds from secret arms sales to Iran to anti-government rebels in Nicaragua.
   Later in the 1990s, Silberman was among those who conspired to smear and destroy professor Anita Hill. Hill became a target for character assassination because she had charged conservative Supreme Court justice nominee Clarence Thomas with sexual harassment. Silberman was also a behind-the-scenes force in the Republicans' unceasing campaign to destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton that reached a crescendo with an abortive bid for impeachment.
   Writer David Brock, once a hero among neoconservatives for such services to them as writing a salacious and virtually groundless — by his own later admission — smear article about professor Hill, was for years a close friend of Silberman and his wife. Brock came to have a change of heart and a falling out with the Silbermans.
   In his revealing book, "Blinded by the Right," Brock writes: "A consummate Washington insider for more than two decades, Larry would often preface his advice to me with the dry demurrer that judges shouldn't get involved in politics — `That would be improper,' he'd say — and then forge ahead anyway. He was a behind-the-scenes adviser to the conservative editors of the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and he delighted conservative audiences with his acid critiques of the liberal press."
   So much for basic respect for law, for judicial ethics, for impartiality, for intellectual honesty, for simple decency.

   This same Laurence Silberman is the man President Bush has appointed co-chairman of the panel that is to investigate how and why U.S. intelligence erred so badly about the threat allegedly posed by Iraq and about its ability to assess other potentially dangerous countries.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:34 PM

 
Firm offers insight on outsourcing trends
   Boston Consulting Group projects 1.1 million more manufacturing jobs are vulnerable in the near term, as more and more U.S. companies ship jobs and production to foreign countries.
   That factoid was part of a recent news release from BCG, touting an upcoming report and the need for manufacturers to be on top of trends.

   Here are a few highlights from BCG's outlook:
   To view more of this report, which includes revealing graphs of projected U.S. manufacturing job losses through 2012 and U.S. market penetration by foreign producers, click here.

   The beat goes on, more jobs go away. Every month more Americans learn that, any more, "job security" and "economic security" are phrases that apply to people at the top; for everyone else, they're oxymorons. This is wrong and it must be be stopped.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:56 PM

 
Cheatin' hearts plentiful in Britain
   Britain was once home of Victorian mores — sexual repression was supposed to be standard operating procedure — and its people were known for their reserve. That was then; welcome to the shagadelic 21st century, baby.
   A survey done for Britain's Sun tabloid finds the population's an actively randy lot these days, with 20 percent of husbands having cheated on their wives and one in four wives having cheated on their husbands.
   But that's not all. The survey of 16- to 60-year-olds found the average British man has had 14 sexual partners and the average woman has had 11.
   More than half those surveyed in every age group had had a one-night stand. Greater London people are more into old-fashioned infidelity, while Northern folk go for threesomes.
   Maybe the wand in the elegant reference to Britain as "the scepter'd isle" refers, any more, to a different sort of staff.
   Blimey!

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 6:10 PM

 
Bush hypes further growth of debt
   Another day, another Bush campaign junket at taxpayers' expense to another recent Democratic primary state. Today's destination was Springfield, Mo., where the president spoke at a factory.
   "There are some in Washington that are going to say, 'Let's not make the tax cuts permanent.' That means he's going to raise your taxes," an Associated Press story quotes Bush. "When you hear people say, 'We're not going to make this permanent,' that means tax increase."
   Bush understandably neglected to mention the impact of his tax cuts on what Americans pay their state, county and municipal governments -- if he's even aware of that impact. He also passed up the chance to discuss what his tax cut fetish means for the next two or more generations of Americans. They will have to work off the mountain of debt he's already piled up.
   In fact, given the economy's situation overall, Bush should've said, Make my tax cuts permanent; I want to raise your debt.
   But, ever mindful of what his neoconservative base wants to hear, Bush linked letting his troublemaking tax cuts lapse to enlarging government. "Let me tell you what's going to happen when they raise them. They're going to say, 'Oh, we got to raise it so we can pay down the deficit. Uh-uh. They're going to raise the taxes and increase the size of the federal government, which would be bad for the United States economy."
   Bush has evidently forgotten, if he ever knew, that the Clinton administration did more to limit the size of federal government than had the previous two Republican administrations. That was along with balancing the budget, building a surplus and, under Vice President Al Gore's leadership, substantially streamlining government paper work. So much for radical-right stereotyping.
   Oh!pinion doubts many of the workers Bush spoke to make more than $150,000 a year. If we're right, he misspoke in talking to them about "your taxes" in relation to his cuts. Their federal taxes, thanks to his reverse-Robin Hood philosophy, actually went down precious little if at all. Services they receive from all levels of government may have gone down, but their state and local taxes, school district and college costs all went up.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 4:13 PM

 
Spin it back: Guard bashing isn't the issue
   In his interview with Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet the Press," President Bush attempted to shift the issue of whether he fulfilled his obligations while a member of the Air National Guard to whether service in the Guard is worthy of respect.
   Bush implied, forcefully and repeatedly, that those who question his military record are portraying service in the Guard as inferior — as simply a means of evading the draft that was in effect when he was a member or less worthwhile than active-duty service.
   From the Russert interview transcript:
   Other Republicans, notably Ed Gillespie, Republican National Committee chairman, have sounded this same theme recently.
   The problem for Bush, Gillespie and the Republican disinformation industry is that no one in the political opposition is saying service in the Guard is or was inferior.
   To be sure, some have noted that during the Vietnam War years many young men went into the Guard as a means of avoiding being sent off to the war. They're not saying everyone joined the Guard for that reason or that the war-ducking situation was the Guard's fault. It's just the way things were in those days.
   Questions about Bush's service record have been specific to him and his situation. Those who bring them up are provoked in part by the fact Bush has been so ostentatiously patriotic and gung ho about the military. In part, they're mindful of how quick Republicans have been, going back years, to question the patriotism and service, or lack of service, of Democrats.
   The lowdown, dirty lies Republicans used against former Sen. Max Cleland, a multiple amputee and decorated war hero, to get Saxbe Chambliss elected in Georgia, was one of the most despicable episodes in the history of dirty campaigning in this country. Republicans actually depicted Cleland as sympathetic to Osama bin Laden.

   If Bush's people can produce verification of proper drill attendance, they can put this issue to rest. Otherwise, they should expect to hear about it during the campaign.
   Oh!pinion suspects Bush, then something of a devil-may-care playboy and the son of a wealthy and well-connected congressman, was cut slack that 99.9 percent of Guard members never get. A phone call from one of daddy's staffers would've been all that was necessary to get Bush into the Guard, to pencil-whip or "misplace" attendance records, or get W. an honorable discharge a few months early.
   We'd be inclined to credit Bush with displaying integrity if instead of trying to put words in his critics' mouths, he'd say, "OK, I was less serious and responsible about military service, about my attendance, than I should've been in those days. Being older, having learned a lot, I see things differently now . . ." We're not holding our breath, though.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:52 PM

 
Russert-Bush meetup a flag-wrapping gig
   President Bush appeared today on NBC's "Meet the Press With Tim Russert." Russert, a respected TV journalist with a reputation for tough questioning, did press Bush on some sensitive areas. Yet overall this game was played on Bush's turf.
   Bush clearly intends to frame the presidential contest in terms of national security and the war against terrorism. Russert, wittingly or not, went right along, forsaking the chance to question Bush about a broad range of topics important to most Americans.
   For example, in the brief interlude devoted to domestic issues, triggered with a question about the budget deficit, the only mention of health or health care was by Bush. That was when Bush launched into a promo for his Medicare "reform" legislation and private health insurance accounts.
   The country racked up a half-trillion-dollar international trade deficit last year, but that wasn't mentioned. Neither was NAFTA, the WTO, the Free Trade Area of the Americas or Central American free trade agreements Bush is pursuing.
   Indeed, trade, globalization, outsourcing, the exporting of capital and technology, currency manipulation and the growing practice of importing "guest" workers to take Americans' jobs away from them in favor of cheap foreign workers all went unmentioned. Immigration, legal and otherwise? Nada.
   Russert could've asked about the growing divide between the affluent and the rest, but he didn't. Personal and business bankruptcies are at all-time highs, but not important enough to get into, evidently.
   Job security didn't come up. The rule change to do low-wage workers out of overtime pay didn't come up. The minimum wage, years overdue for an increase, didn't come up. Extension of unemployment compensation for 2 million jobless Americans who'll lose benefits between now and June didn't come up.
   Bush also got a pass on the environment, veterans, cities, states and infrastructure issues.
   The only mention of foreign relations was a brief reference to the fact that most people in France and Germany hold Bush in low regard.

   One key question Oh!pinion would like to have heard Russert ask: Mr. President, your intelligence agency and administration got it wrong about Iraq's having weapons of mass destruction; you came into office determined to basically ignore the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; each time you went after another huge tax cut you predicted vast numbers of new jobs would be created; you pressured Congress to pass your $395 billion Medicare bill, only to announce a couple of months later it will cost $521 billion; you fired your economic advisor for saying war with Iraq would cost up to $200 billion — it's now at $167 billion — and your people said Iraq's oil would pay for reconstructing the country. In each of these cases — and more could be included — you or your people were wrong. Why should Americans believe what you say and have any confidence you know what you're doing?
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 8:04 PM

 
Words used, unspoken, say a lot
   Here's a simple, admittedly crude, word survey from the transcript of President Bush's interview with Tim Russert this weekend on "Meet the Press."
   We searched the text for certain root words of interest, given current topics in the news, campaign issues and things of concern to Americans generally. Here are those words, with the number of times, if any, they were uttered during the hourlong program:
   allies, 1; bankruptcy, 0; business, 5; community, 0; dead, 0; death, 0; deficit, 6; died, 0; educate, 0; environment, 0; help, 5; health, 1; healthcare, 1; jobs, 5;
   kill, 2; killed, 2; killer, 1; peace, 4; school, 0; tough, 4; trade, 0; truth, 2; unemployment, 3; veteran, 0; war, 51; weapons, 31.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 7:16 PM

 
Dean deserves a last stand, respect of all
   To put it mildly, these are not happy days for Gov. Howard Dean and his most loyal supporters. He worked hard to lead the Democratic primary field, only to see that hard-won ground turn to quicksand beneath him in Iowa and New Hampshire.
   Dean made a bad impression when the Iowa results were in. The media jumped at the chance to maximize the damage to him,repeating at saturation levels a videotape that was (as detailed in an earlier post) misleading to begin with.
   It's been all downhill ever since. His dedicated campaign chief, Joe Trippi, is gone. His substantial lead in funds is gone and his replenishment sources are reportedly drying up. He's taken a pass on several primaries. And today, with Washington state and Michigan going for Sen. John Kerry by hefty margins, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees withdrew its endorsement.
   Dean says he will make a stand in Wisconsin, giving the only fully fought primary since New Hampshire. It's hard at this point to see him pulling it out, but anything is possible. Maybe it's something he must do to prove to himself and those still at his side that he didn't just toss it in when the going got rough.
   We understand. Dean has proven himself a spirited, gifted, albeit uneven campaigner. Those who say he's helped Democrats find their voice and develop some spine are right. All Democrats owe him respect and even some affection. He's a good man, and you know what they say about those.
   A good, spirited post by the pro-Dean blogger at Interesting Times gives poignant voice to things many Dean loyalists probably feel. Here's how it begins:
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 8:22 PM

 
Clueless Chao just not working out
   CNN's Judy Woodruff had Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao in for a sit-down Friday, focusing discussion on the department's release of January employment figures.
   For the record, since Woodruff and Chao both got the numbers wrong, the Associated Press reported the department's total of jobs created in January at 112,000. Woodruff rounded down to 110,000; Chao said it was 122,000.
   Bloating that number wasn't Chao's only flub. Throughout the segment she demonstrated a lack of economic savvy that would be laughable if the consequences weren't so serious. Her performance brought one word to our mind: "ignoramus."
   Here's an example of where our labor secretary is coming from:
   A bit later in the interview, Woodruff pressed the issue. Chao went into instant replay mode.
   Let's introduce a dose of reality, since Chao is obviously adrift in some parallel dimension where facts bend to ideology, political expediency or what the boss expects to hear.
   The stock market went up on the lousy job-creation news because all the big investors — the mutual, pension, insurance and hedge funds, big investment houses and individual fat cats — perceive companies are keeping costs down by outsourcing jobs to China, India, wherever labor is cheapest. Wall Street greedmongers were also pleased because the numbers mean no interest rate increase.
   Back in 1962, when President John F. Kennedy's tax cut made a difference, the U.S. economy wasn't a free-trade-ravaged sieve. So, virtually 100 percent of extra money in consumers' hands went to American-made goods and American-provided services, bolstering business profits, employment, government revenues and so forth. Businesses' tax savings wnet to debt reduction, new-product development, plant expansion, equipment purchases and such.
   Today's debt-ridden consumers mostly took their $200 or $300 and made an extra credit card payment or bought more imported goods at Wal-Mart or wherever. A big part of the proceeds went China, Mexico, etc., helping their employment situation and revenues.
   Aside from being insufferably ignorant or brain dead, Chao runs a malicious shop. Her Labor Department engineered the soon-to-be-implemented rules change that will strip up to 8 million low-wage workers of overtime, against the expressed will of Congress. Adding insult to injury, Chao's underlings published a handy how-to showing employers how to do their low-wage workers out of overtime.

   Concluding the interview with Woodruff, there was this:
   Fact check: Thanks to the Bush administration, 375,000 workers exhausted their unemployment compensation in January and won't get any more. By midyear, 2 million will lose their unemployment checks. Democrats in Congress pleaded before the December recess to extend benefits but the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress refused. This month, they refused again.
   The irony is that extending those benefits wouldn't cost taxpayers a dime or make Bush's staggering deficits any worse. The money is in a trust fund, having been paid in by the very jobless people who desperately need the money now.
   That's Bush's compassionate conservatism in action. That's how, in Chao's words, "we're very concerned about them."
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:35 AM

 
Battle should sharpen Kerry on trade
   Democratic front runner Sen. John Kerry voted for NAFTA, U.S. entry into the World Trade Organization and China's admittance to the WTO. Regrettably, so did solid majorities in both houses of Congress.
   Those votes were cast before such large segments of U.S. manufacturing had been gutted and before all U.S. workers had been locked into a race to the bottom with infinite supplies of the world's cheapest labor in populous Third World countries, plus others brought in as job-taking "guest" workers.
   The NAFTA and WTO treaty votes were also cast before John Edwards became a senator. Edwards did vote to admit China to the WTO. Now, reportedly, Edwards is going to emphasize trade and Kerry's past support of our ruinous free-trade treaties as the two battle it out in the Upper Midwest.
   It's a fair charge Kerry will have to defend against across a horribly damaged economic landscape. He'll need to be nimble, quick and clear. If Kerry's as smart as we think he is, he'll go all out to convince Democrats and many independents he's a born-again trade reformer who's all about taking names, kicking butts and slamming doors shut on the uncooperative.
   Indications that he probably gets this exists on Kerry's campaign Web site, which includes the following positions on trade.
   These Kerry positions on trade are encouraging, as far as they go, but could and should be tougher. All the better if competition with Edwards bids up their tone and substance — and Kerry's expressed resolve to make them U.S. policy and make them stick.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:52 AM

 
Costs of mismanagement add up
   Announced layoffs hit 117,556 in January, while the Labor Department's four-week moving average of new state unemployment claims was running at 345,250, jumping to 356,000 last week — up 17,000 from the previous week.
   Meanwhile, fourth-quarter productivity was 2.7 percent, indicating that even after several years of steady, substantial gains, employers continue to find ways to wring more work from the same or fewer workers.
   Implicit in the continuation of that trend is a lack of both need and willingness for companies to step up hiring.
The overall 2003 productivity increase was 4.2 percent.
   Not surprisingly, unit labor costs fell 1.3 percent at the same time corporate profits were rising. For more, click here.
   The layoff number represents a compilation of media announcements by the employment firm of Challenger Gray & Christmas and may vary from the actual number let go. The Labor Department is to release fresh employment statistics tomorrow.

   At every step of enacting, enlarging and embellishing the most incompetent and regressive economic policy in U.S. history, ballooning the budget deficit to a record $520 billion while doing nothing about a 2003 trade deficit of about the same size, President Bush has clinched his place in history. He's the best friend the fat cats ever had in the White House — and an unremitting curse on all the rest of us.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:43 PM