Wednesday, October 16, 2002
BACK ON MONDAY
The Daily Diatribe is up early today because I'm going to Indianapolis. Will resume blogging on Monday. See you then.
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: REGISTER OPPOSITION TO WAR IS GETTING SILLY
You know the Des Moines Register’s position against the war on Iraq is getting desperate when it resorts to quoting West Virginia’s biggest industry:
Robert C. Byrd, the U.S. senator from West Virginia, summoned the words of the Roman historian Livy to denounce as "blind and improvident" the rush to war with Iraq, "for as sure as the sun is rising in the east, we are embarking on a course of action with regard to Iraq that in its haste is both blind and improvident."
There was just one problem with Byrd's theatrics: He was speaking to a nearly empty Senate chamber.
Actually, there was a second problem with Byrd’s theatrics. They are the standard fare from a blathering, pompous ass. But the Register editorialists aren’t too concerned about quoting the wrong end of a horse; what they’re really concerned about is that they’ve lost the debate:
Later, the Senate ignored Byrd's call for caution and voted 95-1 to proceed with debate on a resolution giving President Bush authority to go to war with Iraq. Indeed, any thought of taking the time to carefully consider the case for war was crushed earlier this week when House leaders agreed on an Iraq war resolution.
Just like that, the debate was over.
It shouldn't be over, though.
How can the Register seriously suggest that there has not been enough debate on the war against Iraq? This nation has been debating it since President Bush uttered the words "axis of evil." Check the blogospehre. Check the words of many member of Congress since mid-summer. Check the editorial pages of countless newspapers. Even check the opinion page of the Des Moines Register. There has been no shortage of debate.
The time for debate is over. It is now time for action. The longer we debate, the longer we delay the war. And that is exactly why the Register wants to keep debating.
It’s not the only delaying tactic they are trying:
Saddam Hussein presents an obvious threat, but it's the same threat that has existed since the Gulf War ended, and it is not clear the only solution is unilateral action by U.S. armed forces.
The same threat? Well, let's see here. Since the end of the Gulf War, Saddam has kicked out the weapons inspectors, re-built his chemical and biological weapons capabilities, and is much closer to having nuclear capabilities. Perhaps it depends on what the meaning of the word "same" is.
As for it being not clear that unilateral action by U.S. armed forces is the only solution: First, it isn't going to be unilateral. Britain and Australia will likely lend troops, and a host of other countries are lending other types of support. Second, what other action would the Register have us take? U.N. weapons inspections? Looks like they'll have lots of success with that.
Further delaying:
The proposed resolution does not spell out the reasons why the United States of America ought to attack Iraq.
Who says that it has to? The speeches by President Bush have more than made the case. Read those if you need to understand why the U.S. should attack Iraq.
More recently, the Register had this editorial, post passage of the Iraqi resolution. They throw out this rhetorical question:
Is this war really necessary?
And, of course, more delaying tactics:
The potential for a war raises a whole new set of questions, including the complex problem of what to do about post-war governance in Iraq. Then there is the likelihood of a U.S. military invasion of Iraq causing further instability in the Middle East and spawning new generations of anti-American terrorist groups.
The president has an obligation to fully answer those questions. The president also has an obligation to pursue every reasonable alternative to war. He has made it clear he believes Saddam poses a threat to U.S. national security, but it's not clear that this threat is imminent, that waging war is the only way it can be neutralized or that a war would not make matters worse in the long run.
One must wonder how the Register defines " every reasonable alternative." Probably broad enough that Bush could never exhaust every one of them. And of course, Bush must also answer every last single objection to the war. In other words, talk, talk, talk. Delay going to war.
Sorry, Des Moines Register, but the U.S. has had its debate. The Congress has now voted and approved the resolution by overwhelming margins. Unless Hussein steps down in the near future, and that is about as likely as the Register editorialists supporting the war, it is up to America to remove him.
. . .
SORRY STATE OF IOWA SENATE RACE?
There are two recent articles at the American Prowler that touch on senate races around the country. The first one touches on John Sununu's race, with an RNC staffer saying which states the GOP needs to focus on in addition to New Hampshire. The second one goes into more depth about senate races generally and lists all the campaign stops Bush will be making in the next three weeks. Guess which state isn't mentioned in either of those articles?
. . .
SADDAM WINS REELECTION
Saddam wins 100 percent of the vote.
Well, look at the bright side. At least they didn't have any problem with hanging chads.
. . .
THE BALI MASSACRE
If you have not visited Tim Blair’s blog in the wake of the Bali Massacre, do so. Here are some posts on the typical left-wing knee-jerk response about how the bombings are all our fault. Then there is this post. It is heart rending.
. . .
A GOOD EDITORIAL ON PRESCRIPTION DRUGS
Another editorial in the Des Moines Register I agree with! Am I getting soft? Well, it’s not official yet.
Anyway, I particularly like the final three paragraphs:
In creating Medicare, this country made a health-care commitment to seniors. But politicians don't mention the cost of instituting a drug benefit. No one mentions the billions that will be spent from general revenues to cover the benefit or the possibility of an increase in payroll tax for working Americans. These details don't go over well with voters.
But perhaps many seniors do care about the huge expense of instituting a drug plan in Medicare. Perhaps these voters see their own children and grandchildren struggle to secure health-care coverage or pay the increasing premiums each year. Perhaps many seniors want to know if the proposed legislation will be a financial burden on the next generation.
It's a question that's being glossed over by nearly all the candidates who say they favor prescription-drug coverage for seniors. They need to be candid about which taxes are going to be raised or how much the coverage will add to the federal deficit.
. . .
BOSWELL AND THOMPSON SQUARE OFF
After weeks of ducking debates, Leonard Boswell finally debated Stan Thompson Monday night. In the debate Thompson hit Boswell over his vote against Trade Promotion Authority. That’s no small matter, as free trade has been beneficial to the Iowa economy.
Boswell probably still leads in this race (a recent poll had it 52-37% in Boswell’s favor), but it will likely tighten in the last two weeks. Will it be enough to give Thompson an upset? It’s possible, but I think the odds are against it right now.
. . .
DURHAM OPPOSES ENGLISH ONLY LAW
Not quite sure what to make of this story in the Des Moines Register. Is this an attempt by the Gross campaign to appear more moderate? Or just the Iowa media hyping an issue that’s pretty well dead? My guess is it’s more the former. The Gross campaign is far too careful to let something like this slip.
. . .
Tuesday, October 15, 2002
DAILY DIATRIBE: WHY DOES HARKIN NEED A CAMPAIGN STAFF WHEN HE HAS OBRADOVICH?
Kathie Obradovich, the reporter for the Quad City Times who handed the transcript of the Ganske meeting to the Ganske campaign, had this column recently on the scandal. She gets very defensive in one passage. She begins:
Anyone who’s been reading the paper the past few days probably knows that I was the reporter who agreed to look over the transcript and tape of the meeting and promised not to disclose the names of the sources who provided it.
Although, ironically, in this story about the Saverygate, she referred to herself in the third person.
Next:
I did so believing that someone attending the Ganske meeting decided to tape it, as I still believe anyone participating in such a meeting had a right to do.
I don’t like using unidentified sources and our newspapers very rarely allow it. I chose to hold on to the information for several days and use it in a column rather than a news story, in part for that reason.It’s an unfortunate fact, however, that many of the people in politics and government, who have information that is in the public’s interest, are unwilling to come forward publicly, for a variety of reasons.
So let me get this straight. It was okay for Brian Conley to secretly tape the meeting. She has no qualms about that. But she does have qualms about using unidentified—i.e. secret—sources. In other words, in Obradovich’s worldview it is okay for “Person A” to keep meeting participants unaware that he is taping them; but if Person A then wants to release a transcript of the tape to the media but wants to keep the public “unaware” of his identity, that just about crosses a moral line.
Is it just me, or is Obradovich’s inconsistent reasoning brought on by pangs of guilt over causing the Harkin campaign so much trouble? Well, let’s continue:
When I accepted the information, I assumed it would be up to my editors and me to decide whether to make it public. I figured that I would have time to verify the information through other people to make my confidential sources unnecessary.I decided to fax the transcript to Ann Warren at the Ganske campaign to see whether it was even a genuine account of the meeting and what the campaign had to say about it.
The Ganske campaign almost immediately released a statement accusing the Harkin campaign of “sinking to a new low” of campaign dirty tricks. Despite their howls that they are “victims,” they didn’t seem to mind that the transcript was made public: Ganske campaign staff spent the weekend shopping the story to reporters around the state.
That’s because the issue wasn’t what was on the transcript. It was the surreptitious taping of the meeting, and the Harkin campaign’s involvement in it. Typical of the liberal press: spinning wrongdoing by a Democrat so it looks at least as bad for the Republican. I wonder if Obradovich is Hesiod Theogony?
The real victims here are the voters. It’s been a fascinating political story, but ultimately of very little value to people trying to choose the best candidate. While the media and the politicians are busy focusing on shenanigans, nobody’s trying to help Iowans understand the issues and how the candidates differ.
The secret taping is not an "issue"? By whose definition? Obradovich seems to realize that she is on thin ice here, and so backtracks in the next sentence:
Voters may decide the incident will tell them something about the candidates’ character and trustworthiness.
But then it’s back to spinning it so it looks at least bad for the GOP:
I would suggest that neither candidate has earned much confidence in this episode.
The Harkin campaign has been engaging in gotcha politics all along by taping Ganske’s public meetings and then trying to hang him with his own words. It’s a very short leap to sending someone with a tape recorder into a closed-door session.
The Ganske campaign has tried to cultivate an air of being above bitter, partisan politics. Yet it has eagerly embraced the practice of politics by prosecution, turning to the police to make the case rather than trying to make their own case to voters.
Right. Had Ganske delayed going to the cops, the media would have been all over him, asking why he hadn’t handed it over to the authorities. Damned if Ganske does, damned if he doesn’t.
Not that Ganske is doing much with Saverygate. Last Thursday, the Omaha World-Herald had this editorial which began:
Tapegate (silly name, silly situation) is over; Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin and his GOP challenger, Greg Ganske, have wasted enough of the voters' time with it. Return to the issues, gentlemen.
(Geitner, I’m going to have to smack you again. That’s twice in one day young man!)
Apparently, Ganske is taking their advice. In the third and last debate between himself and Harkin, Ganske stated:
We've got a lot -- we only have about fifteen minutes left in this debate. Let's move on and talk about some of these other issues.
Since Ganske is a moderate Republican, some in the GOP claim he is out of the mainstream of the party. That’s debatable. But he clearly has one major thing in common with most Republicans. When a Democrat hands him a gift, he has no idea what to do with it.
. . .
MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT WAR
Jay Caruso sets us straight on the war against Iraq. Well done. Go read it.
. . .
FOR SOME IT’S STILL 2000
More evidence, as if you needed any, that, for some, 2000 is the election that never ends:
While Gore didn't shed much light on whether he'll run for president again - he said he'll decide by the end of the year - the Democrat made it clear he considers this fall's elections something of a referendum on how Americans felt about the history-making election of 2000.
"I want to ask you to remember for a moment how you felt two years ago when you first got the news the Supreme Court had stopped the counting of votes in Florida," Gore asked about 400 students who packed the Cornell College commons Monday afternoon in Mount Vernon.
"Do you remember what you felt?" he asked, receiving a loud and boisterous response. "Are you over it?"
Methinks that last question was rhetorical.
. . .
THE TIDE MAY BE TURNING IN THE GOVERNOR’S RACE
The Blue Bird (school bus) factory in Mt. Pleasant, Iowa has announced that it will close down next year. It’s not playing well for Governor Tom Vilsack:
Vilsack's Republican opponent, Doug Gross, said during a televised debate Saturday that Vilsack missed an opportunity to fight for Iowa jobs because he was "too busy." Said Gross, a Des Moines lawyer: "We expect a governor in Iowa to fight every fight. They may not win every fight, but they should fight every fight."
Vilsack’s excuse?
Vilsack, a Democrat seeking a second term in the Nov. 5 election, contends he went the extra mile to save the Mount Pleasant jobs. Notified of the Iowa delegation's concerns after its trip, Vilsack said he called the company's chief executive, Richard Maddox, and offered to meet with him. The governor said he was assured that a plant shutdown wasn't being considered, just the chassis expansion that Georgia officials were competing for.
"In retrospect, it looks as if I wasn't getting the straight scoop from Mr. Maddox, but I don't know if that was the case," Vilsack said in an interview Monday.
Nice try, Governor. But if the mere talk of a plant shutdown didn’t set off alarm bells in your head, your performance was incompetent.
Oh, and one other thing: Vilsack is former Mayor of Mt. Pleasant.
. . .
IOWA CONGRESSIONAL RACES
David Yepsen has a good column this morning. The Latham-Norris race appears to be tightening, but it may be too little, too late for Norris. Also, Yepsen notes that the Omaha World-Herald endorsed Democrat Paul Shomshor over Republican Steve King for Iowa’s 5th District. Geitner, I’m going to have to smack you.
. . .
GUESS WHAT'S NEXT?
This editorial in the Des Moines Register laments the world American children are now growing up in in the wake of the Virginia sniper. Any bets this is a lead-in to using the sniper incident to promote more gun control?
. . .
Monday, October 14, 2002
YAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Giants win the pennant! Giants win the pennant! Giants win the pennant!
World Series here we come!!!! YEAH BABY!!!!!
. . .
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THAT FLAG AMENDMENT?
This has been floating around the internet. Go visit Media Minded.
. . .
MATT WHITAKER AND THAT OTHER GUY
A good article on the race for State Treasurer in Iowa.
. . .
IS THAT YOUR BOAT IN MY LIVING ROOM?
How does a boat crash into an apartment? See this article in the Daily Nonpareil.
. . .
WHY WAR WITH IRAQ
Bill Quick was nice enough to linke my Sontag Award nominee earlier today. While visiting his site, I found this very persuasive column about why the U.S. should invade Iraq. His explanation of why Iraq is the "linchpin" in the Middle East is par excellence.
. . .
OH, YIPPEEEE!
Thanks for coming Al. Now go home.
. . .
THE IRAQI ELECTION?
I really can't describe this. Just go to Croooow Blog, then follow the link to CNN.
. . .
TALENT LEADING?
A new poll has Jim Talent leading Senator Jean Carnahan in the Missouri Senate race, 47%-41%. That is a big turn around from last month when Carnahan led 48-40%. The only reason I'm not more suspicious of it is that it was done by John Zogby, who is a rather careful pollster. Thanks to Croooow Blog.
. . .
A GOOD PIECE ON THE PROTESTORS
A good article in the anti-war protestors at the Washington Post. I particularly like this line:
In the Bay Area, bastion of the most liberal Democrats in the country, speaking out against unilateral action on Iraq is like preaching the dangers of binge drinking at an Alcoholics Anonymous convention.
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: WILL IRAQ VOTE HELP JIM LEACH?
Thanks to John Ferguson for emailing this New York Times article about the effect that Jim Leach’s vote on the Iraq resolution is having on the campaign for Iowa’s 2nd District. The Times article portrays the vote as a political winner for Leach:
Jim Leach's decision to oppose President Bush on Iraq looks very different here in Iowa's Second District. Calls and e-mail messages to his Congressional offices are running overwhelmingly in support of his stance. Contributions are coming into his campaign headquarters with handwritten notes, thanking him for his vote. Letters to the editor at The Cedar Rapids Gazette are running eight to one against a unilateral strike on Iraq.
Far from hurting him, many Democrats say, Mr. Leach's vote — one of just six Republican votes against the president in the House — has almost certainly helped him in his race against Dr. Julie Thomas, a Cedar Rapids pediatrician.
Even Chuck Larson, chairman of the Iowa GOP, seems to think the Leach’s vote was a good one for his campaign:
Lest anyone miss the point, Chuck Larson Jr., the state Republican chairman, said of Mr. Leach's vote: "He's very independent. He represents his district very well."
I have my doubts. While the district is heavily Democratic—about 58%—there is also a fairly committed GOP core in District 2. One of my colleagues, a life-long conservative Republican, had been wavering on Leach. The vote last week on Iraq sealed the deal; my colleague will leave the line for Representative blank on the ballot. Leach had better hope my collaegue is an isolated voter. In a district like this, Leach can ill-afford to upset the GOP base. His Iraq vote may have just done it.
Leach will also need plenty of Democrat cross-over votes to win. It seems doubtful that his Iraq vote will attract the more moderate to conservative Democrats that Leach needs to get. Moderate to conservative Democrats have been willing to support President Bush on the war. If Leach now opposes the war, he is not giving such Democrats any reason to vote against his opponent, Dr. Julie Thomas.
What about all the anti-war folks who can scarcely contain themselves over Leach’s vote? If you think that they will pull the lever for a Republican, even a moderate like Leach, then your skull is dense enough to block gamma rays. To see what I mean, take a look at the last few paragraphs of the Times article:
What is clear is that in Iowa's Second District, particularly in the university community of Iowa City, the antiwar position gets a respectful hearing. On Wednesday night, an antiwar rally in College Green Park in downtown Iowa City drew a few hundred people, chanting, "One, two, three, four, we don't need another war" in the last light of a glorious autumn day. It was a group that spanned the generations — many of the college-age demonstrators did not know the words to such antiwar standards as "Where Have All the Flowers Gone?" — and it was in a solemn mood.
Mr. Leach's office had sent a copy of his speech on Iraq, and one of the organizers read excerpts; there were cheers at his conclusion, "This is a precipice we should step back from." Dr. Thomas addressed the rally in person, promising, "I will do everything in my power to prevent this from being another Vietnam." There were many more speakers, and people stayed to hear them into the gathering night.
I’d bet that if anyone had asked the assembled crowd "How many of you plan on voting for Jim Leach?" not a single hand would have gone up. The anti-war left is not going to vote for the GOP candidate, regardless of his vote on the Iraq resolution.
Thus, whether Leach’s vote will work to his political advantage is tenuous. It might make him the darling of the New York Times. But the reporters who work for the Gray Lady don’t vote in Iowa.
. . .
SONTAG AWARD NOMINEE
Here is a nominee for the Susan Sontag Award. (Apologies to Andrew Sullivan.) Click here, and scroll down to the third letter to the editor. Bruce K. Martin states:
Since 1945, the Germans have largely repudiated their militaristic ways and have become fearful even of overusing their national symbols. During the same period, though, the United States has become increasingly bent on alone possessing the most efficient weapons of death, on meddling in the affairs of other nations for our own selfish gain and on ignoring our obligations under international agreements and basic human compassion.
Our nation may well be on its way toward being as feared and reviled in the 21st century as Germany was for much of the 20th. If so, how ironic, how unnecessary and how frightening for our future generations.
. . .
CONSOLIDATE IOWA GOVERNMENT
My God, another Des Moines Register editorial I agree with. I swear I’m growing soft.
. . .
LET’S GET HYSTERICAL
Look at this first paragraph in this Register editorial:
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee is charged with the important responsibility of making recommendations for the approval of drugs. So the Bush administration's plan to appoint Dr. W. David Hager to head that committee is frightening.
What’s so "frightening" about Dr. Hager?
Hager, along with his wife, authored a book titled "Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now." Recommendations in the text include reading the Bible and praying to alleviate symptoms of premenstrual syndrome. He also has said safe sex can only be found "within marriage."
10 to 1 says that the bit about praying to alleviate PMS is distorted. But what is so bad about saying that "safe sex can only be found ‘within marriage.’"? A monogamous relationship—which I assume is what Dr. Hager means by "marriage"—is the only method that ensures one does not get a sexually transmitted disease. Condoms? They fail on occasion.
Perhaps Dr. Hager should have just promoted abstinence instead. Nah. The Register still would have tarred him as an extremist.
. . .
|
. . .
|
