The Fulcrum
Friday, January 30, 2004
Friday Dog Blog
If you've seen any national weather lately, you know that here in upstate New York we've gotten pounded lately with snow. A town I regularly drive through on the way to my in-laws got over 70 inches since Wednesday. We didn't get quite that much, but so far in January, we've gotten nearly 50 inches.
So for this Friday's edition of dog blogging on The Fulcrum here's yours truly and Baylea enjoying what we've got the most of... snow.
So for this Friday's edition of dog blogging on The Fulcrum here's yours truly and Baylea enjoying what we've got the most of... snow.
Dean's Dollar Doldrums?
There seems to be a mix of hope and despair among those supporting Dr. Dean for the Democratic nomination. Hope: that he will be able to continue to bring his message of change and to inspire the intense grass-roots devotion that has brought him this far. Despair: that he will have enough money to do so.
From the comments of an earlier post, Steven Bates, The Yellow Doggerel Democrat had this to say:
Unfortunately, money plays such a huge part in just staying in the game, much less actually crossing the finish line. But that's the subject of an entirely different post.
I'm with Steve on this one; "I'm hoping for a miracle, and I'm with Dean to the end..."
From the comments of an earlier post, Steven Bates, The Yellow Doggerel Democrat had this to say:
Sorry to spoil the fun, but if Dean is truly out of money, it may well be all over, whatever the delegate count.Yesterday I heard - and I can't remember where - that all of the people who had given to Dr. Dean couldn't afford "another $75." I think, no, I hope that particular talking head was underestimating the depth of support for Dean and the depth of their pockets. And there are likely still people out there who saw that Dean's fund raising was going so well that they didn't give the first time around.
Dean's money was, to all evidence, raised in a virtuous way, compared not only to other Dem candidates (though Kucinich also took the small-donations route) but to every candidate in recent prior presidential elections. But there's no getting around the fact that campaigns run on money. I'm hoping for a miracle, and I'm with Dean to the end (election or withdrawal), but I'm afraid it may take a miracle.
Unfortunately, money plays such a huge part in just staying in the game, much less actually crossing the finish line. But that's the subject of an entirely different post.
I'm with Steve on this one; "I'm hoping for a miracle, and I'm with Dean to the end..."
Thursday, January 29, 2004
Thanks for the Memories...
Via Rubber Hose, comes this video.
It is simple. It is powerful.
Whoever gets the Democratic nomination should purchase this video and run it as a commercial 24/7 for the duration of the campaign. Or maybe George Soros should do so.
Now there's an idea...
It is simple. It is powerful.
Whoever gets the Democratic nomination should purchase this video and run it as a commercial 24/7 for the duration of the campaign. Or maybe George Soros should do so.
Now there's an idea...
Trippi to Neel Before Dean
Joe Trippi's out in the Dean campaign. Roy Neel is in.
I heard this last night and haven't been able to figure out whether this is a good thing or not. Whether it's a smart move or a sign of desperation.
Neel was appointed to Al Gore's transition team when Gore was the presumptive - and actual - winner of the 2000 election and had pledged to join Dr. Dean's campaign after his ex-boss threw his support behind Dean.
Trippi did an excellent job propelling Dr. Dean to the forefront and to the front-runner position before the Iowa Caucuses. It remains to Roy Neel to bring him back to the front. He has his work cut out for him - I really hope he's up for the task.
By the way; still no mention in the press - anywhere - that Dean remains in the lead by delegate count.
I heard this last night and haven't been able to figure out whether this is a good thing or not. Whether it's a smart move or a sign of desperation.
Neel was appointed to Al Gore's transition team when Gore was the presumptive - and actual - winner of the 2000 election and had pledged to join Dr. Dean's campaign after his ex-boss threw his support behind Dean.
Trippi did an excellent job propelling Dr. Dean to the forefront and to the front-runner position before the Iowa Caucuses. It remains to Roy Neel to bring him back to the front. He has his work cut out for him - I really hope he's up for the task.
By the way; still no mention in the press - anywhere - that Dean remains in the lead by delegate count.
Shorter Condi: "Screw the American people."
There was part of an interview on Good Morning America today; Diane Sawyer was speaking with Condoleeza Rice about the David Kay testimony before Congress. She straight out asked Condi if Kay's assertions are found to be correct, would the President or someone in the administration admit to the people that they were wrong in asserting that Iraq had massive quantities of WMD that were a gathering/imminent threat to the US. Condi went off on the usual BushCo tangent about the world being a safer place without Saddam.
Much to my surprise - I almost choked on my breakfast - Diane actually followed up and repeated the question, almost forcefully. "Would the administration admit that it was wrong?"
No surprise that Condi evaded the question again. But it was very clear that the question had not been answered.
What was even more clear to me - and I hope it was as clear to everyone else watching - is that BushCo are not even trying to care what we might think about their misadventure in Iraq or the deceptions that lead up to it. They are playing their usual game of bluster and misdirection in the hope that the issue will fade away into the next crisis or the next Michael Jackson revelation. The difference this time is that a reporter actually called one of them on the misdirection.
A follow up question! What's next, some real reporting?
Much to my surprise - I almost choked on my breakfast - Diane actually followed up and repeated the question, almost forcefully. "Would the administration admit that it was wrong?"
No surprise that Condi evaded the question again. But it was very clear that the question had not been answered.
What was even more clear to me - and I hope it was as clear to everyone else watching - is that BushCo are not even trying to care what we might think about their misadventure in Iraq or the deceptions that lead up to it. They are playing their usual game of bluster and misdirection in the hope that the issue will fade away into the next crisis or the next Michael Jackson revelation. The difference this time is that a reporter actually called one of them on the misdirection.
A follow up question! What's next, some real reporting?
Wednesday, January 28, 2004
I'll See Your $477 Billion and Raise You $23 Billion!
The Congressional Budget Office estimated the 2004 budget deficit to be a record breaking $477 billion. Record breaking, budget breaking and back breaking for all those middle class people (like me!) who are forced to carry the tax burden and for our children and grandchildren whose economies will be burdened with paying off this debt.
Not wanting, apparently, to be outdone, the White House released its estimate: $500 billion - or more.
Here's an interesting take on it from the WSJ:
Not wanting, apparently, to be outdone, the White House released its estimate: $500 billion - or more.
Here's an interesting take on it from the WSJ:
The higher deficit estimate, to be reported in the president's 2005 budget request Monday, could give the White House political headaches in the short run, drawing further attention to the nose dive the government's finances have taken on President Bush's watch. But some analysts have suggested that the $500 billion estimate -- which White House officials have floated periodically since last summer -- could actually help Mr. Bush's cause if the fiscal year ends Sept. 30 with a deficit that is less than $500 billion. That could help Mr. Bush persuade voters that his policies have begun to turn around the deficit problem.Turning around the deficit problem. Right.
Playing With Air Safety
BushCo is continuing its policy of promise now to pay later - but only after we're safely gone. This time however it's not a Mars mission or AIDS assistance or even our children's' education. This time it's air safety. You know, one of those things that aWol specifically promised to fix even before September 11, 2001. From this morning's Wall Street Journal:
So, there's the cut, the part you knew was coming. Where's the promise?
There's the now-classic set up. We're going to do something so wonderful - just you wait and see! But it won't be finished for quite a while. Sure we'll be long gone, but you'll have a nice, shiny new [insert promise here]. Then, under the cover of the latest announcement or emergency, they cut funding for their brand new whatever. They've gotten quite good at it. But they've done it so often, you'd think the public would have caught on by now.
What? A new mission to Mars? Wow...
Now, what was I saying?
The Bush administration plans to propose a 16% cut in spending on air-traffic-control equipment and facilities, saving nearly half a billion dollars a year but postponing or scaling back projects aimed at making air travel more efficient.Don't be fooled by the word "efficient." When it comes to air traffic control, that means SAFETY. Efficiency in air traffic control means that planes don't have to be stacked up quite so closely when queued up for landing or takeoff. That gives controllers and pilots more time to react should something out of the ordinary happen.
So, there's the cut, the part you knew was coming. Where's the promise?
Speaking Tuesday to an aviation-industry group, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta made no mention of the budget plan but said the administration is working to triple the capacity of the nation's aviation system over the next 15 to 20 years.
There's the now-classic set up. We're going to do something so wonderful - just you wait and see! But it won't be finished for quite a while. Sure we'll be long gone, but you'll have a nice, shiny new [insert promise here]. Then, under the cover of the latest announcement or emergency, they cut funding for their brand new whatever. They've gotten quite good at it. But they've done it so often, you'd think the public would have caught on by now.
What? A new mission to Mars? Wow...
Now, what was I saying?
Tuesday, January 27, 2004
Hey, Big Spender...
"Tax and Spend." We all know that when someone uses that phrase, they are usually talking about Democrats.
Not any more. The chart below, comes from an article in the Wall Street Journal (subscription required) and shows just why some "paleo-conservatives" are not too happy with BushCo. It also puts to rest that damned quote above - at least as far as it applies to Democrats.
Here's the arch-conservative WSJ on the matter of Shrubby's spending spree:
So, does all this mean that the so-called paleo-conservatives will vote for the Democratic nominee? Probably not. But it might mean that some of them will vote for somebody other than Shrubby; some independent. And that could be enough for the Democrat to clinch the election.
Not any more. The chart below, comes from an article in the Wall Street Journal (subscription required) and shows just why some "paleo-conservatives" are not too happy with BushCo. It also puts to rest that damned quote above - at least as far as it applies to Democrats.
Here's the arch-conservative WSJ on the matter of Shrubby's spending spree:
But if the gap between revenues and outlays is of small concern in any single year -- and especially during recession and war -- it does not follow that there should be no worry over rapidly rising levels of federal spending. The much delayed omnibus appropriations bill for 2004, scheduled for a vote in the Senate this afternoon, looks set to cap the first term of the most profligate Administration since the 1960s.
[snip]
GOP leaders would have us believe this all adds up to one of the leanest spending plans in years -- an increase in federal discretionary spending of only 3%, compared with 13% and 12% in each of the previous two years. But Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation points out that it's really more like a 9% increase, and that's assuming there will be no supplemental appropriations as in previous years.
The 3% vs. 9% discrepancy results from the difference between budget authority and actual outlays. The increase in budget authority looks smaller only because a lot of money that will actually be spent in 2004 was assigned to 2003. That's true most importantly of the Iraq war supplemental. But the drive for the appearance of fiscal sanity has also reduced our representatives to gimmicks such as moving the authority for $2.2 billion in education spending back into 2003, after previously voting to push it forward to 2004. When corporations tried accounting like this, Congress gave us Sarbanes-Oxley.
[snip]
Amazing as it may sound, the ostensibly small-government GOP seems totally oblivious to the fact that all this spending puts its future economic agenda in jeopardy. Appropriations do mean taxes after all, even if they're deferred taxes.
All emphasis is mine.
So, does all this mean that the so-called paleo-conservatives will vote for the Democratic nominee? Probably not. But it might mean that some of them will vote for somebody other than Shrubby; some independent. And that could be enough for the Democrat to clinch the election.
Early Voting, Early Polling, Early Results
No, you won't find minute-by-minute updates on the New Hampshire primary here. But you will find this short rant about early exit poll results and early reporting.
I know that the networks have to fill up the morning news. I know that elections are now seen as part entertainment part spectacle. I also know that complaining about early reporting of results is a quadrennial sport - much like the Olympics.
But really.
The talking heads were all reporting exit poll results - and apparently real district results - after two small New Hampshire townships voted just after midnight. I won't repeat the results here; that shouldn't be done, in my opinion, until after all the results for the state are in. Honestly, can such reporting do anything but spoil the process? Anything that could potentially discourage voters from going to the polls is a bad thing. I think early reporting can do just that.
However, one thing you can count on from our friendly neighborhood media whores, is that they will bring you the circus for as long as they think you'll watch.
I know that the networks have to fill up the morning news. I know that elections are now seen as part entertainment part spectacle. I also know that complaining about early reporting of results is a quadrennial sport - much like the Olympics.
But really.
The talking heads were all reporting exit poll results - and apparently real district results - after two small New Hampshire townships voted just after midnight. I won't repeat the results here; that shouldn't be done, in my opinion, until after all the results for the state are in. Honestly, can such reporting do anything but spoil the process? Anything that could potentially discourage voters from going to the polls is a bad thing. I think early reporting can do just that.
However, one thing you can count on from our friendly neighborhood media whores, is that they will bring you the circus for as long as they think you'll watch.
