Saturday, February 14, 2004
Burning the president
The Bush campaign has fired the opening salvo in the 2004 election--an ad that they claim responds to all of the harsh things that John Kerry has said about the President.
The ad opens with a woman reading from The Washington Post that claims that Kerry has received more special interest money than any other senator.
According to Factcheck, the ad, and its claims, are completely false.
Among the points in which the ad is false:
* The Post does not say he took more special interest money but rather more money from paid lobbyist--Kerry does not take PAC money, which is controlled by lobbyists and results in more giving. If you look at who took the most in PAC money, other senators took more money than Kerry.
* Bush has taken in more money from special interests than Kerry--even getting more from Hollywood.
* Part of the Post story not used in the ad says: "All the presidential candidates take money from special interests. . . . And Bush has far outpaced them all."
The presence of Factcheck could add an interesting twist to this election year. Clearly the site is providing a service that the media should be providing, but doesn't. As the trend has continued since the 1980s, voters are far more likely to get their information from a paid political ad than from the news. Candidates now have the advantage in informing the public, and in so doing have no incentive that the average voter gets a balanced look at the candidates and their positions. Those candidates that have the money to fund the best and most ads are going to be those that do the best.
This will be the interesting question in this race: will the media report on the findings from organizations like Factcheck? Last night most news stations broadcast the ad and Kerry's response, as well as where you could find the ad, but made no comment about the truthfulness of the ad itself. At the end of the election season it will be be worthwhile to know the role Factcheck played.
The larger question is: if the media does not have the incentive to do this work for us, do they have a constitutional obligation to point us to the type of independent organizations that will?
|
The ad opens with a woman reading from The Washington Post that claims that Kerry has received more special interest money than any other senator.
According to Factcheck, the ad, and its claims, are completely false.
Among the points in which the ad is false:
* The Post does not say he took more special interest money but rather more money from paid lobbyist--Kerry does not take PAC money, which is controlled by lobbyists and results in more giving. If you look at who took the most in PAC money, other senators took more money than Kerry.
* Bush has taken in more money from special interests than Kerry--even getting more from Hollywood.
* Part of the Post story not used in the ad says: "All the presidential candidates take money from special interests. . . . And Bush has far outpaced them all."
The presence of Factcheck could add an interesting twist to this election year. Clearly the site is providing a service that the media should be providing, but doesn't. As the trend has continued since the 1980s, voters are far more likely to get their information from a paid political ad than from the news. Candidates now have the advantage in informing the public, and in so doing have no incentive that the average voter gets a balanced look at the candidates and their positions. Those candidates that have the money to fund the best and most ads are going to be those that do the best.
This will be the interesting question in this race: will the media report on the findings from organizations like Factcheck? Last night most news stations broadcast the ad and Kerry's response, as well as where you could find the ad, but made no comment about the truthfulness of the ad itself. At the end of the election season it will be be worthwhile to know the role Factcheck played.
The larger question is: if the media does not have the incentive to do this work for us, do they have a constitutional obligation to point us to the type of independent organizations that will?
Friday, February 13, 2004
More Echo Chamber
The Drudge Report has been peddling a story that claims that John Kerry had an affair with a "young intern" a couple of years ago, then whisked her to Africa to keep her from being an election year liability.
Drudge, who has a weird fascination with Senator Kerry, claims an "implosion" in the Kerry campaign , backs up his charge by pointing to Howard Dean's sudden decision not to drop out of the race if he loses Wisconsin.
The question has been, who leaked this story? One suggestion is Chris Lehane, a former Kerry campaign worker who was fired and subsequently went to work for Clark. Lehane, who also worked on Gore's 2000 Presidential election team, is a no-holds barred strategist, but also someone who makes a living working for Democratic campaigns, would not be a likely candidate to wreck his future on a personal vendetta. And Clark immediately announced he would support Kerry in his bid for the nomination.
I think that the source for the leak is obvious, don't you? First, is it coincidental that Drudge leaks this story, and this picture also circulates, as Bush's popularity has plummeted and his military record has come into question?
Second, is it any coincidence that Rush and The Wall Street Journal immediately pounces on the story?
Third, check out the chronology of the story and count how many papers are owned by Rupert Murdoch.
So far, a Nexis search has shown no legitimate media outlets to have mentioned the story, even Fox News. That is because the fear of a libel suit, coupled with an embarrassing retraction, is keeping them sidelined for the moment. Instead, the howlers on the right will continue to kick up the dust in an effort to find something that will stick.
|
Drudge, who has a weird fascination with Senator Kerry, claims an "implosion" in the Kerry campaign , backs up his charge by pointing to Howard Dean's sudden decision not to drop out of the race if he loses Wisconsin.
The question has been, who leaked this story? One suggestion is Chris Lehane, a former Kerry campaign worker who was fired and subsequently went to work for Clark. Lehane, who also worked on Gore's 2000 Presidential election team, is a no-holds barred strategist, but also someone who makes a living working for Democratic campaigns, would not be a likely candidate to wreck his future on a personal vendetta. And Clark immediately announced he would support Kerry in his bid for the nomination.
I think that the source for the leak is obvious, don't you? First, is it coincidental that Drudge leaks this story, and this picture also circulates, as Bush's popularity has plummeted and his military record has come into question?
Second, is it any coincidence that Rush and The Wall Street Journal immediately pounces on the story?
Third, check out the chronology of the story and count how many papers are owned by Rupert Murdoch.
So far, a Nexis search has shown no legitimate media outlets to have mentioned the story, even Fox News. That is because the fear of a libel suit, coupled with an embarrassing retraction, is keeping them sidelined for the moment. Instead, the howlers on the right will continue to kick up the dust in an effort to find something that will stick.
Thursday, February 12, 2004
Imminent Bologna
In a testament to how stupid this administration thinks we all are, read this exchange in a recent press briefing.
|
What's the buzz?
Here is a story I have been following since last month. HHS conducted a study that looked at disparities in health care in the United States. When the draft report was released, it found terrific disparities in care throughout the US (your best bet was to be white and wealthy). The final report, quite astonishingly, had most of these disparities removed to create a report that was far more upbeat. Fortunately House Dems were able to generate enough publicity that Secretary Thompson was forced to testify Tuesday that he was not happy with the change and the draft report was reinstated. Thompson did not answer, and the media is not asking, who ordered the report changed and why?
|
Downtime
Friends:
I had surgery on my right arm and will be posting intermittently until I get my sea legs back. Thanks for checking in
|
I had surgery on my right arm and will be posting intermittently until I get my sea legs back. Thanks for checking in
Monday, February 09, 2004
All sorts of things
In what looks like the 1948 Congress, this current Congress is set to go down as the "Do-Nothing" Congress for the 21st century. Careful not to allow Democrats any chance to foul up the 2004 Presidential and Congressional election, the House is set to be in seesion this year just 94 days! The Senate is set to be in session 120 days! As Thomas Mann says: "Frankly, I think they find little valuable in having more time in session." The aim of the Republicans is to control the agenda in order to give nothing damning that may be used against either the president or in district or state races in this election year. $200,000/yr for less than 100 days worth of work!
Speaking of damning material in an election year--did you see the president on Russert yesterday? Carolyn Smith, who writes on the importance of the presidential press conference, argues that the value in the press conference is that it gets the president away from groupthink and gives him a reality check, something this president clearly needs. In one moment yesterday, he said things were improving while he was moving his arms down, a demonstration of the opposite of what he was saying. And even worse, he went on the show and let loose some whoppers that have required his spin team to work in overdrive to clean up the mess. Take this one by our friends at the Annenberg school:
Yesterday, the president told Tim Russert that the growth of discretionary spending had slowed since he took office in January 2001, a claim that flies in the face of reality. In fact, discretionary spending has increased 16% over the last three years, well above the spending of the Clinton administration. What the President meant to say, according to his handlers, was that discretionary spending minus spending on the military and homeland security has shrunk since he has taken office, a claim that also turns out not to be true. Look for the president to have made himself available for the last time with any journalists. In the coming months, he will likely show up on Oprah or the Late Nights, or continue to give this public events where he is speaking to real Americans.
(I must say that Russert did much better than I credited him for, and I am glad that I was proven wrong. My guess to make up for it, he will destroy the next 10 Democrats who appear on his set)
And finally from my friends at OMB Watch, who complain that this budget was the largest gimmick of a budget to date--that the administration "attempts to minimize the size of the deficit without appearing to cut popular and important services." For example:
The budget only provides revenue and spending numbers for 2005-2009, even while – according to the Budget’s own numbers – 87 percent of the 10-year revenue costs of the proposals occur after 2009. Congress must look at the 10-year costs when passing legislation, so only presenting 5 years worth of budget numbers is inadequate.
Programmatic detail normally published in the budget was omitted, leaving Congress, journalists, and independent analysts leafing through a 999 page computer printout by the OMB.
The costs of rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan after Sept. 30 of this year are not included, nor are there any ongoing funds included “for the Defense Department’s participation on the global war on terrorism.”
Another huge cost is that the president dodges a long-term problem with the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) by proposing a fix for 2004 and 2005 only. The budget states, “long-term change is needed” (page 263, 2005 Budget, Analytical Perspectives.) A real fix to the problem would require adding billions to the deficit, which, presumably, is why a real fix is not included in the final totals.
There is a table on the cost of the president’s proposals, which only looks at the revenue costs, even though footnotes cite tens of billions in outlay costs as well (Table, S-9) Why not include all costs of proposed programs?
There are proposed changes to the budget “baseline” and Pay-As-You-Go (Pay-Go) rules that would enable tax cuts to be made permanent without properly accounting for their costs, and would allow additional corporate tax cuts to be passed at a lower threshold than spending for education, national parks, child nutrition, scientific research, Medicare benefits, or any other services. See [article on budget rules] for more details.
|
Speaking of damning material in an election year--did you see the president on Russert yesterday? Carolyn Smith, who writes on the importance of the presidential press conference, argues that the value in the press conference is that it gets the president away from groupthink and gives him a reality check, something this president clearly needs. In one moment yesterday, he said things were improving while he was moving his arms down, a demonstration of the opposite of what he was saying. And even worse, he went on the show and let loose some whoppers that have required his spin team to work in overdrive to clean up the mess. Take this one by our friends at the Annenberg school:
Yesterday, the president told Tim Russert that the growth of discretionary spending had slowed since he took office in January 2001, a claim that flies in the face of reality. In fact, discretionary spending has increased 16% over the last three years, well above the spending of the Clinton administration. What the President meant to say, according to his handlers, was that discretionary spending minus spending on the military and homeland security has shrunk since he has taken office, a claim that also turns out not to be true. Look for the president to have made himself available for the last time with any journalists. In the coming months, he will likely show up on Oprah or the Late Nights, or continue to give this public events where he is speaking to real Americans.
(I must say that Russert did much better than I credited him for, and I am glad that I was proven wrong. My guess to make up for it, he will destroy the next 10 Democrats who appear on his set)
And finally from my friends at OMB Watch, who complain that this budget was the largest gimmick of a budget to date--that the administration "attempts to minimize the size of the deficit without appearing to cut popular and important services." For example:
The budget only provides revenue and spending numbers for 2005-2009, even while – according to the Budget’s own numbers – 87 percent of the 10-year revenue costs of the proposals occur after 2009. Congress must look at the 10-year costs when passing legislation, so only presenting 5 years worth of budget numbers is inadequate.
Programmatic detail normally published in the budget was omitted, leaving Congress, journalists, and independent analysts leafing through a 999 page computer printout by the OMB.
The costs of rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan after Sept. 30 of this year are not included, nor are there any ongoing funds included “for the Defense Department’s participation on the global war on terrorism.”
Another huge cost is that the president dodges a long-term problem with the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) by proposing a fix for 2004 and 2005 only. The budget states, “long-term change is needed” (page 263, 2005 Budget, Analytical Perspectives.) A real fix to the problem would require adding billions to the deficit, which, presumably, is why a real fix is not included in the final totals.
There is a table on the cost of the president’s proposals, which only looks at the revenue costs, even though footnotes cite tens of billions in outlay costs as well (Table, S-9) Why not include all costs of proposed programs?
There are proposed changes to the budget “baseline” and Pay-As-You-Go (Pay-Go) rules that would enable tax cuts to be made permanent without properly accounting for their costs, and would allow additional corporate tax cuts to be passed at a lower threshold than spending for education, national parks, child nutrition, scientific research, Medicare benefits, or any other services. See [article on budget rules] for more details.
