perfidy

James at Outside the Beltway has a comprehensive roundup of commentary about yesterday's primaries and caucuses. Lots of good "what does it all mean" to chew on.

Ross, I have no problem with the fact that you disagree with me, or with the administration on any number of policy issues. I will try to convince you (and vice versa) of the proper course to be taken.

What bothers me is the presumption - which you share with a wide swath of the liberal side of the political spectrum - that Republicans and conservatives are acting with malicious intent. Your admission that, "of course there are a couple honorable Republicans" is a cover for your blanket condemnation of the rest of them. Is it too much for you to believe that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell and the others are acting in what they conceive to be the best interests of the nation? And that your disagreement with them doesn't make them crooks, liars, betrayers, and generally consumed with greed and a desire to blow up the little brown people?

While you talk in your subtext post about issues, you fail to do any kind of convincing when your premise for every policy argument is that Bush and his advisors (and, by extension, everyone who agrees with them) are stupid, venal or malicious. Even when backing off of one Bush insult, you lay on two more. You're not going to convince me of anything when you're calling me a mendacious greedy idiot between the lines. So, no, I wasn't protesting too much.

The little parenthetical that followed "can't read" was intended to alter the meaning of that, to "doesn't read anything that's given to him". Of course Bush can read; you can't barely graduate from Yale without being able to read something. Unless it's a complicated something.

I get to be much more ridiculous in comment threads, don't I?

Methinks Steve doth protest too much.

Ask yourselves this: Bush is blaming the CIA for feeding him bad information about Iraq. He's also saying that those intelligence reports have been around for a long time, and they've stayed consistent. Fine -- let's assume that's true. Why, then, has Bush's response been so different to the same intelligence reports? Clinton, viewing, the exact same information, chooses to remain at arm's length from Iraq. Bush sets off to war. Bush has 9/11 looming large...but that's what Afghanistan was about.

Bush gets his information from an inner circle of advisors. He doesn't read the reports directly; he doesn't know what they say. It's highly probably that there was quite a bit of spin put on the information Bush got. The simplest explanation for the whole situation is that some of his closest advisors _didn't_ see justification in the intelligence reports, but were willing to bet that when we got there, we'd find the evidence.

The bet didn't pay off. Bush was betrayed by his advisors; they made a decision that's supposed to be made by a President, in full view of the facts. They made the decision because they screwed around with the facts they presented Bush.

Similarly, on the economy, Bush has been screwed by his advisors again. Three budget years in a row they've predicated rosiness, as far as the rosy eye could see. None of it has come to pass.

While economists agree that there is _some_ stimulus provided by tax cuts, the real question is, how much? On that question, there is massive disagreement. The vast majority of economists don't think there's all that much, and judging by the state of the economy, they're right.

The Bushies predicted invading Iraq would cost around $50 Billion, back before it happened. Looks like it's going to be north of $200 Billion at this point, when all is said and done. This leaves you with two choices. Either they are completely freakin' incompetent at estimates, or they were deliberately lowballing their estimate (otherwise known as telling lies to get what you want).

Bush's casual destruction of the finances of the federal government is truly the greatest security threat facing this country. It turns out that the $200 Billion is doing this war on the cheap; there are serious problems with supplies. In other words, it's gonna cost more in the future. The American government needs to be in a fiscal position to finance necessary actions around the world. Bush is screwing that up, massively. Of course, we could just print more money, right? That'll fix it.

Here's the biggest mistake you make. You presume that the tax cuts mean that people have "money in their pockets". That's just plain wrong. The tax cuts didn't go to you and me, my friend. They didn't go to the regular people in this country. The vast majority of those dollars went back into the pockets of people who don't need them. People who are already vigorously trying to get around the tax code, to avoid paying _any_ share, let alone a fair share. People who have armies of lawyers devoted to keeping everything they can.

Let's stop talking about taxpayers as if we're all in the same class, the same boat. We aren't. I won't say much more this point, except the following: When you look at the IRS statistics that show the rise in average constant dollars income over the past twenty years, they are highly deceptive. They're deceptive because they show the average, not the median. Everyone who knows anything about math knows that the very first thing you do when you want to lie with statistics or hide something is use averages instead of means. I won't say the IRS is deliberately doing this; they're not. Bush, on the other hand, has happily pushed "averages" at the American public, who presume that they can rely on it as a guide.

Every action Bush has taken has been rooted in one of the following: Making his rich buddies vastly richer with tax cuts, engaging in experimentation with neoconservative foreign policy, pandering to the (relatively) conservative base with wedge issues, and selling access to the donor class. Virtually every domestic policy initiative he has engaged in has been a failure.

Environment: Terrible. Disagrees with conclusions on global warming, climate change, and so forth. His response? Cut the funding for research. Chewed up and spit out Christie Todd Whitman, who went into the job as EPA administrator thinking that she'd have some impact on policy. All decisions were made before Bush even took office. Maybe God'll sort us all out in the Rapture.

Economy: Terrible. Has attempted "stimulation" with tax cuts. Negligible effects on the economy, and massive destruction to the federal budget. The long term prospects for the federal government are so bad, it will inhibit the us economy, particularly by scaring off foreign investors, who prop up the government's borrowing habits.

Foreign Policy: A necessary war in Afghanistan, and a stupid, wasteful one in Iraq. The entire world holds Bush (and to an extent America), in very low esteem at the moment. Nobody was fooled by the pre-war WMD crap, and it turns out that there was good reason not to be fooled. His current attempts to run away from the considered opinions of his own administration is embarrassing for the country.

Political Climate: More partisan and divisive and STUPID than it has ever been. The reason? This white house is not interested in discussions. The "smart guys" have already made the decisions. Having international embarrassments like Tom Delay in power doesn't help, either.

Most GOP attacks on the Democrats this fall will center on their "hate" for Bush. Whatever...it's not exactly misplaced, to the extent that it exists. The GOP will tell its base that Democrats therefore hate them, as well. The dirty secret is that there are Republicans out there who are honorable, who are fiscally conservative, and who adhere to principle. The crooks in the white house won't have anything to do with those guys.

The National Review has posted early exit poll results in five of the seven primary elections happening today:

According to sources, the early exit polls in most of the states are in, and they look like:

AZ Kerry 46, Clark 24, Dean 13.
MO Kerry 52, Edwards 23, Dean 10
SC Edwards 44, Kerry 30, Sharpton 10
OK Edwards 31, Kerry 29, Clark 28
DE Kerry 47, Dean 14, Lieberman 11, Edwards 11

Edwards lead in SC is bigger than I had thought it would be - and I'm surprised that he's in the lead in Oklahoma. If Clark doesn't win there, he's toast. Still, that's a very close race with hours of voting still left. Dean doesn't appear to be making the 15% cut off to get delegates in states where they divide them up. That bodes ill for his campaign. Kerry is scoring big in the two biggest states, Arizona and Missouri.

This feels like the last World Series. I want them all to lose.

[wik] Lieberman and Clark might be preparing to bail.

Calpundit reads a David Frum column so as to conclude that the presumed rightward drift of the US's political landscape is largely an illusion.

Huh. Interesting take on things. I think I agree with Frum and Drum (rhyming pundits:w00t!) that the bedrock principles of liberalism-- that is, public schooling and all that jazz-- are pretty deeply ingrained in the American way of thinking. But that doesn't mean that Conservatism isn't insurgent. It's kind of like a bastardized version of geology. Liberalism is like tectonic plates, see, and conservatism is volcanoes. Sure, at the moment the bedrock is liberal, but in a million years or so liberalism will have been drawn back down into the mantle and Conservative values will be bedrock. And so on and so on.

I apologize. That was the single most tortured and inapt analogy I have ever committed to type, and that's saying a lot.

But what more can I do? I was educated in a poorly-funded public school.

Upon prodding from Nat at I Must Not Think Bad Thoughts, who is an avowed and active partisan on behalf of Wesley Clark, I hereby endorse my choice for the next President of the United States, Ronnie James Dio. Dio is the only candidate to truly address the issues important to working-class America, and the only one truly qualified. To wit:

• Has experience managing large organizations
• Extensive public speaking and diplomacy experience
• The only candidate to know first-hand what drugs can do to our youth
• Slayed the dragon
• The only candidate who has had to put aside a political career to feed his family
• Can rock out and sing really fucking high

Visit his website, dioforamerica.com and see what he has to say on the issues.

• On health care: advocates universal healthcare to all: "No more forms and working shit jobs while sick"
• On gay marriage: "Rob Halford wants it, so it's cool with me."

I hereby cast my support behind the only candidate that can not only beat Bush, but vanquish him with silver sword in hand over a bitchen guitar solo from Vivien Campbell, Ronnie James Dio. 

Well, it looks like Kerry slaughtered Dean, Dean doesn't realize it, Clark and Edwards are altogether too happy given the implications of Vince Lombardi's aphorism, "2nd place is the first loser" (though Clark is currently edgin Edwards slightly) and Lieberman should be throwing in the towel - he didn't even clear double digits.

In surprising news, Kucinich got 2%, and Sharpton got 0%. The alien vote must have turned out in force to put Kucinich that close to victory, and as for the Don King of Democratic politics, Bejus Pundit said it best:

Sharpton got more of the vote than he deserved, IMHO. Should have been in the negatives.

James at Outside the Beltway has a good round up of the night's events.

Now that that's over, we can begin obsessing over South Carolina and the other primaries just around the corner. What blew my mind is this:

Ballot	Overall	White (58%)	Black (42%)
Clark	14%	19%	7%
Dean	9%	10%	8%
Edwards	21%	22%	19%
Kerry	17%	20%	13%
Kucinich	1%	1%	1%
Lieberman	5%	8%	1%
Sharpton	15%	6%	27%
Undecided	18%	14%	24%

Sharpton, who as I mentioned is the Don King of Democratic politics (thanks, Johno) is getting 15% of the support, and is third in that race. This is insupportable. I saw an interview with the good reverend (Crap! Now I have to wash my mouth out. Comedy is not pretty.) and he stated that his explicit aim was to gather enough delegates to play a kingmaker role in the nomination process, or at the very least to bend the Democratic platform to his will. Don't say he didn't warn you. It still sickens me that he has any, any credibility whatsoever.

But, if Edwards wins as projected, its a three way race as I don't see Clark pulling off any big upsets.

Newsweek has the scoop on why Clark was sacked as NATO CinC. Apparently, he was less than forthcoming with his superiors in the Pentagon during the Kosovo campaign:

Clark ran afoul of Cohen [then Defense Secretary] and Shelton [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] by being less than totally forthcoming in morning conference calls during the Kosovo war in the spring of 1999. From his NATO headquarters in Brussels, Clark wanted to wage the war more aggressively, but back in the Pentagon, Cohen and Shelton were more cautious. They would give Clark instructions on, for instance, the scale of the bombing campaign. "Clark would say, 'Uh-huh, gotcha'," says NEWSWEEK's source. But then he would pick up the phone and call [British Prime Minister] Tony Blair and [Secretary of State] Madeleine [Albright]." As Clark knew full well, Blair and Albright were more hawkish than Shelton and Cohen. After talking to the State Department and NATO allies, Clark would have a different set of marching orders, says the source, who has spoken about the matter with both Cohen and Clark. "Then, about 1 o'clock, the Defense Department would hear what Clark was up to, and Cohen and Shelton would be furious."

Shelton had commented shortly after Clark entered the race that he had been fired from his position for "integrity and character issues." The article also says:

As an ambitious officer, Clark gained a reputation among his peers for telling different people what they wanted to hear, without seeming to realize that his listeners might later compare notes and accuse Clark of being two-faced.

This jibes with what my friends in the military have said about Clark. I have a feeling that this revelation won't have much impact in New Hampshire, as it is still rather vague. I don't see Clark having much chance unless he finishes at least second in the primary, otherwise he's toast. He could be aiming for VP, though it's still beyond my feeble powers of comprehension why anyone one would want the job.

The Heritage Foundation recently released a study on Poverty in America. This study provides some welcome perspective on the issue of poverty. The study contains some interesting statistics and what not, and is well worth reading.

The underlying issue is the confusion between absolute poverty and relative poverty. Absolute poverty is what most of us think of when the word poverty is mentioned. People going hungry because they don't have enough money for food. Homelessness, evictions, ramshackle housing, or overcrowded tenements. The sort of thing that involves real suffering. Relative poverty is making less than other people, but nevertheless having sufficient money for housing, utilities, food, and other needs.

The government defines poverty in relative terms - most of the bottom quintile of income is by definition poor. But as the Heritage study indicates, most of these people are not poor in the traditional sense of the word. They have homes, cars, air conditioning, plenty of food and health care. They have tvs, vcrs, cable and other luxuries. The average poor person in America lives better than the average citizen almost anywhere else in the world. We need, really, to distinguish between the two.

Jesus said the poor we shall always have with us - and as long as we define "poor" as the bottom fifth of incomes, we always will.

Some people will always make less than others. Where we need to make the effort to ameliorate poverty is with the less than one third (possibly much less) of the government defined poor who actually suffer from a significant amount of absolute poverty.

I saw this report on the news Saturday evening, and was struck by the comments of the man (I didn't catch his name or what group he was with) who was interviewed to counterpoint the Heritage position. He expressed considerable disdain for the authors of the study, and suggested that they should walk the streets of the poor parts of our cities and see whether or not real poverty existed in this country. (Obviously, if they did so, they would see the light and immediately endorse any number of Democratic entitlement programs.) But that was not the conclusion of the study - not that there are no poor people in this country, but that the numbers are far smaller than some would claim if we are careful and honest in our definition of the word "poor."

A good while back, my compatriot Ross posed the question of why do we become conservative or liberal? Every now and again, I pull that question out of its cage and smack it around a bit. That study makes sense to me. Based on my own experience and on my expectations of both how the world works and how I think it should work. I was poor twice in my life. Once because I was the child of a single mother when I was young, and again in my twenties because I was young, unskilled, and far more interested in beer than regular, gainful employment.

We are a rich soceity; we can and should help the poor. But should I have been helped on either of the two occasions when I was poor? No, because I don't think we deserved the help. My mother and I made it, though things were often tight. She worked two jobs, and sometimes we rolled pennies at the end of the month. But Mom managed to save enough to buy a house by the time I was eight - five years after my parents separated. (Dad helped with the child support, too.)

What about the second time? Hell no. Once I laid off the intoxicants and the gave up my aversion to work, things swiftly turned around. My parents actually delayed this by helping me far too often out of corners I painted myself into.

With sound personal fiscal policy and a realistic appraisal of how much standard of living you can afford almost anyone with any income at all can meet all basic requirements for life, and live comfortably if not exactly in the catbird seat. Barring major upheavals, this can be maintained indefinitely. Those people do not need the government's assistance. They should fend for themselves because that is what freedom and personal responsibility call for.

I think people have a responsibility to look after themselves. Freedom also means the freedom to screw up your life, make poor life choices, and have a low income. The relative poor get my sympathy, but not my endorsement for dipping into the public purse. The absolute poor are a different story. If things have really gone balls up, charity demands that we help. If that charity is through the government, so be it. It is misguided to attempt to help those who no one in the history of the planet up until the last half century would have called anything but rich. A waste of money and effort that could be used to help the actual poor, or accomplish other worthy goals.

By way of Atlantic Blog, we hear that Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe has five questions for the candidates. Of the still live candidates, only Kerry did not respond.

Here are the questions:

• Please summarize the most important lesson(s) of Sept. 11, 2001.
• Have federal courts gone too far in requiring the removal of religious symbols or language from schools and other public places?
• What is the best way to achieve the colorblind society that Martin Luther King dreamed of?
• Is there any serious problem in American society that you do not believe calls for some kind of government response?
• In 1981, President Reagan hung Calvin Coolidge's portrait in the White House Cabinet Room. If you are elected, which president's portrait will you hang, and why?

I think the Atlantic Blogger got it right in one with his summary:

Lieberman comes across (I think tolerably accurately) as thoughtful, the only candidate not to answer the religion question by sounding as if he is picking bits from the How to Talk to the Different Constituency Groups book, and the only candidate with any sort of clue about the dangers of terrorism. Wesley Clark manages to convey, quite accurately, just how much of a windbag he is. Sharpton manages to do a decent job of hiding from the ignorant the simple fact that he is the most thoroughly evil man in American politics, including Ted Kennedy. But my favorite part is reading the ramblings of Kucinich. It must be pure agony for the satirists to read this stuff, trying to figure out how to satirize the guy.

My lovely wife, while preparing for our looming superbowl party in her monomaniacal yet adorable way, found this strange phenomenon:

A Republicans for Dean blog

The particular post linked above is all about using superbowl parties to hook people into shave their heads and wear the Dean saffron robes. Personally, I'm not a huge sports fan but if I went to watch the big game and was confronted with this, I'd be peeved. Belinda pointed out that the M.O. behind this concept is similar to that used by fundamentalists to witness to normal people. First you lure them in, then... bam! Hit 'em with God's truth.

The National Taxpayer's Union has released a study of the the Democratic candidates' fiscal policy statements which reveals that all of the candidates would significantly increase deficits, even counting the offset produced by repealing President Bush's tax cuts.

The NTUF study systematically examined the fiscal policy implications of the eight contenders' agendas, using campaign and third-party sources (like the Congressional Budget Office) to assign a cost to each budget proposal offered by the candidates. For actual legislation that the candidates have endorsed, the study also relies on NTUF's BillTally project, a computerized accounting system that has, since 1991, tabulated the cost or savings of every piece of legislation introduced in Congress with a net annual impact of $1 million or more. Highlights of the study include:

• If the policy agenda of any one of the eight candidates were enacted in full, annual federal spending would rise by at least $169.6 billion (Lieberman) and as much as $1.33 trillion (Sharpton). This would translate to a yearly budget hike of between 7.6% and 59.5%.
• All candidates offer platforms that call for more spending than would be offset by repealing the Bush tax cuts (using even generous estimates of the tax cuts' impact).
• The eight candidates have proposed over 200 ideas to increase federal spending, and only two that would cut federal spending. Those two proposals have been offered by Dennis Kucinich (thus, the seven other candidates haven't made a single proposal to cut any spending).

...George W. Bush, who campaigned as a fiscal conservative in 2000, has presided over a jump in federal spending of 23.7% since taking office. Yet, Johnson still found that even the most parsimonious of the Democrat Presidential candidates would have outpaced the spending run-up under Bush by 15%.

I've always found it amusing when Democrats criticize Bush for spending profligacy - not because they're wrong, but because of the deep pot-kettle-blackism of the exercize.

Michelle of A Small Victory came up with this nifty guide to the Democratic candidates: 

I don't know that I agree with all her choices - I would have hooked Clark to Niedermeyer and Sharpton to, oh, I don't know, maybe David Duke. Kucinich is spot on though. 

Reuters is reporting that a recent Reuters/MSNBC/Zogby poll shows that Kerry has a nine point lead over Dean, but that the race is narrowing.

Kerry led Dean 31 percent to 22 percent in the latest three-day tracking poll, but the last day of polling showed Kerry with a much smaller margin over Dean while John Edwards and Joseph Lieberman both gained ground on the leaders.

"Kerry's lead is now nine points over three days, however he led only by 26 percent-22 percent over Dean in Friday polling alone, while Edwards and Lieberman each hit 10 percent," pollster John Zogby said.

"Dean's showing on Friday may suggest that he has bottomed out and may in fact be starting to increase," Zogby said. "Another day like this and Dean may be in striking distance again."

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, in third place, held steady at 14 percent.

It looks like the damage from the "I have a scream" speech was serious indeed, but hasn't effected Dean's hard core supporters. If Lieberman and Edwards continue to make inroads into Kerry's numbers it could be a wide open five-way race with Kerry only first among equals. It will be very interesting to see how the polls play out in the days leading up to the election.

I find it heartening that the Democratic party seems to be rejecting the dark side and giving more support to the moderates. A real presidential race will benefit the conservatives by forcing the Republicans into an open debate on the issues, and to clarify their positions in opposition to those of a strong Democratic candidate. Fighting against Dean would ahve allowed the GOP to pursue the middle much easier.

Via The Spoons Experience, we learn that a high school in Omaha has punished several students for making an unofficial nomination for the school's annual "Distinguished African American Student Award." According to the Omaha World Herald;

The students' actions on Martin Luther King Jr. Day upset several students and have led administrators to discipline four students.

The posters, placed on about 150 doors and lockers, included a picture of the junior student smiling and giving a thumbs up. The posters encouraged votes for him.

The posters were removed by administrators because they were "inappropriate and insensitive," Westside spokeswoman Peggy Rupprecht said Tuesday.

The student in question was a white South African whose family had moved to the states six years ago. Trevor Richards, the student who was featured on the posters, was suspended for hanging them along with two others. The fourth student was punished for circulating a petition in support of the first three.

Volokh has weighed in on the first amendment aspects of the case, and I would never presume to tread on his feet on legal matters. What amazes me is that some high school kids could come up with such a brilliant, nuanced and effing hilarious strike against the blinkered, arbitrary and offensive hyphenated-American worldview that contaminates our schools and society.

When I was a kid in high school, back before walkmans, cell phones, computers with hard drives and - frankly - anything cool at all; we had a situation that was structurally similar to this one. The art department sponsored a contest open to the entire student body to design a new piece of artwork for the grassy area outside the senior commons. Submissions were to be small models, and the winning entry would be created in full by the hardworking craftsman of the shop classes.

The winning entry was submitted by a girl named Erin, and it was as banal an example of derivative modern art as you'd ever run across. It was a spiky metal thingy, vaguely star-shaped but decidedly lopsided and ugly. The shop classes dutifully made the final version out of scrap steel, and the custodial staff installed it on a concrete pedestal so that everyone could admire it on their way to lunch. This piece of faux art elicited a fair amount of criticism, both for its complete lack of aesthetic value and also because of the general regard the student body had for its creator. (Erin was given a brand new Porsche for her sixteenth birthday. Persistent rumor insists that she demanded daddy give her a new one with an automatic transmission because she couldn't be bothered to learn to drive stick. Whether this story is true or not is irrelevant, as it does accurately reflect her character.)

One dark and moonless night, a group of students stealthily crept up to the monstrosity, and bolted a toilet bowl to it. They also used locktight on the bolts. The poor, benighted custodian spent most of the next morning attempting to remove the toilet. The school administrators were furious at this lese majeste, and bent every effort to determining the identity of the renegades.

The next night, either the same group or possibly a different crew altogether attached a second toilet bowl and managed to move the sculpture to the roof of the high school. The administration redoubled its efforts to find the miscreants, but with no success.

But the funny thing is that the principle didn't really lose it until copies of an unsigned manuscript managed to be inserted into the newest edition of the school paper. This essay defended the actions of the vandals as a valid form of art criticism. I wish I still had a copy of the little manifesto, as it was rather well written. The principle was reduced to threats dire punishment and offered rewards to anyone who would narc on the guilty students. But, no one was ever caught or punished for the incidents, and eventually the artwork found repose in an unmarked grave somewhere on the north side of town. The whole episode was marked by a higher than average comic sensibility - for high school students. Instead of crude graffiti, outright destruction or other stereotypical high school hijinks - they actually made a comment on the hated artwork. A rude one, but clever.

But no one in my high school, ever thought about larger issues as these kids in Omaha did. Or pierced them so ably. My hat's off to them. 

Not to tread on the toes of our eminent musicologist Johno, but I think in his recent opus on the enduring value of the remix, he failed to note a significant argument for his position:

Lileks' YAAAAAARRRRHHHH!!! Remix

I bust a nut listening to this. If I needed proof beyond the fact that we blatantly ripped off the name of our blog from a bleat column that the man is a genius, this would be it. Heh. This also reinforces Johno's position on the imminent demise of the Dean insurgency. Indeed.

Many thanks to Greg over at BTD for bringing this to my attention. And shame on NPR for not giving the cite.

[wik] Here are some Chewbacca roars so you can compare and contrast.

[alsø wik] I especially like the harmonica bit.

[alsø alsø wik] I am especially glad that our very own Johno came up with this "wik" thingy, because I would have been too mortified to steal it from another blog.

[wi nøt trei a høliday in Sweden this yër?] Apparently, Former Senator Alan Simpson said of Dean, "He looked like a prairie dog on speed."

[see the løveli lakes...] And people were worried about McCain being unhinged...

Dick Morris has a typically interesting take on the Iowa Caucus.

Buckethead says check it out. I actually met Dick Morris, and he's a smart guy.

After reading the text of the State of the Union Address, I am appalled. There's a few good lines in there, but it's mostly a mess of pandering, blather, and outright crazy-talk designed to appeal to... who, exactly? Fiscally liberal social conservatives?

Apparently, I am the exact opposite of the President's ideal constituency. Increases in federal spending? Making the tax cuts permanent? A shout-out to the PATRIOT Act? No newideas for the war on terrorism? Federal drug testing in public schools? Federal steroid testing (what?)? Unquestioning support for the notion that gay people are less worthy than others? More crap about Medicare and No Child Left Behind? Closing with a "God is on our side/ 'just and true'" line?

What's a fiscal moderate-to-conservative and flaming social liberal to do? I hereby announce my purchase of a ticket for the Anybody-But-Bush bandwagon. I'll vote for a summer squash before I'll vote for that pandering, malignant sack of pus.

Drudge is excerpting an article from the redoubtable Mort Kondracke, editor of the hill rag Roll Call. Since I don't want to spend $199 for a subscription to that wonderful publication, you will have to be satisfied with this:

"Here's a harrowing pair of facts for Democrats: In 60 years, no Democrat has ever won the presidency without carrying the youth vote. And right now President Bush's approval rating among 18- to 29-year-olds is 62 percent, higher than his nationwide rating. Top Republican strategists admit that the youth vote is fluid, but right now the trends are all in their direction, which they hope is a harbinger not only for 2004, but also a possible longer-term party realignment."

A Bush campaign official said, "It's called the theory of political socialization. Who are the most Democratic people in America? It's the over-65 age group. Why? Because the two presidents they knew best were Franklin Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover. And who are the most Republican? People in their 40s, who came of age in the last two years of Jimmy Carter and the first two years of Ronald Reagan. If your politics were being formed during the last two years of Bill Clinton and the first two years of George Bush, there's a fairly good chance that we'll have your support."

Kondracke writes, "It seems impossible that a generation reared on free-love television and rap music, a generation far more tolerant of ethnic diversity and homosexuality than its elders, could support the GOP, whose base in anchored in the religious right. In fact, Democratic theorists such as Ruy Teixeira, John Judis and Stan Greenberg look upon the expanded role of minorities, cosmopolitan regions and diversity-minded young people to produce an 'emerging Democratic majority' through the force of demography.

"But, at the moment, the numbers support the view of GOP leaders that young people are trending Republican because they like Bush."

We've talked about this here before, and I think that 'ol Mort is missing an important factor - most of these kids' parents were 60's or 70s style liberals, and there is nothing more aggravating to a hippy than to have your son join the Young Republicans. Also, I think a lot of this hinges around reaction to the war on terror, as the 9/11 attacks are the event for people this age, and the Republicans are seen as the ones doing something about it.

The spin the press is putting on the candidates is nothing short of breathtaking...

Edwards is something of a wildcard. Since nobody expected him to get anywhere, the press hasn't created his "alternate press world identity" yet. I am sure they are scrambling at this very minute to come up with the short list of three platitudes that they'll use to define everything about him.

Yeah, the news networks are looping that Dean bit over and over again. Nice. Maybe we can dig up a few of Bush's verbal faux-pas and do the same thing.

Oh, yeah. Not gonna happen, 'cause the press corps doesn't want to endanger their relationship with the White House. What a bunch of pussy-whipped wankers. And I mean that in the general, non-sexist sense. ;)

Dean is a pretty decent guy all around, very much a moderate, but somewhat excitable on the podium. I think his campaign felt that they would make the switch to positive after taking Iowa. Now that hasn't happened, and the situation is just bizarre, for them...on the plus side, they haven't had Gephardt pounding away at them in New Hampshire for the last month.

And all the talk of Dean being "unqualified" is just completely ridiculous. He's dramatically more qualified than Bush ever was (as are all the Democratic candidates), and more qualified than Bush is right now.

We have a good deal of insight into Bush's decision process right now. We used to think he looked like a monkey, and called him Incurious George. Now we know that he has an inner monkey too; the inner monkey lives in his brain, and has a dartboard with little pasted-on names of policies.

Where is the one, single, written piece of evidence of serious policy analysis and thinking, done by this man? Every modern President has an extensive written record...but this one doesn't...won't give interviews...never says _anything_, because if you don't say anything, it can't come back to haunt you.