Truespeak

Bush today:

"I am troubled by the initial news stories," Bush said in his first public comments about the deaths of about two dozen civilians at Haditha last November. "I'm mindful that there's a thorough investigation going on. If, in fact, laws were broken, there will be punishment."

Now let's see... That sounds familiar. Equivocation... Sounds serious but is really nothing but hot air... Where have I... Oh yeah!

I don't know all the facts. I want to know all the facts. The best place for the facts to be done is by somebody who's spending time investigating it. I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we know the facts, and if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.

Well, we all know how well that turned out, don't we? Here's to hoping he really means it this time. (But I'm not holding my breath.)

Let's see how this goes...

Click here for tonight's post.

Unless you've been living under a rock, you're aware that Georgieboy's approval numbers are in the tank. According to Gallup, this is due in part to his eroding support among liberal and moderate Republicans.

Since the start of his second term, George W. Bush's job approval rating has dropped almost 20 percentage points, including declines among key demographic groups. A Gallup analysis shows that Bush has lost the most support over this period from moderate and liberal Republicans, with most of this change coming in the last several months. Conservative Republicans remain solidly behind Bush, although their level of support for him has declined somewhat from the near-universal support they gave him at the start of his second term.

But what does this mean for the upcoming elections? Is it enough to swing the vote in favor of the Democrats? My heart says "yes," but my mind says "not so fast."

One of the problems with polling is that a poll is only as valid as the questions asked and Gallup is only asking about America's approval of George W. Bush. As much as it pleases me to see Georgieboy's ratings in the shitter the way they are, I know that it's not him we need to defeat. He can't run again. What the Democratic party needs to defeat is Republicanism. So the question is this: does the country's discontentedness with George W. Bush translate to ill feelings toward Republicanism?

To answer that question, I try to put myself in a similar situation. For instance, if I were unhappy with my elected Democratic official, would I ever consider voting for a Republican? I would have to answer no because in my mind a bad Democrat is still better than a Republican. Now that may sound horribly partisan, but consider what the parties stand for. If I have a choice between a bad Democrat that will vote with the Democratic party and a tolerable Republican that will vote with the Republican party... I think my choice is obvious.

So how do we swing the vote in our favor? For quite some time now, I've been saying that we can't rely on converted Republicans to vote for us. Instead, we have to get our votes from the Independents and the new voters. Fortunately, it looks as though we may be making some progress. From the same Gallup poll we find that the Independants are clocking in at a measly 23% approval. This tells me that 77% of the registered Independents could be swayed to vote for a Democrat. Assuming, of course, that we have something to offer them, otherwise they're just as likely to stay home.

So over the next four months, we're going to see what the Democratic party is made of. George W. Bush and his inept, incompetent, corrupt Republican cronies have given us plenty of fodder to work with. Now we have to make some hay.

Have a good weekend, everybody.

For the past twenty-five years, the American conservative movement has been gaining ground. During that time, there have been many lies told in an effort to garner votes. One of the greatest of those lies has been that tax cuts lead to greater government revenues. The premise is that if people pay less taxes, they will have more money to spend thereby creating a more robust economy and this will lead to more revenue for the government by way of increased spending. Some call it "supply side economics." Reagan called it "trickle-down economics." George H.W. Bush called it "voodoo economics." You can call it what you like, the simple fact is, it does not work.

The entire premise is based on a sketch on a napkin that has come to be known as the Laffer Curve. It looks something like this:



As crude as the animation is, it demonstrates the concept. According to Arthur Laffer, the napkin sketcher, there is a specific percentage of taxation that will yield maximum revenue for the government. The problem is that this concept is not based on any actual data. In fact, it's only based on the assumption that taxes are to the right of their optimum level and unfortunately for conservatives, the real numbers don't support their assumption.

The hero of the modern conservative movement is, of course, Ronald Reagan, the tax cutter extraordinaire. According to the Laffer-disciples, it was Reagan's 1981 tax cuts that spawned the booming economy of the eighties. (I remember the eighties very clearly and I know for a fact that my family struggled financially throughout the decade, but that's another story.) But what conservatives don't like to acknowledge is the fact that Reagan's economy didn't take off until he began raising taxes. The tax increases started in 1982, but things really got moving with the 1984 Deficit Reduction Act, and continued with the 1985 Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, the 1986 Tax Reform Act, and the 1987 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. From 1981 to 1984, the years most affected by the tax cut, tax revenue was $286 billion, $298 billion, $289 billion and $298 billion respectively. On the other hand, from 1985 to 1988, the respective tax revenues were $335 billion, $349 billion, $392 billion, and $401 billion. A significant increase over the previous four years. The only way the Laffer curve could justify this outcome is if the tax rate was already to the left of that optimum point. If that were the case, why cut taxes further?

Now fast-forward to the year 2001. George W. Bush has cut taxes twice since taking office. The first time in 2001 and the second time in 2003. What's happened since then, you ask? In 2001, the tax revenues equaled $994 billion and in 2005 they equaled $927 billion. That's a decline of 6.7%. To make matters worse, in spite of a 6.7% decline in government revenue, the administration has increased discretionary spending by nearly 50% from $649 billion to $967 billion over the same time period. How's that for fiscal conservatism?

The Laffer curve has continuously proven itself to be unreliable, but that hasn't stopped conservatives from lauding its value in an attempt to mislead the public. Lower taxes sounds like a great idea, sure. But when it comes at the expense of the country's well-being, is it really that great?

By the way, irony of all ironies, guess who was present in the meeting the day Arthur Laffer drew the now infamous sketch on that napkin. Old Five-deferment Cheney, himself. This man's like a bad penny. He just keeps turning up everywhere.

There are three days left in the school year and I have about six days worth of work to get done. Therefore, I'll see you on Wednesday or Thursday. Now if you'll excuse me, I have some work to get done. See you soon.

Same as the old boss.

Apparently, new White House press secretary Tony Snow got a few pointers from Scott McLellan. Check out this bullshit:

Q In his news conference with John Howard, was the President giving kind of a back-handed confirmation of the stories that the NSA is compiling telephone --

MR. SNOW: No, he wasn't. If you go back and listen to the answer he gave you, he was talking about foreign-to-domestic calls. The allegations in the USA Today piece, which we'll neither confirm or deny, are of a different nature. So, no, he was not giving a back-handed confirmation.

[.....]

Q The President today denied he'd ever broken the law in terms of wiretaps. He also indicated that anything that was looked into, any calls, had some sort of foreign aspect either to or from. And he has said he's always obeyed the law. Are all of these stories untrue that we've been reading for the last several days that millions of Americans have been wiretapped?

MR. SNOW: Well, let's --

Q Are the phone calls turned over to the government?

MR. SNOW: Okay, let's try to segregate the stories here. What he's said about the terror surveillance program is that these are foreign-to-domestic calls and they were all done within the parameters of the law. He has not commented on the --

Q He, himself, has said he didn't obey that law.

MR. SNOW: No, he didn't. What he said is that he has done everything within the confines of the law. The second thing is, you're mentioning a USA Today story about which this administration has no comment. But I would direct you back to the USA Today story itself, and if you analyze what that story said, what did it say? It said there is no wiretapping of individual calls, there is no personal information that is being relayed. There is no name, there is no address, there is no consequence of the calls, there's no description of who the party on the other end is.

Q Privacy was breached by turning over their phone numbers.

MR. SNOW: Well, again, you are jumping to conclusions about a program, the existence of which we will neither confirm, nor deny.

[.....]

Q You might repeat the same thing, but why not declassify this? I mean, the President did talk about the surveillance program a day after The New York Times broke that story. This would seem to affect far more people, and it did sound like the President was confirming that story today. He was answering Terry's question --

MR. SNOW: Well, if you go back -- if you go back and you look through what he said, there was a reference to foreign-to-domestic calls. I am not going to stand up here and presume to declassify any kind of program. That is a decision the President has to make. I can't confirm or deny it. The President was not confirming or denying.

Again, I would take you back to the USA Today story, simply to give you a little context. Look at the poll that appeared the following day. While there was -- part of it said 51 percent of the American people opposed, if you look at when people said, if there is a roster of phone numbers, do you feel comfortable that -- I'm paraphrasing and I apologize -- but something like 64 percent of the polling was not troubled by it. Having said that, I don't want to hug the tar baby of trying to comment on the program -- the alleged program -- the existence of which I can neither confirm nor deny.

Allow me to translate. "We will neither confirm nor deny" is White House speak for "you bet your sweet ass we are." Face it, if they weren't, they'd deny it flat out. Why would they be coy if they didn't have something to hide?

I considered calling this post SSDD. Same Shit, Different Day. It's always the same from this administration. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

But this is now.

Bush then:

The law signed by President Bush less than two months ago to add thousands of border patrol agents along the U.S.-Mexico border has crashed into the reality of Bush's austere federal budget proposal, officials said Tuesday.

Officially approved by Bush on Dec. 17 after extensive bickering in Congress, the National Intelligence Reform Act included the requirement to add 10,000 border patrol agents in the five years beginning with 2006. Roughly 80 percent of the agents were to patrol the southern U.S. border from Texas to California, along which thousands of people cross into the United States illegally every year.

But Bush's proposed 2006 budget, revealed Monday, funds only 210 new border agents.

Bush now:

Tonight I'm calling on Congress to provide funding for dramatic improvements in manpower and technology at the border. By the end of 2008, we'll increase the number of Border Patrol officers by an additional 6,000. When these new agents are deployed, we'll have more than doubled the size of the Border Patrol during my presidency.

Sixteen months ago George W. Bush couldn't be bothered with securing our borders. Yet now it's "a matter of national importance." So I guess you could say he was against it before he was for it. I seem to remember the Republicans having a word for that . Flip... something or other.

So Mr. Bush, now who's swaying with the polls?

It is my pleasure to announce that Alicia of Last Left Turn Before Hooterville fame has won the Bush in the twenties pool.

From the WSJ:

President Bush’s job-approval rating has fallen to its lowest mark of his presidency, according to a new Harris Interactive poll. Of 1,003 U.S. adults surveyed in a telephone poll, 29% think Mr. Bush is doing an “excellent or pretty good” job as president, down from 35% in April and significantly lower than 43% in January.

For her winning prediction, Alicia wins... well, actually it was just a pride thing. Mrs. kissfan cut my prize budget. Way to go Alicia!

Can you believe 29%? The sad thing is, I don't think he's hit bottom yet. With today's revelations concerning the NSA monitoring millions of phone calls, I've got a feeling we've only seen the beginning of Bush's long slide in the polls. So who wants to get in on the Bush below 25% poll? I'll stick with my original July prediction.

The country is finally awakening from it's long slumber and it's not happy about what it sees with its newly opened eyes.

A CNN poll released Wednesday may continue the anxiety for the GOP, showing Democrats with a 14-point advantage over Republicans among registered voters asked their preferences in this year's midterm elections.

The poll, conducted for CNN by Opinion Research Corp., found that 52 percent of respondents who were registered voters said they were leaning toward voting for a Democrat, while 38 percent said they were leaning toward a Republican.

Ahhhhhh.... Music to my ears.

From last night's Countdown w/ Keith Olbermann:

Let‘s call in MSNBC‘s David Shuster.

OLBERMANN: Thanks for your time, David.

DAVID SHUSTER, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: Good to be with you, Keith.

OLBERMANN: What are you gathering on these two main points? Is the decision by Mr. Fitzgerald coming soon? Would it be an indictment?

SHUSTER: Well, Karl Rove‘s legal team has told me that they expect that a decision will come sometime in the next two weeks. And I am convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted. And there are a couple of reasons why.

First of all, you don‘t put somebody in front of a grand jury at the end of an investigation, or for the fifth time, as Karl Rove testified a couple—a week and a half ago, unless you feel that‘s your only chance of avoiding indictment. So, in other words, the burden starts with Karl Rove to stop the charges.

Secondly, it‘s now been 13 days since Rove testified. After testifying for three and a half hours, prosecutors refused to give him any indication that he was clear. He has not gotten any indication since then, and the lawyers that I‘ve spoken with outside of this case say that if Rove had gotten himself out of the jam, he would have heard something by now.

And then the third issue is one we‘ve talked about before, and that is, in the Scooter Libby indictment, Karl Rove was identified as Official A. It‘s the term that prosecutors use when they try to get around restrictions on naming somebody in an indictment.

We‘ve looked through the records of Patrick Fitzgerald from when he was prosecuting cases in New York, and from when he‘s been U.S. attorney in Chicago. And in every single investigation, whenever Fitzgerald has identified somebody as Official A, that person eventually gets indicted themselves, in every single investigation.

Will Karl Rove defy history in this particular case? I suppose anything is possible when you‘re dealing with a White House official. But the lawyers that I‘ve been speaking with, who know this stuff, say, Don‘t bet on Karl Rove getting out of this.

OLBERMANN: It‘s like when the president calls you Stretch, you don‘t want that nickname.

In Mr. VandeHei‘s piece in “The Washington Post” described the scope of the Fitzgerald investigation as having really narrowed to whether or not Rove misled the grand jury about his conversation with Matt Cooper. Is it really that narrow? And if it is, does that, in fact, narrow the kinds of potential charges against Rove?

SHUSTER: Well, it‘s narrow as far as what prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has been telling Karl Rove‘s attorneys. But and so in that case, you could be looking at possible making false statements or perjury or obstruction of justice.

But the big danger for Karl Rove is that prosecutors tend not to give you all of the evidence or information they‘ve collected against you. So if there is some testimony, some memos, some documents, some statements against Karl Rove that he was not aware of in his final appearance before the grand jury, that‘s where the possible problems for him could broaden, and where the investigation could be going as well.

Mr. Shuster, I pray you're not toying with us.

Could it finally be Fitzmas Eve?

BTW - Another poll has been released putting poor old George W. @ 31%. Ouch!

After the 2004 election I was puzzled as to why a majority of the voters would vote for the party that would benefit them the least. You know who I'm talking about - the working class, the security moms, the NASCAR dads. These are the people who won't see any benefits from eliminating the estate tax, but they're all for it because it sounds like a tax cut. Why can't the Democrats reach these people? What is the hold that the Republicans have over these voters? Well, I think I've finally figured it out and I'm here to tell you it's a lot simpler than you might think.

The problem lies in the fact that the Democratic party is giving the American voter too much credit. Our elected officials treat them with too much respect. I know that sounds condescending, but stick with me on this. I think it will make sense in the end.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the average family has two children and makes about $44,389 per year. Between work, children, and family, it stands to reason that a lot of Americans don't have time to follow all the ins-and-outs of their elected officials. If you've got kids, you know what I'm talking about - homework, school plays, Little League, swim lessons, etc. etc. etc. So most Americans tend to get their news from what they hear on the radio on the way to and from work and what they can catch on the nightly news between the answers to "How was your day?" and "What's for dinner?" They have to rely on the traditional media's Reader's Digest version of the goings on in our country. So after they've sifted through the stories about Tom and Katie, Brad and Angelina, and the parade of missing white girls, it's no real mystery why most of America is less than informed. For instance, how much do you suppose they know about the recent scandal involving Cunningham, Foggo, poker, the Watergate Hotel, and hookers? Judging by what I've seen in the traditional media, I'd say none. But the Democrats don't get it. They act as though everyone is privy to the same information they are. If you need proof, check out this exchange between House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Tim Russert from yesterday's Meet the Press:

MR. RUSSERT: Friday, this was the scene in the Oval Office when President Bush suddenly announced the resignation of Porter Goss as director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Your reaction?

REP. PELOSI: The intelligence community is in disarray right now. The American people, in order to be protected, must have the best possible intelligence. We want the president and the Congress to have that. The—this administration has not managed the intelligence community well. We have questions that have arisen about the effectiveness of the new direct—Office of the—of National Intelligence that was formed. We have a CIA that is demoralized. We have a fierce competition between the Department of Defense in a power struggle with the entire rest of the intelligence community. We have to do better, it’s very important to the American people. We need competent leadership, we need objective collection, analysis and dissemination of information, and we need this to be done in a very, very non-partisan way.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you think Mr. Goss left voluntarily?

REP. PELOSI: No.

MR. RUSSERT: Why, why was he relieved?

REP. PELOSI: Well, depending on the story, he’s been on his way out for at least one month because of the struggle between him and Mr. Negroponte. But I think that this dismissal was triggered by what has been happening on the scandal front for the Republicans with the third in command, who was hired by Mr. Goss to, to be involved in these card games and whatever else it was.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you have any evidence to base that judgment?

REP. PELOSI: Just a strong political instinct and the timing of it all.

MR. RUSSERT: That Porter Goss is caught up in...

REP. PELOSI: No, no, not—he isn’t. But the CIA and person that he appointed, who was a questionable appointee to begin with, is caught up in that, and it’s a reflection on his leadership and his management.

MR. RUSSERT: But you have no evidence of that?

REP. PELOSI: I have no thought that Mr. Goss is caught up in any of this, no. I know him, I, I haven’t any thought that he would be caught up in it. But it’s all a reflection on the president of the United States, and they were going to take that off the table as soon as possible.

WTF? I'm not sure I even understand what the hell she's saying. She's assuming that anyone watching knows the whole story. But the majority of people don't. Yeah, yeah, I know, most people probably don't watch MTP either, but this problem isn't confined just to Sunday morning gab fests. It's pervasive. Check out almost any statements made by our party's leadership. It's like a puzzle or something.

A long time ago I saw an episode of Mad About You where Paul was trying to register Jamie for classes. He was so confused that he ended up saying "Talk to me like I'm four." This is how the Republicans have managed to ensnare the security moms and the NASCAR dads - they talk to them like they're four! They don't assume that they know what's going on. In fact, Republicans assume that Americans don't have a clue about what's happening and they lay out the issue in the simplest, most self serving terms and they use the most inflammatory language possible. Republicans spoon feed the American voter only the information they want them to know. Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats could learn a lesson from them. Instead of the cloak-and-dagger insinuations, Pelosi's answer could have been much more effective had it gone like this:

MR. RUSSERT: Friday, this was the scene in the Oval Office when President Bush suddenly announced the resignation of Porter Goss as director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Your reaction?

REP. PELOSI: The intelligence community is a wreck right now, Tim. America deserves better. What we need is competent leadership, who will make sure that our intelligence agencies are doing whatever they can to keep us safe and, quite frankly, the Bush administration has failed to provide that.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you think Mr. Goss left voluntarily?

REP. PELOSI: No.

MR. RUSSERT: Why, why was he relieved?

REP. PELOSI: He was relieved because one of his top officials is being investigated for taking part in lobbyist sponsored poker games at the Watergate hotel where they were allegedly supplied with hookers.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you have any evidence to base that judgment?

REP. PELOSI: There's an investigation isn't there?

MR. RUSSERT: That Porter Goss is caught up in...

REP. PELOSI: Tim, maybe Porter Goss is involved and maybe he isn't, but people from his agency are being investigated and he's suddenly resigned. To me, that looks suspicious.

MR. RUSSERT: But you have no evidence of that?

REP. PELOSI: Here's what I know, the CIA director has resigned and one of his top officials is being investigated for his involvement with corrupt lobbyists that may have provided him with hookers. We'll have to see how the investigation plays out before we know how deep this goes and who all is involved. But with the recent revelations about the Republicans party's involvement in scandals I wouldn't be surprised if this goes all the way to the top.

Short, simple, and to the point. It assumes that the average viewer doesn't know what's going on and it gives them the high points in terms they can understand. Everyone understands gambling and hookers and while they might enjoy it for themselves, it's not something they want to hear about their elected officials.

For too many years now, the Democratic party has been giving America more credit than it deserves. If they want to bridge the gap and connect with the apathetic voter, the first step is to get America to understand what the hell they're talking about. Plain language for plain people. As a teacher, I've learned that you can't assume anything about what people know. You have to start with the simplest facts and then you can work up from there. The Democrats need to simplify if they really want to bridge that gap.


BTW - Georgieboy's now below the freezing point. He's at 31% and falling.

It's like déjà vu all over again. From the Christian Science Monitor (via Daily Kos):

GOP leaders are gearing up to bring a number of issues on the Christian conservative agenda to the floor of the House and Senate in the next few weeks, including gay marriage, broadcast decency, the 10 Commandments Act, a cloning ban, and laws protecting "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Every election cycle, the GOP drags out their faith in an attempt to draw in the Evangelical voter. Despite their rampant unethical behavior, they preach values and decency and they drive their wedge issues all in hopes of garnering the Christian vote. They promise the moon, but as we've seen so many times, they don't deliver. You'd think the Evangelicals would get tired of being used and lied to, but like a battered spouse they come back time after time in support of their abuser.

So as a reminder to those Evangelicals, I would like to offer this partial list of what the Republican party has given us over the last five-plus years.

Voter suppression
Secret energy meetings
Claude Allen's fraud problem
Tax cuts
Long vacations
Rampant spending
Enormous Deficits
Underfunding their signature education policy
Clear Skies
"Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."
Saudis allowed to leave the country after 9/11
Against the 9/11 commission before they were for it
Against the Department of Homeland Security before they were for it
The Patriot Act
Osama Bin Laden still at large
Yellowcake from Niger
Curveball
Ahmad Chalabi
Downing Street Memo
Inadequate body armor
PLAMEGATE: Intrigue followed by intrigue
No-Bid Halliburton Contracts
Billions of dollars unaccounted for in Iraq
Al Qaqaa
Abu Ghraib
Alberto Gonzales and the Torture Memo
Torture
Extraordinary rendition
Bunnatine Greenhouse
Mission Accomplished
Pat Tillman
Jessica Lynch
Trying to goad Saddam into war
Paying of Journalists and Planting of Stories in the U.S.
Paying of Jouranlists and Planting of Stories in Iraq
Jeff Gannon/Guckert
Swift Boat Vets
The New Hampshire phone jamming scandal
Diebold's hackable voting systems
Voter Suppression (again)
Ken Blackwell
Terri Schiavo
Under reporting the cost of the Medicare Bill
Response to Hurricane Katrina
Freezing wages in the Katrina reconstruction
"No One Could have Predicted the Levees Would Fail"
Cronies
Bill Frist & and the FEC
Bob Ney
Duke Cunningham
Prostitutes at the Watergate
Tom Delay
Jack Abramoff
Dubai ports deal
Signing Statements
Record oil prices, Record oil profits
NSA Wiretaps

And how many of these things are benefiting the Evangelicals? How many of these things are in agreement with the teachings of Jesus? Not a single one. It's time the Evangelicals opened their eyes to see that the Republican party is using them the same way they've been using prostitutes at the Watergate hotel. They get what they want and then they move on. Meanwhile, the Evangelicals, much like the prostitutes, wake up sticky, battered and confused. It must be an awful feeling to know that you're not respected the morning after.

I hope the Evangelicals are starting to see through the lies and deceit because I hate to see anyone get used like that. It's so demeaning.

From David Shuster on tonight's edition of Hardball:

"MSNBC has learned new information about the damage caused by the White House leaks. INTELLIGENCE SOURCES SAY VALERIE WILSON WAS PART OF AN OPERATION THREE YEARS AGO TRACKING THE PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS MATERIAL INTO IRAN. AND THE SOURCES ALLEGE THAT WHEN MRS. WILSON'S COVER WAS BLOWN, THE ADMINISTRATION'S ABILITY TO TRACK IRAN'S NUCLEAR AMBITIONS WAS DAMAGED AS WELL."

So much for the "she wasn't even undercover" bullshit. Lying fuckers, each and every one of them.