Tuesday, December 27, 2005

Dynamic of a Bush Scandal: How the Spying Story Will Unfold (and Fade)

Dynamic of a Bush Scandal: How the Spying Story Will Unfold (and Fade)

The third button on the Daou Report's navigation bar links to the U.S. Constitution, a Constitution many Americans believe is on life support - if not already dead. The cause of its demise is the corrosive interplay between the Bush administration, a bevy of blind apologists, a politically apathetic public, a well-oiled rightwing message machine, lapdog reporters, and a disorganized opposition. The domestic spying case perfectly illuminates the workings of that system. And the unfolding of this story augurs poorly for those who expect it to yield different results from other administration scandals.

Here's why: the dynamic of a typical Bush scandal follows familiar contours...

1. POTUS circumvents the law - an impeachable offense.

2. The story breaks (in this case after having been concealed by a news organization until well after Election 2004). [A nice added touch, to be sure, but we certainly couldn't have the liberal media attempting to influence public opinion with facts while the Swift Boat ads were circulating, now could we? - ed.]

3. The Bush crew floats a number of pushback strategies, settling on one that becomes the mantra of virtually every Republican surrogate. These Republicans face down poorly prepped Dem surrogates and shred them on cable news shows.

4. Rightwing attack dogs on talk radio, blogs, cable nets, and conservative editorial pages maul Bush's critics as traitors for questioning the CIC.

5. The Republican leadership plays defense for Bush, no matter how flagrant the Bush over-reach, no matter how damaging the administration's actions to America's reputation and to the Constitution. A few 'mavericks' like Hagel or Specter risk the inevitable rightwing backlash and meekly suggest that the president should obey the law. John McCain, always the Bush apologist when it really comes down to it, minimizes the scandal.

6. Left-leaning bloggers and online activists go ballistic, expressing their all-too-familiar combination of outrage at Bush and frustration that nothing ever seems to happen with these scandals. Several newspaper editorials echo these sentiments but quickly move on to other issues.

7. A few reliable Dems, Conyers, Boxer, et al, take a stand on principle, giving momentary hope to the progressive grassroots/netroots community. The rest of the Dem leadership is temporarily outraged (adding to that hope), but is chronically incapable of maintaining the sense of high indignation and focus required to reach critical mass and create a wholesale shift in public opinion. For example, just as this mother of all scandals hits Washington, Democrats are still putting out press releases on Iraq, ANWR and a range of other topics, diluting the story and signaling that they have little intention of following through. This allows Bush to use his three favorite weapons: time, America's political apathy, and make-believe 'journalists' who yuck it up with him and ask fluff questions at his frat-boy pressers.

8. Reporters and media outlets obfuscate and equivocate, pretending to ask tough questions but essentially pushing the same narratives they've developed and perfected over the past five years, namely, some variation of "Bush firm, Dems soft." A range of Bush-protecting tactics are put into play, one being to ask ridiculously misleading questions such as "Should Bush have the right to protect Americans or should he cave in to Democratic political pressure?" All the while, the right assaults the "liberal" media for daring to tell anything resembling the truth.

9. Polls will emerge with 'proof' that half the public agrees that Bush should have the right to "protect Americans against terrorists." Again, the issue will be framed to mask the true nature of the malfeasance. The media will use these polls to create a self-fulfilling loop and convince the public that it isn't that bad after all. The president breaks the law. Life goes on.

10. The story starts blending into a long string of administration scandals, and through skillful use of scandal fatigue, Bush weathers the storm and moves on, further demoralizing his opponents and cementing the press narrative about his 'resolve' and toughness. Congressional hearings might revive the issue momentarily, and bloggers will hammer away at it, but the initial hype is all the Democratic leadership and the media can muster, and anyway, it's never as juicy the second time around...

Rinse and repeat.

It's a battle of attrition that Bush and his team have mastered. Short of a major Dem initiative to alter the cycle, to throw a wrench into the system, to go after the media institutionally, this cycle will continue for the foreseeable future. [And it's too late to make enough of a difference other than to prolong the inevitable anyway. -ed.]

http://daoureport.salon.com/synopsis.aspx?synopsisId=a6da2e05-c808-4f7e-9ab2-3d2a01a82a15

Thursday, December 22, 2005

GOP = Debt

The legacy of GOP administrations is written in the federal deficit history ...


Title: Federal Government Debt: Total Public Debt
Series ID: GFDEBTN
Source: U.S. Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GFDEBTN/downloaddata
Release: Treasury Bulletin
Seasonal Adjustment: Not Seasonally Adjusted
Frequency: Mar Jun Sep Dec
Units: Billions of Dollars
Date Range: 1966-03-31 to 2005-09-30
Last Updated: 2005-12-06 2:36 PM CT
Notes: Monthly data reported for March, June, September and December.
Annl
DATE VALUE % of GDP Change % of GDP GDP
1966-03-31 317 41.2% 771
1966-06-30 316 40.6% 780
1966-09-30 321 40.4% 793
1966-12-31 326 40.4% 807
1967-03-31 328 40.1% 10.6 1.3% 818
1967-06-30 323 39.3% 6.7 0.8% 823
1967-09-30 333 39.8% 12.2 1.5% 837
1967-12-31 342 40.1% 16.3 1.9% 853
1968-03-31 347 39.4% 19.0 2.2% 880
1968-06-30 345 38.2% 22.0 2.4% 904
1968-09-30 353 38.4% 20.0 2.2% 919
1968-12-31 356 38.0% 14.0 1.5% 936
1969-03-31 359 37.4% 12.0 1.2% 961
1969-06-30 353 36.2% 8.0 0.8% 976
1969-09-30 360 36.1% 7.0 0.7% 997
1969-12-31 367 36.5% 11.0 1.1% 1,005
1970-03-31 371 36.5% 12.0 1.2% 1,017
1970-06-30 370 35.8% 17.0 1.6% 1,033
1970-09-30 378 36.0% 18.0 1.7% 1,051
1970-12-31 388 36.9% 21.0 2.0% 1,053
1971-03-31 391 35.6% 20.0 1.8% 1,098
1971-06-30 397 35.5% 27.0 2.4% 1,119
1971-09-30 412 36.2% 34.0 3.0% 1,139
1971-12-31 423 36.7% 35.0 3.0% 1,152
1972-03-31 427 35.9% 36.0 3.0% 1,191
1972-06-30 426 34.7% 29.0 2.4% 1,226
1972-09-30 433 34.6% 21.0 1.7% 1,250
1972-12-31 448 34.8% 25.0 1.9% 1,287
1973-03-31 458 34.3% 31.0 2.3% 1,336
1973-06-30 457 33.3% 31.0 2.3% 1,372
1973-09-30 461 33.1% 28.0 2.0% 1,391
1973-12-31 469 32.7% 21.0 1.5% 1,432
1974-03-31 474 32.8% 16.0 1.1% 1,447
1974-06-30 474 31.9% 17.0 1.1% 1,485
1974-09-30 481 31.8% 20.0 1.3% 1,514
1974-12-31 493 31.7% 24.0 1.5% 1,553
1975-03-31 510 32.5% 36.0 2.3% 1,570
1975-06-30 533 33.2% 59.0 3.7% 1,606
1975-09-30 554 33.3% 73.0 4.4% 1,663
1975-12-31 577 33.7% 84.0 4.9% 1,715
1976-03-31 600 33.8% 90.0 5.1% 1,773
1976-06-30 620 34.4% 87.0 4.8% 1,805
1976-09-30 635 34.5% 81.0 4.4% 1,838
1976-12-31 654 34.7% 76.5 4.1% 1,885
1977-03-31 669 34.5% 69.0 3.6% 1,939
1977-06-30 674 33.6% 54.0 2.7% 2,006
1977-09-30 699 33.8% 64.0 3.1% 2,067
1977-12-31 719 34.0% 65.4 3.1% 2,112
1978-03-31 738 34.3% 69.0 3.2% 2,150
1978-06-30 749 32.9% 75.0 3.3% 2,276
1978-09-30 772 33.0% 73.0 3.1% 2,336
1978-12-31 789 32.7% 70.3 2.9% 2,417
1979-03-31 797 32.3% 59.0 2.4% 2,464
1979-06-30 805 31.8% 56.0 2.2% 2,528
1979-09-30 827 31.8% 55.0 2.1% 2,601
1979-12-31 845 31.8% 55.9 2.1% 2,661
1980-03-31 864 31.7% 66.5 2.4% 2,725
1980-06-30 878 32.2% 72.6 2.7% 2,729
1980-09-30 908 32.6% 80.7 2.9% 2,787
1980-12-31 930 31.9% 85.1 2.9% 2,917
1981-03-31 965 31.6% 101.0 3.3% 3,053
1981-06-30 971 31.5% 93.6 3.0% 3,086
1981-09-30 998 31.4% 90.2 2.8% 3,179
1981-12-31 1,029 32.2% 98.5 3.1% 3,196
1982-03-31 1,061 33.3% 96.8 3.0% 3,187
1982-06-30 1,080 33.3% 108.4 3.3% 3,243
1982-09-30 1,142 34.9% 144.1 4.4% 3,276
1982-12-31 1,197 36.1% 168.4 5.1% 3,314
1983-03-31 1,245 36.8% 183.2 5.4% 3,383
1983-06-30 1,320 37.9% 240.0 6.9% 3,484
1983-09-30 1,377 38.4% 235.2 6.6% 3,589
1983-12-31 1,411 38.2% 213.6 5.8% 3,690
1984-03-31 1,464 38.4% 219.2 5.8% 3,810
1984-06-30 1,513 38.7% 193.1 4.9% 3,909
1984-09-30 1,572 39.5% 195.1 4.9% 3,978
1984-12-31 1,663 41.2% 252.3 6.3% 4,036
1985-03-31 1,711 41.5% 247.0 6.0% 4,120
1985-06-30 1,775 42.5% 261.9 6.3% 4,178
1985-09-30 1,823 42.8% 250.8 5.9% 4,261
1985-12-31 1,946 45.0% 282.9 6.5% 4,322
1986-03-31 1,987 45.3% 276.1 6.3% 4,386
1986-06-30 2,059 46.5% 284.8 6.4% 4,426
1986-09-30 2,125 47.3% 302.2 6.7% 4,494
1986-12-31 2,215 48.7% 268.9 5.9% 4,546
1987-03-31 2,247 48.7% 259.9 5.6% 4,614
1987-06-30 2,309 49.2% 249.9 5.3% 4,690
1987-09-30 2,350 49.3% 225.0 4.7% 4,768
1987-12-31 2,432 49.8% 216.9 4.4% 4,886
1988-03-31 2,488 50.2% 240.9 4.9% 4,952
1988-06-30 2,548 50.3% 238.4 4.7% 5,063
1988-09-30 2,602 50.6% 252.0 4.9% 5,147
1988-12-31 2,684 51.1% 252.7 4.8% 5,254
1989-03-31 2,741 51.1% 253.3 4.7% 5,367
1989-06-30 2,800 51.3% 252.2 4.6% 5,454
1989-09-30 2,857 51.7% 255.1 4.6% 5,532
1989-12-31 2,953 52.9% 268.6 4.8% 5,584
1990-03-31 3,052 53.4% 311.1 5.4% 5,716
1990-06-30 3,144 54.2% 343.9 5.9% 5,798
1990-09-30 3,233 55.3% 375.9 6.4% 5,849
1990-12-31 3,365 57.5% 411.8 7.0% 5,849
1991-03-31 3,465 58.9% 413.2 7.0% 5,888
1991-06-30 3,538 59.3% 394.2 6.6% 5,964
1991-09-30 3,665 60.7% 432.0 7.2% 6,036
1991-12-31 3,802 62.4% 436.9 7.2% 6,096
1992-03-31 3,881 62.6% 416.1 6.7% 6,196
1992-06-30 3,985 63.3% 446.7 7.1% 6,290
1992-09-30 4,065 63.7% 399.3 6.3% 6,381
1992-12-31 4,177 64.4% 375.3 5.8% 6,484
1993-03-31 4,231 64.7% 349.3 5.3% 6,543
1993-06-30 4,352 65.8% 367.3 5.6% 6,612
1993-09-30 4,412 66.1% 346.9 5.2% 6,675
1993-12-31 4,536 66.7% 358.7 5.3% 6,800
1994-03-31 4,576 66.2% 345.3 5.0% 6,911
1994-06-30 4,646 66.1% 293.8 4.2% 7,031
1994-09-30 4,693 66.0% 281.3 4.0% 7,115
1994-12-31 4,800 66.4% 264.5 3.7% 7,232
1995-03-31 4,864 66.6% 288.2 3.9% 7,298
1995-06-30 4,951 67.5% 305.6 4.2% 7,338
1995-09-30 4,974 66.9% 281.2 3.8% 7,432
1995-12-31 4,989 66.3% 188.5 2.5% 7,523
1996-03-31 5,118 67.1% 253.7 3.3% 7,624
1996-06-30 5,161 66.4% 209.7 2.7% 7,777
1996-09-30 5,225 66.4% 250.8 3.2% 7,866
1996-12-31 5,323 66.5% 334.5 4.2% 8,000
1997-03-31 5,381 66.3% 263.1 3.2% 8,114
1997-06-30 5,376 65.2% 215.1 2.6% 8,250
1997-09-30 5,413 64.6% 188.4 2.2% 8,382
1997-12-31 5,502 65.0% 179.2 2.1% 8,471
1998-03-31 5,542 64.5% 161.5 1.9% 8,587
1998-06-30 5,548 64.1% 171.7 2.0% 8,658
1998-09-30 5,526 62.9% 113.0 1.3% 8,790
1998-12-31 5,614 62.7% 111.8 1.2% 8,954
1999-03-31 5,652 62.3% 109.2 1.2% 9,067
1999-06-30 5,639 61.5% 90.9 1.0% 9,174
1999-09-30 5,656 60.7% 130.1 1.4% 9,314
1999-12-31 5,776 60.7% 161.9 1.7% 9,520
2000-03-31 5,773 60.0% 121.8 1.3% 9,629
2000-06-30 5,686 57.9% 47.1 0.5% 9,823
2000-09-30 5,674 57.5% 17.9 0.2% 9,862
2000-12-31 5,662 56.9% -113.9 -1.1% 9,954
2001-03-31 5,774 57.6% 0.3 0.0% 10,022
2001-06-30 5,727 56.5% 40.9 0.4% 10,129
2001-09-30 5,808 57.3% 133.3 1.3% 10,135
2001-12-31 5,943 58.1% 281.2 2.7% 10,226
2002-03-31 6,006 58.1% 232.3 2.2% 10,333
2002-06-30 6,127 58.8% 399.7 3.8% 10,427
2002-09-30 6,228 59.2% 420.7 4.0% 10,527
2002-12-31 6,406 60.5% 462.3 4.4% 10,591
2003-03-31 6,461 60.3% 454.8 4.2% 10,717
2003-06-30 6,670 61.5% 543.6 5.0% 10,845
2003-09-30 6,783 61.2% 555.0 5.0% 11,087
2003-12-31 6,998 62.3% 592.3 5.3% 11,236
2004-03-31 7,131 62.2% 670.3 5.9% 11,457
2004-06-30 7,274 62.4% 604.2 5.2% 11,666
2004-09-30 7,379 62.4% 595.9 5.0% 11,819
2004-12-31 7,596 63.3% 598.1 5.0% 11,995
2005-03-31 7,777 63.8% 645.8 5.3% 12,199
2005-06-30 7,837 63.3% 562.2 4.5% 12,378
2005-09-30 7,933 62.9% 553.6 4.4% 12,606

Friday, December 02, 2005

GOP Hypocrisy, Where to Begin?

How about fiscal restraint?


"Consider the fiscal health of the country (and thus, also, of your wallet). The Republicans bill themselves as the party of fiscal discipline, but when Ronald Reagan came into office he spent so much, and cut taxes on the wealthy so much, that he had to quadruple the national debt to (not) pay for it. Democrats managed to reverse that decline in the 1990s, generating the largest surpluses in American history, but then Bush administration policies made Reagan's recklessness look like kid's stuff. Spending like crazy - much of it on foolish priorities like an unnecessary war in Iraq, a prescription drug plan which primarily benefits drug and insurance companies, and pork-barrel legislation like multi-million dollar bridges to nowhere in Alaska - while also taking a meat-axe to taxes formerly paid by the wealthy, George W. Bush and his Republican allies in Congress have created the biggest pile of debt in American history.

Indeed, Mr. Bush has now borrowed more money from foreign governments to finance his (well, actually, your) fiscal nightmare than have all the 42 presidents who have come before him - combined! Just how much is that, and why should you care? The national debt has now surpassed $8 trillion. That is about two-thirds the size of what the entire American economy produces (GDP) in a given year. All this, and more, has to be paid back. What is the 'more'? Well, we're adding to this mountain of debt to the tune of $350-450 billion every single year, digging ourselves further in. And, of course, we not only have to pay all this back, but the accumulating interest on this debt as well.

All told, each American, including any just born this second, and including each reader of this article, will spend some good portion of their lives paying off their share of this national blow-out, that share at the moment equaling more than $27,000 per American. But since only about half of us work, at least enough to pay taxes, the reality is that any American with a job owes over $54,000 to cover for the Republican Party's party at your expense. Plus the approximately $2,600 being added to the pile each year, every year. Plus interest on all that. How do you feel about coming out of school with $60,000 worth of debt hanging over your head, for something you didn't even benefit from?

Meanwhile, here's the real kicker. We used to have a somewhat fair system of tax distribution prior to the Bush program, but nowadays the rich pay far less in taxes than they used to, and the middle class pays just slightly less (and that's only if you don't count increases in state and local taxes, tuition, fees for government services, and more, all of which have gone up to fill in for the loss of federal revenues). Since these tax 'cuts' have been financed by borrowing, however, what that means is that the middle class will continue to have to pay their own share of the national debt in future years, plus the taxes that the rich won't be paying in the future, plus the taxes that the wealthy also didn't pay in the past (now) when this problem was created. Americans should therefore understand that this was never really a tax cut, but simply a tax transfer, from the rich to the middle class..."

http://www.hofstrachronicle.com/media/paper222/news/2005/12/01/EditorialopEd/From-The.Faculty.Its.Your.Life-1119456.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.hofstrachronicle.com


... If Bush were a Dimmocrat, the pubbies would almost certainly have impeached him by now. Instead the Coalition of the Conniving and the Clueless continue to praise him as if he were the Second Coming.

Thursday, December 01, 2005

The magic iraqi "6 months" < Tartarin > 12/01 10:25:52



"You only have about the next six months.”
Sen. Joseph Biden Jr. (D-Del.), Nov. 21, 2005

I think that you get them out of there in six months.
U.S. Reprsentative John Murtha (D-PA), Nov 17, 2004

“We've got, I think, six months.”
Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), Nov. 17, 2005

“We are entering a make-or-break six-month period.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), Oct. 26, 2005

“The next six months will really tell the story”
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb), Aug 18, 2005

“The next six to seven months are critical.”
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), Dec. 1, 2003

“The next three-to-six months will be critical.”
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Sept. 10, 2003

And before the war…

“It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Feb. 7 2003

And the best for last:

"We would probably need six months to complete inspections of Iraq's nuclear programs."
Mohamed ElBaradei, Feb 14, 2003

... How's the next 6 months look to you?