Month: October 2006
Republicans Tell Blacks, “Democrats Will Kill Your Babies”
Somebody stayed up late to come up with this one. A new ad campaign by the Rebooblican America’s PAC is being aired on urban radio stations. The campaign starts by telling African-American listeners that Democrats favor abortion as a means of wiping out blacks.
A female announcer says, “Black babies are terminated at triple the rate of white babies.” Democrats support “liberal abortion laws that are decimating our people”
In one particularly provocative spot, as a baby cries and thunder clasps in the background, a female announcer says, “Black babies are terminated at triple the rate of white babies.” Democrats support “liberal abortion laws that are decimating our people,” she says, while “the individual’s right to life is protected in the Republican platform.”
“Don’t buy the Democrats’ lie,” intones a male announcer as he reads the ad’s tagline. “Killing unborn babies is no way to help those in poverty.”
Another ad asks, “Why do our leaders in Congress support the pro-abortion agenda of the Democrats? Or more to the point: Why do we support them?”
I guess this has a certain appeal. More damaging, since it’s often true, might be the ads from the same group that say Democrats take black voters for granted.
The ads targeting African-American voters have been largely cleared on urban music stations owned by Lanham, MD-based Radio One, a minority-owned group which calls itself the “Urban Media Specialist.”
…”When someone you’ve called a friend betrays you, the truth can hurt,” a female announcer says. “For 50 years now, we’ve trusted the Democrats for education, health care and economic opportunity. And the truth is, today’s Democrats take us for granted.”
Least effective might be the ads targeting Latinos.
The group is also running ads on Hispanic stations in Denver, Albuquerque, Sacramento and Las Vegas, among other markets. The New York Sun reported one of those ads says, “Republicans respect the Latino soldier… Enough with these Democrats.”
Quote du Soir
“I’d call Cheney a lying sack of shit except that it denigrates three things I hold in higher regard than him.”
— Atrios, reacting to the vice president’s assessment of the U.S. military operations in the Iraq civil war, “If you look at the general overall situation, they’re doing remarkably well. “
Sgt. Merideth Howard, 52, Killed on Duty in Afghanistan
Not so long ago, the idea of putting women in the line of fire was controversial — even unthinkable to some. Now it’s all but routine:
On Sept. 8, 2006, Army Reserve Sgt. 1st Class Merideth Howard was killed while on duty in Afghanistan. She had been assigned to the 364th Civil Affairs Brigade which was tasked with rebuilding roads and water systems.
Sgt. Howard was killed when a car bomb exploded near a military Humvee in which she was riding. She was 52 years old, which makes her the oldest female casuality of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
When she traveled with her unit, Sgt. Howard manned an M-240 machine gun. Yet, the Army consistently tells the American public that women are only positioned in areas of safety, and not exposed to battle.
GOP Leaders Fail Pop Test on the Difference between Sunnis and Shiites
One take-away from the story of the schism between Shiites and Sunnis is that these are people who can hold a grudge of centuries. This would have been a factor to consider before we invaded and pissed them all off.
In August 2006, Peter Galbraith, the former ambassador to Croatia, revealed that in the run-up to invading Iraq President Bush did not know that Muslims in the region were split into two sects, Shiites and Sunnis, and that these two sects had been in conflict for over a thousand years.
Now that the president has led United States forces into the middle of an escalating civil war between the two sects, you might think his Republican cohorts in Congress would have a basic knowledge of the issues that divide the two sides. If so, you would be wrong:
Take Representative Terry Everett, a seven-term Alabama Republican who is vice chairman of the House intelligence subcommittee on technical and tactical intelligence.
“Do you know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite?” I asked him a few weeks ago.
Mr. Everett responded with a low chuckle. He thought for a moment: “One’s in one location, another’s in another location. No, to be honest with you, I don’t know. I thought it was differences in their religion, different families or something.”
To his credit, he asked me to explain the differences. I told him briefly about the schism that developed after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, and how Iraq and Iran are majority Shiite nations while the rest of the Muslim world is mostly Sunni. “Now that you’ve explained it to me,” he replied, “what occurs to me is that it makes what we’re doing over there extremely difficult, not only in Iraq but that whole area.”
Representative Jo Ann Davis, a Virginia Republican who heads a House intelligence subcommittee charged with overseeing the C.I.A.’s performance in recruiting Islamic spies and analyzing information, was similarly dumbfounded when I asked her if she knew the difference between Sunnis and Shiites.
“Do I?” she asked me. A look of concentration came over her face. “You know, I should.” She took a stab at it: “It’s a difference in their fundamental religious beliefs. The Sunni are more radical than the Shia. Or vice versa. But I think it’s the Sunnis who’re more radical than the Shia.”
Did she know which branch Al Qaeda’s leaders follow?
“Al Qaeda is the one that’s most radical, so I think they’re Sunni,” she replied. “I may be wrong, but I think that’s right.”
Did she think that it was important, I asked, for members of Congress charged with oversight of the intelligence agencies, to know the answer to such questions, so they can cut through officials’ puffery when they came up to the Hill?
“Oh, I think it’s very important,” said Ms. Davis, “because Al Qaeda’s whole reason for being is based on their beliefs. And you’ve got to understand, and to know your enemy.”
The schism between Shiites and Sunnis started with a conflict over succession of leadership after Mohammed departed the planet around 700 C.E.:
Sunnis have their historical roots in the majority group who followed Abu Bakr, an effective leader, as Muhammad’s successor, instead of his cousin and son-in-law Ali. The Sunnis are so named because they believe themselves to follow the sunnah or “custom” of the Prophet. Shi’ites are those Muslims who followed Ali, the closest relative of Muhammad, as Muhammad’s successor.
One take-away from the story of the schism between Shiites and Sunnis is that these are people who can hold a grudge of centuries. This would have been a factor for the president and the Republicans to have considered before we invaded and pissed them all off.
Quote du Jour
Color line is a great problem of this century. . . . Back of the problem of race and color lies a greater problem which both obscures and implements it; and that is the fact that so many civilized persons are willing to live in comfort, even if the price of this is poverty, ignorance and disease of the majority of their fellowmen; that to maintain this privilege men have waged war until today war tends to become universal and continuous, and the excuse for this war continues largely to be color and race.
— W.E.B Du Bois (1868-1963), American writer, editor
Florida Newspaper Endorsements: Nelson 10, Harris 0
But who’s counting: Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson leads Republican Rep. Katherine Harris by almost every measure — in the polls, in sanity, and now, in newspaper endorsements. Last weekend, Nelson picked up endorsements from three Florida newspapers, bringing his total to 10. Harris has yet to garner an endorsement from any Florida fish wrapper.
Harris should be able to expect an endorsement by the Lakeland Ledger, right? I mean, she was born there.
Nelson has been endorsed by the Tampa Tribune, St. Petersburg Times, Gainesville Sun, Palm Beach Post, Daytona Beach News-Journal, Fort Pierce Tribune, Port St. Lucie News, Stuart News, Vero Beach Press Journal and the Sarasota Herald-Tribune.
Ouch! That last one had to hurt, since Sarasota is smack in the middle of Harris country. But maybe it’s too much for the Lord’s Chosen One to expect endorsements from the state’s top-tier newspapers. Maybe Harris should aim a little lower and go for quanity, not quality.
She could start by courting the Sarasoto Tempo-News, which, while it is not the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, it is hyphenated. Then there’s Basta Pinoy in Boca Raton, which serves the oft-forgotten Filipino constituency. Or the Bradford County Telegraph in Starke, home of Florida’s Death Row and a well-known bastion of wingnuts. Harris could probably pay to get endorsed by Miami’s El Nuevo Herald, as long as she said bad things about Fidel Castro.
Harris should be able to expect an endorsement by the Lakeland Ledger, right? I mean, she was born there, and did really well in a picnic poll two weeks ago, clobbering Nelson by 20 points. Other possibilities include the Okeechobee Times, Palatka Daily News, the Walton Sun and Williston Pioneer.
So take heart, Kate, there’s still a chance you’ll get a newspaper endorsement before the election. After all, I hear they’re expecting a cold front in Hell next week ….
Poll: Bush’s Approval Rating Drops to 37 Percent
Free fall: The latest Zogby poll shows George Bush’s approval rating is falling faster than Greg Louganis doing a triple with a half-gainer off the 30-meter board:
After making headway improving his job approval rating over the course of several weeks, President Bush took a hit last week, dropping from 42 percent three weeks ago to 37 percent in a national live telephone survey conducted last week by Zogby International.
Another demographic that has strongly supported him in the past – weekly Wal-Mart shoppers – turned more negative.Bush was last at 37 percent positive job approval in a Zogby telephone poll taken in early September. In this latest survey, 63 percent gave him negative job marks.
He held steady among Republicans in this latest survey – 72 percent said they give the President positive marks for his work. However, independent voters abandoned him – just 24 percent gave him positive marks, down from 36 percent just three weeks ago.
While married respondents, a part of Bush’s political base, remained steady at 42 percent positive in this latest survey, another demographic that has strongly supported him in the past – weekly Wal-Mart shoppers – turned more negative. Just 43 percent gave him positive marks in this latest poll, down from 55 percent three weeks ago. Among those shoppers, 57 percent gave him negative job marks.
Bushes at War: Fighting Backstage Between Aides for Bush 41 and 43
“Personally, I think he’s dying inside.”
— Aide describing former Pres. Bush’s disappointment in his son
Schadenfreude — you’re soaking in it:
The 41s were surprised that the 43s — the folks who would later botch Katrina — couldn’t see what was obvious to everyone else
[One] of the worst-kept secrets in Bush World is the dismay, in some cases disdain, harbored by many senior aides of the former President toward the administration of his son – 41 and 43, as many call them, political shorthand that refers to their numerical places in American presidential history.
For five years, the 41s have bit their collective tongues as, they complain, the 43s ignored their counsel. But as the war in Iraq has worsened and public support for the current administration has tanked, loyalists of the elder Bush have found it impossible to suppress their disillusionment – particularly their belief that many of 43’s policies are a stick in the eye of his father.
“Forty-three has now repudiated everything 41 stands for, and still [Bush senior] won’t say a word,” a key member of the elder Bush alumni said. “Personally, I think he’s dying inside.”
To 41 loyalists, the bill of indictment is voluminous. Some alleged 43 has betrayed his father’s middle-of-the-road philosophy by governing as a divider, not the uniter he promised in the 2000 campaign. Others, like former 41 speechwriter Curt Smith, argue 43 isn’t conservative enough.
“Conservatives want limited government, a balanced Middle East approach, a foreign policy that builds, not destroys, and general, not special, interest,” Smith said. “Bush 41 endorsed all of the above. Bush 43 supports none.”
The 41s were surprised that the 43s — the folks who would later botch Katrina — couldn’t see what was obvious to everyone else:
“Everyone knew how Rumsfeld acts,” another key 41 assistant said. “Everyone knew 43 didn’t have an attention span. Everyone knew Condi [Rice] wouldn’t be able to stand up to Cheney and Rumsfeld. We told them all of this, and we were told we don’t know what we’re doing.”
Like 41 himself, his aides are cock-eyed optimists who find the silver lining in Bush Jr.’s flameout:
“By comparison, the old man looks better and better,” a senior 41 hand said, with undisguised satisfaction.
Wasserman: A Timid Media Dropped the Ball in the Foley Case
To out or not to out: I don’t always agree with Ed Wasserman’s media analyses. Indeed, I often think the Miami Herald columnist has brown eyes for a very good reason not related to genetics. However, his take on the Mark Foley scandal adds a new dimension to what has gotten to be a very old story. Here’s an excerpt, but to grok the nugget, read the whole column here.
[S]hould Foley have been outed?
If so, the argument has to rest on more than a visceral sense that nobody can be both gay and a conservative Republican. Why not? We all decide on our political allegiances based on a near fit, not a perfect fit. A gay man may well decide that the GOP, even with its recurring homophobia, still is more broadly to his liking than the alternative.
Foley’s sexuality had become the central issue in his career.But the Foley problem was different, as I’ve been slow to recognize. Here, the issue wasn’t that his public performance wasn’t consistent with his private life. It’s that for years, his public performance made no sense unless you knew about what was happening behind the scenes. After his infuriating 1994 vote he dramatically softened his position on gay rights to deter further efforts to out him. In turn, he sought out off-the-wall issues — clamoring, for instance, for a state crackdown on a central Florida nudist colony — to appease his family values base. It’s almost certain he pulled the plug on his Senate run because his gayness would come up.
As [on-line Huffington Post columnist Eric] Boehlert correctly writes, ”Foley’s sexuality had become the central issue in his career.” And yet it was kept not secret, but in the shadows, known to those in the know, hidden from the main body of his constituents.
This wasn’t a matter of deferring to a legitimate area of privacy. Foley’s public actions were unintelligible unless you knew this backstory. And in failing to tell it, the media failed the public, and endorsed a principle of timidity that’s sure to fail the public in the future as well.
