Remember the days when Communism was collapsing and the U.S. was seen as the ideal of democracy, enlightened values, openness? Apparently those days are long gone. George Soros has shifted his attention from helping to develop open societies in eastern Europe to focusing on the United States.
Soros is a leading contributor in a new PAC, Americans Coming Together (I would have suggested another name, but they didn't ask me), that is planning to spend $75 million to toss ol' 5-to-4 out of office next year. Thanks to Atrios for the link.
"In a statement describing his reasons for giving $10 million, Soros said, 'I believe deeply in the values of an open society. For the past 15 years I have focused my energies on fighting for these values abroad. Now I am doing it in the United States. The fate of the world depends on the United States and President Bush is leading us in the wrong direction.'"
Why, what can he mean? I mean, we have AG Ashcroft defending our freedoms and making sure that the executive branch does not interfere with the duties of the judicial branch.
"Millions of Americans now share a feeling that something pretty basic has gone wrong in our country and that some important American values are being placed at risk. And they want to set it right."
-- Al Gore, NYU, August 7, 2003
I would like to think that this was an important speech. But I'm afraid it will get little coverage outside of NYC and, perhaps DC. Nevertheless, it was pretty powerful in laying out the "false impressions" that Bush's propaganda has been creating, whether it's WMD in Iraq, tax cuts for everyone, or global warming. Anything that disagrees with the Bush/Cheney ideology is simply ignored or overwhelmed by the blast of lies that regularly emit from the White House and the Bush house organ, FoxNews. In fact, they couldn't wait to blast it last night on Fox. How? By lying about Bush, Cheney, and Perle comments before the war, as Atrios points out.
In any case, I think these two grafs, from the Post's coverage of Gore's speech, pretty much sums up the situation today:
"'The very idea of self-government depends upon honest and open debate as the preferred method for pursuing the truth,' Gore said, 'and a shared respect for the rule of reason is the best way to establish the truth. The Bush administration routinely shows disrespect for that whole process, and I think it's partly because they feel as if they already know the truth and aren't very curious to learn about any facts that might contradict it. They and the members of groups that belong to their ideological coalition are true believers in each other's agenda.'
"Bush's aides shrugged off the criticism. 'I just dismiss it,' White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said."
"Just dismiss it?" How? Why? Your administration is called dishonest and a danger to democracy and you dismiss it.
But Gore's speech can be effective if the Dems take it as Gore says he intended it, as a road map for attacking Bush's policies -- and, perhaps more importantly, Bush's manner of governing -- over the next 15 or 16 months. Maybe start pointing out things like this more frequently.
Speaking of the Dems, has Dean peaked too soon? He's certainly drawn the ire of Al From of the DLC, the consummate Dem Party insider who can't abide Dean's assault on his power. And the pundits and press have already pre-written their campaign stories about him that they'll trot out regularly as long as he's in the race. Just as they did with Gore. In fact, Gore still has to deal with those stories. In the punditocracy, Bush is still "the kind of guy you'd be comfortable standing around with at a B-B-Q," while Gore is still "an insufferable bore who lies and exaggerates about his accomplishments. Christ, 'Love Story' for god's sake."
I'm not sure I like Dean. But I can't see why From and the other centrist Dems are getting so worked up about him destroying the strides made by Clinton/Gore and returning us to the unelectable days of Humphrey, McGovern, and Dukakis. I mean, a guy who was against the war in Iraq (and is looking smarter than me, every day), but is pro-gun rights, pro-gay civil unions, and fiscally conservative, and who gets the party base excited -- that's a pretty interesting combination.
But even if you haven't been following him much, you probably already know that
1. He's "diminutive (sounds like Dukakis all over again)"
2. He's a Park Avenue WASP (how many times does the press mention that Bush is from WASP-center, Greenwich, CT? Like, never).
3. He's an ill-informed wimp on national security (if you've read the transcript from the infamous Russert interview, you've got to know he did a hell of a lot better than Bush would have -- in fact, did -- and was ripped at by that hack, Tim Russert).
4. He's got a nasty temper, especially with the press (which explains why he's always short, waspy, and weak on defense in all of the stories about him).
What liberal media?
*****
How weird is it that Michiko Kakutani is reviewing a book about sports? Queenen's a Phillies fan, so he's probably a small-minded jerk living under a lie that he lives in a small-market city. That's why the Phillies lose. And lose. And lose. In fact, Philly is one of the five largest media markets in the country with no other competition (i.e., Mets and Yankees, A's and Giants -- the latter pair in a much smaller TV market with much better teams, consistently). The problem with the Phillies is they've got crummy owners, a crummy park, and -- worst of all -- crummy fans. "They'd boo cancer patients," went one line attributed to Bob Uecker. Hell, they bood Mike Schmidt mercilessly for years until he finally got them a World Series.
The Marlins are in town this weekend, so it should be fun, assuming the monsoon lets up for a couple of afternoons. And Nellie's back, so all is right (well, almost) in Yankeeland.
Soros is a leading contributor in a new PAC, Americans Coming Together (I would have suggested another name, but they didn't ask me), that is planning to spend $75 million to toss ol' 5-to-4 out of office next year. Thanks to Atrios for the link.
"In a statement describing his reasons for giving $10 million, Soros said, 'I believe deeply in the values of an open society. For the past 15 years I have focused my energies on fighting for these values abroad. Now I am doing it in the United States. The fate of the world depends on the United States and President Bush is leading us in the wrong direction.'"
Why, what can he mean? I mean, we have AG Ashcroft defending our freedoms and making sure that the executive branch does not interfere with the duties of the judicial branch.
"Millions of Americans now share a feeling that something pretty basic has gone wrong in our country and that some important American values are being placed at risk. And they want to set it right."
-- Al Gore, NYU, August 7, 2003
I would like to think that this was an important speech. But I'm afraid it will get little coverage outside of NYC and, perhaps DC. Nevertheless, it was pretty powerful in laying out the "false impressions" that Bush's propaganda has been creating, whether it's WMD in Iraq, tax cuts for everyone, or global warming. Anything that disagrees with the Bush/Cheney ideology is simply ignored or overwhelmed by the blast of lies that regularly emit from the White House and the Bush house organ, FoxNews. In fact, they couldn't wait to blast it last night on Fox. How? By lying about Bush, Cheney, and Perle comments before the war, as Atrios points out.
In any case, I think these two grafs, from the Post's coverage of Gore's speech, pretty much sums up the situation today:
"'The very idea of self-government depends upon honest and open debate as the preferred method for pursuing the truth,' Gore said, 'and a shared respect for the rule of reason is the best way to establish the truth. The Bush administration routinely shows disrespect for that whole process, and I think it's partly because they feel as if they already know the truth and aren't very curious to learn about any facts that might contradict it. They and the members of groups that belong to their ideological coalition are true believers in each other's agenda.'
"Bush's aides shrugged off the criticism. 'I just dismiss it,' White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said."
"Just dismiss it?" How? Why? Your administration is called dishonest and a danger to democracy and you dismiss it.
But Gore's speech can be effective if the Dems take it as Gore says he intended it, as a road map for attacking Bush's policies -- and, perhaps more importantly, Bush's manner of governing -- over the next 15 or 16 months. Maybe start pointing out things like this more frequently.
Speaking of the Dems, has Dean peaked too soon? He's certainly drawn the ire of Al From of the DLC, the consummate Dem Party insider who can't abide Dean's assault on his power. And the pundits and press have already pre-written their campaign stories about him that they'll trot out regularly as long as he's in the race. Just as they did with Gore. In fact, Gore still has to deal with those stories. In the punditocracy, Bush is still "the kind of guy you'd be comfortable standing around with at a B-B-Q," while Gore is still "an insufferable bore who lies and exaggerates about his accomplishments. Christ, 'Love Story' for god's sake."
I'm not sure I like Dean. But I can't see why From and the other centrist Dems are getting so worked up about him destroying the strides made by Clinton/Gore and returning us to the unelectable days of Humphrey, McGovern, and Dukakis. I mean, a guy who was against the war in Iraq (and is looking smarter than me, every day), but is pro-gun rights, pro-gay civil unions, and fiscally conservative, and who gets the party base excited -- that's a pretty interesting combination.
But even if you haven't been following him much, you probably already know that
1. He's "diminutive (sounds like Dukakis all over again)"
2. He's a Park Avenue WASP (how many times does the press mention that Bush is from WASP-center, Greenwich, CT? Like, never).
3. He's an ill-informed wimp on national security (if you've read the transcript from the infamous Russert interview, you've got to know he did a hell of a lot better than Bush would have -- in fact, did -- and was ripped at by that hack, Tim Russert).
4. He's got a nasty temper, especially with the press (which explains why he's always short, waspy, and weak on defense in all of the stories about him).
What liberal media?
*****
How weird is it that Michiko Kakutani is reviewing a book about sports? Queenen's a Phillies fan, so he's probably a small-minded jerk living under a lie that he lives in a small-market city. That's why the Phillies lose. And lose. And lose. In fact, Philly is one of the five largest media markets in the country with no other competition (i.e., Mets and Yankees, A's and Giants -- the latter pair in a much smaller TV market with much better teams, consistently). The problem with the Phillies is they've got crummy owners, a crummy park, and -- worst of all -- crummy fans. "They'd boo cancer patients," went one line attributed to Bob Uecker. Hell, they bood Mike Schmidt mercilessly for years until he finally got them a World Series.
The Marlins are in town this weekend, so it should be fun, assuming the monsoon lets up for a couple of afternoons. And Nellie's back, so all is right (well, almost) in Yankeeland.
posted by John at 5:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home