The Facts Machine

"And I come back to you now, at the turn of the tide"

Saturday, August 09, 2003


Sadly No ruins a perfectly good movie for us.

Feel free to assign colors to each individual.

(this will be the last time i brag for a while, i promise!)

The light at the end of the tunnel that is summer sessions is a twofold concert spectacular. Make no mistake, I'm enjoying both of my classes. But how can I think about analytical papers and research projects when on the horizon loom Bruce Springsteen (8/16, Pac Bell Park, field-level seats) and Radiohead (9/23, Shoreline Ampitheater, row J!)? The former I will be attending with my family (well, they are boomers) and official TFM Best Friend, Marissa. For the latter I'll be going with my UCSB crew. The interesting thing about the Radiohead show is that I'll be driving up from SB that day, and we plan to head back down afterwards, hopefully making it back by 4-430 in the morning on wednesday the 24th. But for those seats, it's more than worth it.

I had similar seats at Shoreline in June of 2000 for Roger Waters, the brains and balls behind Pink Floyd. Which is interesting, for Radiohead is sometimes ballyhooed as the modern Floyd. And that makes sense, given some of their similarities, including 1) daring sonic experimentation, 2) underrated musicianship, 3) their members' searing hatred of eachother during the recording process. On the other hand, the 90's Gilmour-era PF would play "Astronomy Domine" (from their 1967 debut album Piper at the Gates of Dawn), so why no more "Creep", you boys from Oxford you?

Ok, now I have to write about the Aum cult's 1995 sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway system. A bit of advice: If you have to read about it, for your own sanity you probably shouldn't do so while on BART.

Making the rounds in the righty wishful-thinking blogs is this report in Townhall by the, uh, highly-credible Bob Novak, saying that Pentagon weapons inspector David Kay has found "substantial evidence of biological weapons in Iraq" and that the Bush administration is planning to present such evidence in September.

For all of the harping by the hawks attempting to discredit Hans Blix and his team this past winter, Kay has some problems of his own. Yesterday, the Pentagon finally came around, falling in line with every other expert in the world in believing that those Iraqi trailers were used for hydrogen weather balloons. But back in June...
Kay said he was aware of a number of theories that the vehicles might have had other uses, "none of which make any logical sense."

Kay saw one of the vehicles on a recent trip to Iraq and received reports on the second.

Kay said most of the alternative uses that have been suggested "didn't pass the laugh test."

"The silliest one," Kay said, was the suggestion that they had been designed to generate hydrogen for meteorological balloons.

Unless that "substantial evidence" of bioweapons consists of letters from 1985 reading "Dear Mr Hussein, enjoy this anthrax, please try to use it for *pharmaceutical* purposes (wink, nudge), your pal, GHWB, p.s. rummy says you have a fiiirrrmmm handshake!", I doubt much will come of this. Besides, this is a NoFacts blurb we're talking about.

(cnn link via atrios)
WASHINGTON - President Bush and congressional Republicans continue to increase budget deficits while jobs disappear, Rep. Charlie Stenholm, D-Texas, said Saturday.

"When you find yourself in a hole, the first rule is to quit digging," he said in the Democrats' weekly radio address. "Yet the Republican leadership in Washington continues to advocate policies that would put us further in the red."

The administration recently projected deficits of more than $450 billion this year and $475 billion next year — numbers that don't even factor in money borrowed from Social Security and other trust funds, Stenholm said.

"Budget deficits place a drag on the economy and our living standards now and in the future," Stenholm said. "Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has repeatedly warned that deficits undercut the ability of the economy to grow in a way that reduces unemployment and increases the wages of American workers." (full story)
It's good to see House Democrats standing up and saying things like this. But... I could swear that President Clinton used the "digging" line, worded almost exactly like that, a few months ago.

And here it is! (ok he said it more concisely):
Clinton accused the Republicans of digging themselves into a hole on the economic front by squandering a $5.8 trillion federal budget surplus he helped build and creating a projected $2 trillion deficit.

"When you find yourself in a hole, quit digging," Clinton said, noting that the Republicans just passed legislation to rebuild Iraq potentially at the cost of laying off U.S. teachers and cutting after-school programs. He said he supports rebuilding Iraq but not at that cost.
Regardless,both Rep. Stenholm and the Big Dog know one thing about President Bush: "[he] will not deny, [he] will not ignore, [he] will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents, and other generations,"


From Busy, Busy, Busy:
Shorter Condoleezza Rice
Transforming the Middle East

-We attacked Iraq without provocation in order to transform it into a democracy and so enhance world peace, as countries with elected leaders do not attack other countries without provocation.
Exactly... hey, wait a minute... actually nevermind, our leader wasn't elected.

Friday, August 08, 2003

Steve Soto takes on Bush's "it's going great!" remarks from earlier today, as well as Condi's strained civil-rights-movement analogy from yesterday:
Condi Rice managed to make an issue out of nothing when she equated alleged concerns about the ability of Iraqis to govern themselves to the civil rights movement. Condi, let me clue you in on something: no one is saying that the Iraqis cannot govern themselves except the oppressive corporate jackboots you and Cheney have installed in their country. By saying this, you misdirect away from the real issue, which is why we are there, how we got there, and how long you and the corporatists will stay there depriving the Iraqis of their self-government and their rebuilt infrastructure. The only people who are saying that the Iraqis cannot govern themselves are the neocons, so equating them with the Jim Crow element of the South, which is the basis of your party Ms. Rice wasn’t particularly deft, was it? What a moron.

Earlier today I was pondering the relative receptions of the candidacies of Ahh-nuld here and Jesse "the Body Mind" Ventura back in 1998 over in Minnesota.

LexisNexis is lots of fun, I must say.

There is cause for concern... from an October 98 piece in the Star Trib:
"I'm going to vote for Jesse because he's not a politician," said Jim Klym, a retired Marine who's the post commander and the type of voter who is key to Ventura's gubernatorial candidacy. "You can't pick Coleman - he's a quitter, quit his party, quit as mayor.Dayton, he's an unknown, businessman. Humphrey? Wouldn't vote for him if he was the only one on the ballot. Freeman? He might be pretty good. Doug Johnson's another unknown quantity.

"Jesse alienates a lot of people, but he's got great ideas and he'd get things done. So what if wrestling's just an act - politics is a bigger act than wrestling."
Oh god. Do we have a lot of people like that here? I imagine that while Minnesotans, may, per capita, consume a lot more alcohol than we do (leading to such electoral results), California may have the edge in general disillusionment with the state government (Republicans with their weak delegation, Democrats with Davis) which, coupled with the generally uninspiring set of candidates, could set the stage for a Ventura-style Arnold victory. And does this sound familiar?
"You're going to find out I'm a fiscal conservative, but when it comes to social issues, I'm moderate to liberal."
The California GOP, with its distaste for moderates, may put some pressure on Schwarzy to backpedal from some of his liberal social views (gay rights, abortion, etc). Either way, it could be a wedge issue that someone like Simon or McClintock takes advantage of, allowing the CA GOP to split the vote, and thus, do what it always does: 1) aim gun at foot, and 2) shoot.

For some background on Ventura's pre-campaign experience, here's a snippet from a January 98 Star Trib piece from when he announced:
Ventura was elected to Brooklyn Park's part-time mayor's job in 1990 as a leader of a group of disgruntled citizens who felt City Hall had become unresponsive and rude. He won 63 percent of the vote, knocking out an 18-year incumbent.

From the first council meeting, to which he wore a black bandana on his head, to the end of his four-year term, when he led another council meeting while wearing an orange football jersey with "Hizzoner" stenciled on the back, Ventura was a colorful and controversial figure.

He often battled city staff and other council members. But he also presided over a drop in the city's crime rate and a resurgence in economic development - both of which he took partial credit for. He also survived an attempt by another council member to have him thrown out of office for buying a home in Maple Grove and allegedly living there while he was still Brooklyn Park mayor; an administrative law judge ruled in his favor.
This means one thing: As amused as people were by Ventura's announced candidacy in Minnesota, it is clear that he was far more qualified than Arnold is in 2003!

ONE LAST THOUGHT THAT CAME TO ME... One of the major Dem candidates, either Bustamante or Garamendi, would do very well to slightly doctor Davis' old 98 slogan:
Not likely, but . . . heh.

Well, at least we found WMD somewhere. Sure, in Alabama, but that counts!

And we're planning to dispose of them... by fire!

The locals (Anniston, population: 35,000) aren't impressed. More accurately, they're trying to get an injunction to stop the army from getting their burn on. But it looks like it's no use:
A federal judge Friday turned back an effort to block a planned chemical weapons burn at the Anniston, Alabama, Army Depot.

The burning of about 2,200 tons of chemical weapons just outside the eastern Alabama city was scheduled to begin Wednesday, but the Army agreed to delay until after Friday's hearing on a request by the Chemical Weapons Working Group -- opponents of the burn -- for a temporary restraining order.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson denied that request.

The burn has not yet been rescheduled, said Mike Abrams, spokesman for the Anniston Chemical Agent Disposal Facility.

"At the moment we are in a wait-and-see mode," he said. "... I'm waiting for the Department of the Army to give me the green light. ... I'm waiting for guidance that says that we stand down or that we move forward."

Prior to the judge's hearing, Army spokesman Mike Abrams said that if Jackson sided with the military, trial burns could begin as soon as Saturday.


Opponents of the billion-dollar incineration project argue that safety measures, such as the pressurization of county school buildings to keep fumes out, have not yet been completed.

Army officials say that continuing to store the weapons is more dangerous than burning them. More than 800 of the weapons are beginning to leak deadly agents such as the nerve toxins sarin and VX, Army officials have said.

The incinerator, located about 50 miles east of Birmingham, would be the nation's first in a populated area, according to The Associated Press. Emergency planners say about 35,000 people live within nine miles of the plant, which under the Army's plan would destroy some 2,254 tons of nerve agents and mustard gas over seven years.

The residents around the facility considered most at risk have been offered protective hoods, air filters and shelter kits, Army officials said. Warning sirens have been put in place and evacuation routes have been mapped out.
Hmm, VX, that's the one from The Rock.

Disposal of chemical/biological weapons is a very delicate matter, and should be done in an exceedingly cautious matter. For instance, let's say you burn up several drums of sarin. When burned, sarin can release fluorides into the air, which can damage human health significantly over time (source). So for utmost safety, perhaps you also need mechanisms to catch the exhaust from the incineration.

Er... well... have a hood and a little filter! Remember, this is coming from the same government that tells us duct tape will help save you from terrorism.

Reader Alex says that this reveals some government hypocrisy. Indeed, the US seems so concerned with the potential effects of WMD's that might not be there, while being relatively unconcerned about byproducts from the ones that A) do exist and B) we have.

Thursday, August 07, 2003

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Antidepressants may help stimulate the growth of new brain cells, U.S.-based scientists said on Thursday in releasing research that may lead to the development of better drugs to fight depression.

Research on rats shows that two different classes of antidepressants can help brain cells regenerate -- and not in areas normally thought of as being involved in depression...

The study fits in with others that suggest depression can shrink the hippocampus, a brain region crucial to learning and memory but only recently found to be involved in depression. Major stress and trauma -- both depression triggers -- can also cause the shrinkage...

New antidepressants may be developed to target this process directly, said Rene Hen of Columbia University in New York, who led the study.

"The proof in humans is going to come when we extend the work into finding drugs that stimulate neurogenesis. If these drugs have antidepressant effects in humans, this is going to be proof that the process is critical in humans," Hen said in a telephone interview.

"There is a push already in the pharmaceutical industry to find such compounds." (full story)
This is good news. Only around a century ago was mental illness akin to witchcraft.

On the lighter side, would this mean that depressed people who drink are breaking even?
The Cali Supremes have decided not to intervene in the recall election. Let the craziness begin. Er, continue.

Of course, the ACLU's lawsuit has yet to be taken up.
Weren't the Republicans just telling us the other day that celebrities should keep their mouths shut about politics? Didn't they blast the Dixie Chicks, Janeane Garofalo, Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon and every other artist who spoke out about the war in Iraq? Wasn't the argument that fame doesn't confer experience, wisdom or competence?

-Joe Conason

via sadly no, tom tomorrow and atrios, we see this:

says sadly no: "time to check the rapture index"

says tbogg: "holy crap"

says atrios: "doesn't he kinda look like wesley clark?"

says mr tomorrow: "Aaaaugh! My eyes!"

Its best feature? After buying the toy, it disappears for around a year.

Any minute now, the California State Supreme Court could come out with its decision on whether it will deal with various legal challenges to the recall. Among the challenges is one (with some possible legal support) that the 2nd recall question (who to suceed Davis) should be thrown out, saying that if Davis is recalled then Lt Governor Cruz Bustamante would be upgraded to the top spot.

Here's a thought: Let's say the Justices rule that the 2nd question should be dumped. Naturally, Issa and the other few financial backers of the recall wont let the prospect of a Republican successor to Davis (Ahh-nuld or otherwise) die so easily. Thus, they're likely to appeal to the federal bench . . . so guess where this could go. Only it wont. The Nino have been doing their darnedest since Bush v. Gore to create an alternate legacy (just ask Justice Kennedy, who penned the sweeping ruling in the Texas sodomy case), so I doubt they'd intervene to help carry out what essentially amounts to another Republican coup. Also, the higher on the national stage this goes, the more it may remind the American people of all that Florida business, and that is not what the Bushies nor the national GOP wants (especially since the recall supporters want a rushed special election that may disenfranchise a lot of potential voters who would probably vote against the recall). The RNC (which has already distanced itself from the recall effort) would protest the CSC's ruling, but tell state Republicans to at least be happy that Davis was out. But of course, given their circular-firing-squad nature, who knows if they'll listen.

Before I get too carried away, I remind myself that the CSC hasn't made any decisions yet, and will soon. But that was fun, wasn't it?

(via Bartcop)

For great long-winded commentary on Iraq and elsewhere, check out former Kos contributor Steve Gilliard's new blog. He has as good a handle over the connotations of the various developments in Iraq as anyone I've read. Click fast!

Issa not running.

Tell your friends. Lock your car.

I must say, I'm rather surprised that Ahh-nuld is running. Paul is right that this probably means no Riordan run. Nevertheless, with at least four major Republicans from the state likely to run (the actor/ass-grabber, the car thief, the crooked businessman, and that guy who lost to Westley), the stage could be set for a grand ol' vote-splittin', we'll see.

Seeing that McBain has entered the race*, let the fish-in-a-barrel opposition research begin!

Here's a nudge.
Arnold has never been backward about coming forward. At a time when other pro bodybuilders were running for cover, Arnold openly discussed his use of steroids in a mail order booklet that he sold through Muscle & Fitness Magazine. The booklet is entitled Arnold: Developing a Mr Universe Physique and was released in 1977. Here’s what he said about his use of steroids back then: “I will not speak for my colleagues, but I will write of my experience with tissue-building drugs. Yes, I have used them, but no, they didn’t make me what I am. Anabolic steroids were helpful to me in maintaining muscle size while on a strict diet in preparation for a contest. I did not use them for muscle growth, but rather for muscle maintenance when cutting up.”

Since that time Arnold has made no effort to hide the fact that he was a steroid user in the seventies. In fact, in a recent TALK magazine interview when asked if he had ever taken drugs, including steroids, his reply was “I inhaled, exhaled, everything.” And, of course, Arnold can be seen smoking a joint at the end of PUMPING IRON. Yet, he has always maintained that he didn’t use steroids to bulk up, just to maintain his size when he was preparing for a contest. It should be remembered that, until the Anabolic Steroid Control Act criminalized steroid use for ‘athletic purposes’ in 1990, they were not illegal. And, according to his publicist Pat Kingsley, “Arnold hasn’t done steroids since they were illegal.”
Okay, he's hanging in there so far, but...
However, there is more to this story than that. First hand experiences from some bodybuilders who trained with Arnold in his bodybuilding heyday reveal that his use of steroids was more liberal than he acknowledges in his 1977 booklet. Ric Drasin is a former WWF wrestler who trained with Arnold at Gold’s Gym in Venice, California in the early Seventies. Here’s what he had to say on the issue of steroid use:

"Through the years other anabolics came on the scene – more sophisticated drugs from Europe. I tried most of them. Primobolan from Germany was the best. This was injected weekly in conjunction with dianabol. Guess who really loved this combination? Arnold Schwarzenegger! In fact, he gave me the injections! This combo was superb and helped Arnold win Mr. Olympia. In the Seventies, every one at Gold’s Gym was taking this combination. Everything was easy to get and really cheap."

So, here we have mention of two specific steroids – primobolon and dianabol. Are these drugs primarily used for pre contest muscle retention? Well, primobolan when taken in dosages of 200mg/week a low water retention stimulating the buildup of strength and muscle occurs. This is a favorite compound for steroid novices. Within 8 weeks, most athletes can gain 10 to 15 solid pounds without having to worry about losing them after discontinuation of the compound. Low water retention can occur. Dianabol Dianabol’s popularity stems from it’s almost immediate and very strong anabolic effects. 4-5 tablets per day is enough to give almost anybody dramatic results. Dianabol converts to estrogen, so gyno and water retention may be a problem. The most popular form of Dianabol in the Seventies was Methandros-tenolene. It is a 17 alpa-alkyl based steroid which produces dramatic strength and size gains. This is also a very toxic drug. This drug is probably the reason for Arnold’s muscles. Notice that in both cases a side effect is that water retention can occur. This is, of course, the absolute last thing that a bodybuilder wants to happen pre-contest. It seems unlikely, then, that the steroid sessions that Mr Drasin describes were limited to pre contest muscle retention. Rather, it appears more likely that Arnold was using steroids year round to promote muscle growth.
Fascinating. Looks like Sammy's bat was corked season-round, so to speak. At minimum, it will make you think when you turn on the local news and see the obligatory "let's go to the local gym and get some reactions" story.

Stay tuned, for this to make a comeback. Governor in California, you say? Howabout senator in Oregon!

* - inviting the obvious slogan: "LET'S GET SILLY"

UPDATE: Kos points to this nugget in SF Gate on something that could only be the result of a residual steroid-related hormonal imbalance. Tread lightly, there's excrement involved.

Wednesday, August 06, 2003

Drudge and this guy point to last week's Nielsen nonfiction book race, showing Annthrax Coulter's Treason inching ahead of Hillary's Living History.

They show different sets of numbers, but each has Coulter less than two thousand copies ahead of Clinton.

Then, you ask yourself, "why are they using that set of numbers and not linking to the reliable, well-respected NY Times bestseller list?"

Cuz, right smack next to Coulter's book, you find one of these: (+)

Meaning, of course, that bookstores are reporting bulk orders of her book, artificially inflating her sales.

Given her track record of saying, uh, colorful things, perhaps the NYT is asking for trouble when they bring such facts to light.

Yesterday I discussed how the Democratic race might eventually narrow down to the "liberal" Dean and the "conservative" Lieberman.

Today, we see that over at DKos, they have the same thing in mind. The idea being, if Dean wins Iowa he knocks out Gephardt, and if Dean wins NH, Kerry will fold his tent, potentially leaving Lieberman (or the barely-visible John Edwards) to take South Carolina and be the "anti-Dean". If I were Dean, I'd like that scenario a lot, given the primary schedule, and the relatively ineffective campaigning and speaking style of Holy Joe, as pointed out by Slate's Bill Saletan (who seems to tacitly have his boy Edwards in mind... nevermind that currently Edwards is polling behind Braun nationally)

Via Jesse, we get some insight into the twisted psyche of many right-wing bloggers.

Because, as we all know, Bill Clinton was much, much worse an American than Charles Manson.

Says Jesse,
The sad part is, it would never occur to me, or to most liberals, to do this shit...

Fucking idiots. Keep in mind that these are the people whose moral compasses we're supposed to trust in "fighting terror", people who think Jimmy Carter was a worse person than Timothy McVeigh.
In the comments for Jesse's post, a mini-debate erupts when ill-informed conservative "Erik" stabs in the dark for some form of moral equivalence.

Tuesday, August 05, 2003

Another reformed Naderite urges his fellow Greens to recognize the greater goal: ousting Bush.
Greens need to think about what they are doing. We are in a different situation now than in 2000. We are not faced with an unknown entity. We know exactly how the Bush administration runs things, and we need to stop them. In key states like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, the Green vote could play a key role. Do you want to feel good because you voted for Ralph Nader or do you want to see somebody other than Bush in the White House?

Sure, if a Democrat wins, he or she won't be what you want and his or her policies will make you mad -- but at least they won't make you afraid. I agree that in order to break the cycle of two-party domination, somewhere along the line folks are just going to have to vote with their hearts and suffer the short-term consequences. But in this case, the short-term consequences could be disastrous. The voter revolution that began in the 2000 campaigns must be temporarily put on hold.

The time has come for all of us to grow up. Sometimes we can't vote for exactly whom we want. Sometimes we have to choose between two evils because by not doing so, we'll be saddled with the much worse option. Those are the kinds of choices that grownups have to make. To effectively not choose is the electoral equivalent of stamping your feet and sticking your thumb in your mouth. (emphasis mine)
(on paragraph 2, sentence 2, it may require systemic changes to break up the two-party system, including instituting proportional representation and/or instant runoff voting, and we wont anything like that in place next year)

link via bartcop

From this week's Onion:

Cheney Regrets
Buying Bush Laser
Jeebus bless 'em.

And while you're there, the recall infographic is great.

The John Kerry campaign has made a concerted effort to frame the upcoming primaries and caucus battles as basically a 2-horse race, between Kerry himself, and Howard Dean.

But increasingly, the bigger battle seems to be between Dean and the national poll leader (yeah, basically name ID), Joe Lieberman, the DLC's boy.

Lieberman, yesterday:
Lieberman is positioning himself as the foil to Dean, whose campaign has taken off on his criticism of Bush's tax cuts and the conflict in Iraq. Lieberman said those positions "could really be a ticket to nowhere."

"If George Bush and his bankrupt ideology are the problem, believe me, old Democratic policies like higher taxes and weakness on defense are not the solution," Lieberman said. "We need to reclaim the vital center of American politics for the Democrats."
Howard Dean, today:
"All you can do is be who you are and say what you think," Dean replied when asked if he was vulnerable to the plight of the short-term political phenomenom who fails when the party caucuses and primaries arrive. "We have an enormous number of supporters," he said.

Asked about assertions by some of his opponents that his candidacy is doomed to failure, Dean said, "Well, I'm sure those guys wish it were a ticket to nowhere. But we're the only ones who can beat George Bush."
Politics is perception, and both Lieberman and Dean are trying to take advantage of the fact that each is perceived as the alternative to the other. In relation to the budget, Dean's cred is right up there with Holy Joe, having consistently balanced the budged in a state where there is no requirement to do so.

IMO, given his record as governor, and what needs to be done to oust Bush, Dean is positioning himself perfectly. It is not as much that he has presented himself as more liberal than he really is, but that his passionate speeches were meant to tap into a broad dissatisfaction with the direction of the country, as well as an animosity towards Bush that exists in both liberal and moderate enclaves of the party.

For example, when Dean uses the Wellstone line about being "from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party", he doesn't mean "I am more liberal than my fellow candidates", but "I'm actually going to act like a member of the opposition, and not suck up to Bush and his phony war, and invite various pundits to invoke that Truman line about fake republicans"... or something like that. There was a good post to that effect over at Seeing the Forest a couple of months ago.

Dean has tapped the energy of the party's base, is attracting some outsiders, and has quite the armada of volunteers and an ever-growing cash flow for his campaign, all of which place him in the top tier of candidates, and in excellent shape to earn his party's nomination. Basically, he's generated his momentum through 1) principled opposition to the Iraq war, 2) tapping into the energy of the party base, 3) and a huge upswell of grassroots support.

When the general election campaign begins, out will come his moderate credentials, of which he has just about as many as Lieberman. The news weeklies were all over Dean this week, and from them springs what could be standard lines about the good Dr. Time, for example, seems to think that nominating Dean could spell potential trouble:
...[I]t's hard to imagine Dean's glorious season ending without disappointment. Either he will alienate the mainstream by tacking left in order to keep his troops in their combat sandals, or, more likely, they will shed a tear when they learn who he really is.
Conventional wisdom-types seem to like storylines like this one, because it's tried and true. Ross Perot was the renegade insurgent in 1992 but his support peaked because people noticed that he was, um, a shade nuts. Even McCain is just a slight half-step off of this storyline. At this point in the election cycle, however, neither of those guys had the support, numbers, contribution money and press that Dean is now receiving.

Also, Time's perception of Dean's support misses the mark, and underestimates his supporters significantly. It misreads the trends because of an attempt to equate forceful opposition to Bush with radical liberalism. When the general election comes, Dean will talk more about balancing the budget, and flash his other moderate and fiscal-responsibility cred, true enough. But he will still be doing so as a strong opponent of Bush. I also think many on the "left" have made a decision of ABB ("anyone but bush"), and appeals to moderate voters will not turn them off to Dean.

Over at the Nation's blog, they are pushing an analogy between Dean's position in the Democratic primary campaign with -- gasp -- Reagan in 1980. (link via kos) It is an interesting analogy, but in reality, there is a loooong, long way to go before Dean's campaign shows itself to resemble those of Reagan, Clinton, Carter, Goldwater or McGovern.

(hey, wasn't lieberman in this entry's headline?... yeah, but I've wasted enough space already)

UPDATE: okay, a little more on Lieberman. Hesiod reports on a press release from the RNC:
"Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) apparently understands what other Democrats don't, that those unwilling or unable to stop terrorist activity by dealing with it will be forced to deal with its aftermath:

"Some in my party are sending out a message that they don't know a just war when they see it, and, more broadly, are not prepared to use our military strength to protect our security and the cause of freedom." (Sen. Joe Lieberman, "Lieberman Takes President, Fellow Democrats To Task On Security, Foreign Policy," Press Release, 7/28/03)
A general rule of thumb is not to take advice on Democratic issues from Republicans. Looks like thumbs up to me.
AmPol reminds us that American forces have now been on the ground looking for WMD longer than Hans Blix and his UN team were. Is an apology to the families of those lost in order?.
If I remember it right, Hans Blix and approximate 250 inspectors were deemed by many as inept. The number of "coalition" forces now in Iraq numbers around 150,000.

If I remember it right, AM radio added "incompetent", "bungling", "sloppy" and in some cases "in bed with Saddam" to the damning list.
I guess this means our administration has a place to sleep if they stop by the fertile crescent.

(link via atrios)

Monday, August 04, 2003

Things could get busy this week, I don't know...

For those of you with cable (or at least with cable and a tivo at a remote location), be sure to check out Governor Howard Dean, M.D., on Larry King Live at 6pm pacific time tonight. I won't be able to check it out until friday, but I'll take a gander at the transcript.