We ask you to consider the following:

We've debated politics with a friend for some time now over the issue of invading Iraq and its political impact. Our friend believes that the idea is for Bush/Rove to "get the ball rolling" on Iraq, but to delay any action until early 2004 - so that a likely military victory will boost the electoral prospects of Bush and Republicans. That the war talk in 2002 is designed to divert from the economy, and that after the election an 18-month delay - using the inspections as a mechanism - will ensue.

Sounds reasonable, but we have an alternate view.

We think that Rove has read The Emerging Democratic Majority (book, New Republic article), and talked to Larry Lindsay. The bottom line is that the economy will still be reeling from a post-bubble recession, and that demographic trends will make many close states in 2000 tilt Democratic the next time around. This leads Rove to conclude that reelection in 2004 is unlikely. So what to do? What would you do if you were a conservative Republican?

Considering that the Senate is one vote away from turning Republican, why not go for broke and get total Republican control of the government, even if it's only for two years? That way you can:

Make the tax cuts permanent.

Cut more taxes.

Grant leases for drilling/mining as fast as possible.

Give big bucks to Faith-based outfits.

Usher in as many conservative 41-year olds as possible (with no track records) as judges.

Replace O'Connor and Rehnquist ASAP; hope Stevens or Ginsberg retire.

Refashion Medicare and Social Security so that private businesses get a piece of the action.

Minimize regulation of business and the environment. Allow big media to get even bigger.

Generously fund missile defense so that the programs take on a life of their own.

Upon reflection, we think that the judicial appointees are the real prize being contended for. All you need is an expansive interpretation of the "taking clause" and government activity is severely constrained.

Sure, Rove would love to win in 2004, and will definitely give it the old college try - but a Bush/Republican win is no sure thing. We've said it before and we'll say it again: The big election is 2002. That's why Iraq is being brought up now.

posted by Quiddity at 10/11/2002 09:27:00 PM

They are out of their minds:

We thought that the Bush administration would be content to knock off Saddam and then leave the mess to the UN to clean up. We were wrong. According to this New York Times article: U.S. Has a Plan to Occupy Iraq, Officials Report, we read that

The White House is developing a detailed plan, modeled on the postwar occupation of Japan, to install an American-led military government in Iraq if the United States topples Saddam Hussein, senior administration officials said today.

That will be a disaster.

posted by Quiddity at 10/11/2002 07:37:00 AM

Republicans voting against the resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq:

SENATE:

RHODE ISLAND - Chafee

HOUSE:

INDIANA - Hostettler
IOWA - Leach
MARYLAND - Morella
NEW YORK - Houghton
TENNESSEE - Duncan
TEXAS - Paul

Did you know?

The following states only have Republican representatives: ALASKA, DELAWARE, IDAHO, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NEW HAMPSHIRE, SOUTH DAKOTA, WYOMING
The following states only have Democratic representatives: HAWAII, MAINE, MASSACHUSETTS, RHODE ISLAND, NORTH DAKOTA

posted by Quiddity at 10/11/2002 07:16:00 AM

Who cares about the economy?

In the last 4 1/2 months the market has turned every stockholder into a big loser. Since May 20 the DOW has dropped 28% and the broader index, the S&P 500, is down 29%. (The hapless NASDAQ is off 33%, but isn't as "connected" to the economy as the other indices).

That's enormous.

Considering that we're a month away from a national election, you might expect the economy - and the administration's approach to it - would be at the top of the agenda. But instead, everybody's talking about Iraq.

Score one for Karl Rove.

posted by Quiddity at 10/09/2002 03:21:00 PM

WFB speaks!

William F. Buckley comments on Bush and the economy. He spends time on the simplistic notions that taxes reduce incentives to work, welfare reduces incentives to work, etc. Then he says this:

If government "does nothing," natural inclinations, as prophesied by Adam Smith, are unharnessed, productivity increases, and prosperity is enhanced. But the political adage goes further than that. It tells you to do nothing but to affect to be doing a great deal.

and this:

That, two months ago, is the kernel of President Bush's economic policy. Much of it is indeed laissez faire, but there is a hard sprinkling of government programs there, to give at least rhetorical help to those Americans who have lost their jobs, lost their pension funds, and struggle to meet their mortgage payments. What is being asked now, a month before the political payday, is: Are those words from Bush in August hard-hitting enough to persuade the voters that he has a serious concern other than the future of Saddam Hussein?

Indeed. Are those words enough to persuade? Has Bush affected to be doing a great deal? Has the rhetorical help done any good?

Here we have a leading light of the conservative movement stating explicitly that Bush has done nothing about the economy. If the Democrats don't use that kind of political manna, they're fools.

posted by Quiddity at 10/08/2002 03:08:00 PM

Facts and figures:

From the CIA World Factbook (2001).

	Egypt	Iran	Iraq	Jordan	Saudi Arabia	Syria	Turkey	Oman	Qatar
GDP - per capita	$3,600	$6,300	$2,500	$3,500	$10,500	$3,100	$6,800	$7,700	$20,300
Government type	republic	theocratic republic	republic	constitutional monarchy	monarchy	republic under military regime since March 1963	republican parliamentary democracy	monarchy	traditional monarchy
Suffrage	18 years of age; universal and compulsory	15 years of age; universal	18 years of age; universal	20 years of age; universal	none	18 years of age; universal	18 years of age; universal	in Oman's most recent elections in 2000, limited to approximately 175,000 Omanis chosen by the government to vote in elections for the Majlis ash-Shura	suffrage is limited to municipal elections

The CIA notes this about Qatar: closest approximation of the native pronunciation falls between cutter and gutter, but not like guitar

posted by Quiddity at 10/08/2002 02:42:00 PM

Fox vs. Zahn:

From this AP story (via cursor.org):

Paula Zahn considers an offer from CNN.

Roger Ailes fires her.

Ailes says about Zahn, "I could have put a dead raccoon on the air this year and got a better rating than last year."

Ailes sued Zahn's agents, claiming breach of contract.

CNN unveils the new studio for Paula Zahn's "American Morning" show.

A publicist for Fox News Channel calls a reporter to to point out how much better Fox's morning show, "Fox & Friends," was doing in the ratings.

Fox spokeswoman Tracey Spector said, "[The new studio] is nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic."

When the CNN studio opened, trucks carrying Fox signs circled the Manhattan block around it.

People distributing Fox merchandise and wearing Fox t-shirts passed by the studio window, according to CNN.

"Fox & Friends" morning show.

Anchors talked about Zahn on the air with a stuffed raccoon toy on the table in front of them.

Fox anchor Steve Doocy, cameras in tow, presented Zahn with a gift basket including the stuffed raccoon after the new studio opened.

In January, the disc jockey Mancow, a "Fox and Friends" contributor, called Zahn a "knucklehead." Because she's the enemy, he said, "I just want to punch her in the face."

Two months later, Mancow performed an on-air skit with an actor he said was portraying Zahn. He hit the actor in the face, knocked him down and shouted, "I'll kill you, Paula. We will kill you, Paula."

Mancow also made an off-color remark about Zahn that refers to the anchor's hobby as a cello player.

Other comments from Fox.

Fox News Channel spokesman Robert Zimmerman said "Paula Zahn's supposed attempt at reinventing herself as a journalist is like putting a fresh coat of paint on an outhouse."

A Fox News Channel spokeswoman, Irena Steffen, said that "we don't go out of our way to shoot at her."

CNN and Zahn have attacked Fox, she said, declining to provide examples. ... "Why don't you ask why she's making a mountain out of a molehill?" Steffen said. "Why don't you ask why she's turning this around and why she's making herself into a victim?"

posted by Quiddity at 10/08/2002 09:40:00 AM

All together now:

Oct 7 - 1:29:29 AM
Andrew Sullivan (entry):

STILL MASSIVE SUPPORT: The Times does its best to spin their poll this morning. But the critical number is the 67 percent support for war against Iraq, despite the intense and relentless campaign by the elites at the Times and elsewhere to turn that number around. They have failed. Now they will try to change the subject.

Oct 7
Rush Limbaugh (article):

Mullah Howell Raines of the New York Times has run a push poll, and has finally produced the picture America that Democrats want: an America that cares more about the economy than the war on terrorism vis-à-vis Iraq. Not only was the poll conducted over a three day period, the last being a Saturday when Republicans are traditionally weak (no pollsters worth their salt survey on weekends), but they used a tiny, ultra-liberal group of 668 "people."

Oct 8
Dick Morris (article):

... take a close look at the poll: The phrasing of the questions is so slanted and biased that it amounts to journalistic "push polling" - the use of "objective" polling to generate a predetermined result, and so vindicate a specific point of view.

Oct 8
David Tell, Weekly Standard opinion editor (article):

THE NEW YORK TIMES has lately come under a barrage of media criticism, not all of it from "the right," about the extent to which editorial bias has infected the paper's hard news columns. And already some of that criticism has been directed specifically against the paper's A-section reporting on its own, propriety public opinion research (commissioned in partnership with CBS News). So what I'm about to offer isn't exactly without precedent. The bias in question, however, may well be without precedent; I can't remember anything quite like it, at least. "Poll Says Bush Needs to Pay Heed to Weak Economy," written up by Times correspondents Adam Nagourney and Janet Elder, and awarded pride of place--the front-page lede--in yesterday morning's edition, isn't just slanted (or misleading or imbalanced or overstated or any other word commonly applied to such things). The story is an outright fraud, a falsehood, a work of fiction.

Oct 8 - 1:47 PM
Mickey Kaus (entry):

The Times' poll report was a pretty amazing (i.e. awful) performance -- breaking new ground by giving readers very few of the actual numbers that would back up reporter Adam Nagourney's conclusions. "Trust the Times to interepret the numbers," he seemed to be saying. Not these days, buddy!

There's so much bias in the Times right now ...

Will update with any subsequent comments from the usual suspects. FYI: NYTimes poll story is here

posted by Quiddity at 10/08/2002 08:37:00 AM

Odds and Ends:

Vets Group Wants Rumsfeld Out Over Alleged Shipment to Iraq (press release, article)

The American Gulf War Veterans Association (AGWVA) is calling for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for his reported denial that he knew anything about U.S. shipments of chemical and biological agents to Iraq in the 1980s. If the defense secretary is unaware or in denial of the sale of biological materials to a country the United States is preparing to attack, then he represents a danger to the lives of service members, said Joyce Riley vonKleist, a spokeswoman for ANGWA.

Pat Robertson receives a $500,000 grant from the federal Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives; Cal Thomas (article) thinks it's A Bad Thing, and calls it

Welfare for religion.

We eagerly await Mickey Kaus' follow-on critique.

posted by Quiddity at 10/08/2002 07:23:00 AM

Condoleezza Rice speaks:

There has been much talk about the goals associated with "regime change" in Iraq. The National Security Strategy of the United States of America - while not specifically about Iraq, mentions democracy as an objective. So, can we look forward to democracy in a post-Saddam Iraq? Apparently not. From Rice's opinion piece in Sunday's (Oct 6) New York Post:

We do not seek to impose democracy on others, we seek only to help create conditions in which people can claim a freer future for themselves.

Okay. Got it. No democracy required. Dictatorship or monarchy will do fine.

Then she wrote:

Germany, Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan and Turkey show that freedom manifests itself differently around the globe - and that new liberties can find an honored place amidst ancient traditions.

Throughout all of the administration's reports and speeches one encounters the word "freedom". Freedom is the sine qua non of their foreign policy - if you believe them. But apparently it's not Thomas Hobbes' kind of freedom. He defined it as "the absence of external impediments to motion," but in Rice's view, there are no absolutes. "... freedom manifests itself differently around the globe ..." She's a moral relativist. Goodness gracious! Does Bill Bennett know?

posted by Quiddity at 10/07/2002 03:24:00 PM

Some thoughts about Iraq:

We have put on our cynic's hat, and have come to the following conclusions:

• Recent pressure by the Bush administration to get the most intrusive inspections program are designed, in part, to weaken Saddam's position. Once a strongman is perceived as having no power, pretenders to the throne are likely to emerge.
• Ari Fleischer's "one bullet" comment was an effort in that direction.
• If Saddam were to be toppled by an internal group in the next 30 days it would be of immense political value. That's why the tough talk is taking place now.
• The whole Iraq issue is politics. If it was such an urgent issue, then why did Bush take a month-long vacation?
• In military terms, an attack on Iraq will probably be similar to the operations against Grenada and Panama. A totally outmatched opponent quickly defeated due to American superior weaponry.
• There is a low tolerance for battlefield casualties. While troops may be sent overseas, they will only be used as a last resort. Air power will be the preferred approach. Everything will be targeted. Remember the bombing of the television station/transmitter in Belgrade on the grounds that it was a "propaganda machine"? The same will happen to Iraq. The goal will be to sow dissent among the Iraqi people, and it may work.
• Rebuilding Iraq: "Everybody" is saying that it will take plenty of time and lots of money. That might be the sensible or moral thing to do, but we predict that beyond a token amount of aid (probably in the form of loan guarantees to businesses), the current administration doesn't care much about a post-Saddam Iraq. After all, in 2001 Bush was content to abandon California to the tender mercies of Texas energy firms. Why should they give a damn about the people of Iraq? Also, there is the issue of money. It's too risky to the U.S. economy to spend money on Iraq, so it won't happen. And a post-Saddam Iraq, no matter how chaotic, will probably pump the same amount of oil as before. We predict that after Saddam is out, Bush will:
  • Say to the world, "We did our part, now you do yours."
  • Secure a few key areas (ports, refineries, oil fields) and leave the rest to the UN.
  • Use backchannels to keep Turkey and Iran out of the area.
• Claims by Democrats that invading Iraq would be costly will be shown to be incorrect, and will be used against them in 2004.

We still think that a move into Iraq has lot of opportunities to go bad, and that it's ill advised. Once war starts, all sorts of things can happen. But we believe the likely outcome is a fairly easy victory for Bush - and that that's the goal. Win something. After all, on the other issues - especially the economy - the administration doesn't seem interested, or able to cope with them.
posted by Quiddity at 10/06/2002 09:53:00 AM