Thursday, August 19, 2004
Analysis: Doctors a Part of Iraq Abuse
Analysis: Doctors a Part of Iraq Abuse
By EMMA ROSS, AP Medical Writer
LONDON - Doctors working for the U.S. military in Iraq collaborated with interrogators in the abuse of detainees at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison, profoundly breaching medical ethics and human rights, a bioethicist charges in The Lancet medical journal.
In a scathing analysis of the behavior of military doctors, nurses and medics, University of Minnesota professor Steven Miles calls for a reform of military medicine and an official investigation into the role played by physicians and other medical staff in the torture scandal.
He cites evidence that doctors or medics falsified death certificates to cover up homicides, hid evidence of beatings and revived a prisoner so he could be further tortured. No reports of abuses were initiated by medical personnel until the official investigation into Abu Ghraib began, he found.
"The medical system collaborated with designing and implementing psychologically and physically coercive interrogations," Miles said in this week's edition of Lancet. "Army officials stated that a physician and a psychiatrist helped design, approve and monitor interrogations at Abu Ghraib."
The analysis does not shed light on how many doctors were involved or how widespread the problem of medical complicity was, aspects that Miles said he is now investigating.
A U.S. military spokesman said the incidents recounted by Miles came primarily from the Pentagon's own investigation of the abuses.
"Many of these cases remain under investigation and charges will be brought against any individual where there is evidence of abuse," said Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, U.S. Army spokesman for detainee operations in Iraq.
In a related matter, two military officials in Washington said Thursday that a high-level Army inquiry will cite medical personnel who knew of abuse at Abu Ghraib but did not report it up the chain of command. The inquiry also will criticize senior U.S. commanders for a lack of leadership that allowed abuses to occur, but finds no evidence they ordered the abuse, said the sources, who spoke condition of anonymity.
Photographs of prisoners being abused and humiliated by U.S. troops in Iraq have sparked worldwide condemnation. Although the conduct of soldiers has been scrutinized, the role of medical staff in the scandal has received relatively little attention.
"The detaining power's health personnel are the first and often the last line of defense against human rights abuses. Their failure to assume that role emphasizes to the prisoner how utterly beyond humane appeal they are," Miles said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.
He said military medicine reform needs to be enshrined in international law and include more clout for military medical staff in the defense of human rights.
Miles gathered evidence from U.S. congressional hearings, sworn statements of detainees and soldiers, medical journal accounts and press reports to build a picture of physician complicity, and in isolated cases active participation by medical personnel in abuse at the Baghdad prison, as well as in Afghanistan and at the Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba.
In one example, cited in a sworn statement from an Abu Ghraib detainee, a prisoner collapsed and was apparently unconscious after a beating. Medical staff revived the detainee and left, allowing the abuse to continue, Miles reported.
Depositions from two detainees at Abu Ghraib described an incident in which a doctor allowed a medically untrained guard to sew up a prisoner's wound.
A military police officer reported a medic inserted an intravenous tube into the corpse of a detainee who died while being tortured to create evidence that he was alive at the hospital, Miles said.
At prisons in both Iraq and Afghanistan, "Physicians routinely attributed detainee deaths on death certificates to heart attacks, heat stroke or natural causes without noting the unnatural (cause) of the death," Miles wrote.
He cites an example from a Human Rights Watch report in which soldiers tied a beaten detainee to the top of his cell door and gagged him. The death certificate indicated he died of "natural causes ... during his sleep." However, after media coverage, the Pentagon changed the cause of death to homicide by blunt force injuries and suffocation.
Dr. Robert Jay Lifton, a psychiatrist at Harvard University-affiliated Cambridge Hospital who wrote a book on doctors and torture in Nazi Germany, called the Lancet analysis "a very good, detailed description of violations of medical policies involving medical ethics."
In a July 29 New England Journal of Medicine essay, Lifton urged medics to report what they know about American torture at Abu Ghraib and other prisons, and said in an interview Thursday that a non-military-led investigation of doctors' conduct is needed.
"They made choices," he said. "No doctor would have been physically abused or put to death if he or she tried to interrupt that torture. It would have taken courage, but it was a choice they had."
The World Medical Association, an umbrella group for national medical associations, reiterated its policy of condemning any doctor's involvement in abuse or torture of detainees.
In an editorial comment, The Lancet condemned the behavior of the doctors, saying that despite dual loyalties, they are doctors first and soldiers second.
"Health care workers should now break their silence," the journal said. "Those who were involved or witnessed ill-treatment need to give a full and accurate account of events at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. Those who are still in positions where dual commitments prevent them from putting the rights of their patients above other interests should protest loudly and refuse cooperation with authorities."
Johnson, the Army spokesman, said the U.S. military "will allow no actions that undermine or compromise medical professionals' commitment to caring for the sick and wounded, regardless of who they are or their circumstances."
In his article, Miles dismissed Pentagon officials putting the blame for the abuse on poor training, understaffing, racism, pressure to procure intelligence and the stress of war.
"Fundamentally, however, the stage for these offenses was set by policies that were lax or permissive with regard to human rights abuses, and a military command that was inattentive to human rights," Miles concluded.
By EMMA ROSS, AP Medical Writer
LONDON - Doctors working for the U.S. military in Iraq collaborated with interrogators in the abuse of detainees at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison, profoundly breaching medical ethics and human rights, a bioethicist charges in The Lancet medical journal.
In a scathing analysis of the behavior of military doctors, nurses and medics, University of Minnesota professor Steven Miles calls for a reform of military medicine and an official investigation into the role played by physicians and other medical staff in the torture scandal.
He cites evidence that doctors or medics falsified death certificates to cover up homicides, hid evidence of beatings and revived a prisoner so he could be further tortured. No reports of abuses were initiated by medical personnel until the official investigation into Abu Ghraib began, he found.
"The medical system collaborated with designing and implementing psychologically and physically coercive interrogations," Miles said in this week's edition of Lancet. "Army officials stated that a physician and a psychiatrist helped design, approve and monitor interrogations at Abu Ghraib."
The analysis does not shed light on how many doctors were involved or how widespread the problem of medical complicity was, aspects that Miles said he is now investigating.
A U.S. military spokesman said the incidents recounted by Miles came primarily from the Pentagon's own investigation of the abuses.
"Many of these cases remain under investigation and charges will be brought against any individual where there is evidence of abuse," said Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, U.S. Army spokesman for detainee operations in Iraq.
In a related matter, two military officials in Washington said Thursday that a high-level Army inquiry will cite medical personnel who knew of abuse at Abu Ghraib but did not report it up the chain of command. The inquiry also will criticize senior U.S. commanders for a lack of leadership that allowed abuses to occur, but finds no evidence they ordered the abuse, said the sources, who spoke condition of anonymity.
Photographs of prisoners being abused and humiliated by U.S. troops in Iraq have sparked worldwide condemnation. Although the conduct of soldiers has been scrutinized, the role of medical staff in the scandal has received relatively little attention.
"The detaining power's health personnel are the first and often the last line of defense against human rights abuses. Their failure to assume that role emphasizes to the prisoner how utterly beyond humane appeal they are," Miles said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.
He said military medicine reform needs to be enshrined in international law and include more clout for military medical staff in the defense of human rights.
Miles gathered evidence from U.S. congressional hearings, sworn statements of detainees and soldiers, medical journal accounts and press reports to build a picture of physician complicity, and in isolated cases active participation by medical personnel in abuse at the Baghdad prison, as well as in Afghanistan and at the Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba.
In one example, cited in a sworn statement from an Abu Ghraib detainee, a prisoner collapsed and was apparently unconscious after a beating. Medical staff revived the detainee and left, allowing the abuse to continue, Miles reported.
Depositions from two detainees at Abu Ghraib described an incident in which a doctor allowed a medically untrained guard to sew up a prisoner's wound.
A military police officer reported a medic inserted an intravenous tube into the corpse of a detainee who died while being tortured to create evidence that he was alive at the hospital, Miles said.
At prisons in both Iraq and Afghanistan, "Physicians routinely attributed detainee deaths on death certificates to heart attacks, heat stroke or natural causes without noting the unnatural (cause) of the death," Miles wrote.
He cites an example from a Human Rights Watch report in which soldiers tied a beaten detainee to the top of his cell door and gagged him. The death certificate indicated he died of "natural causes ... during his sleep." However, after media coverage, the Pentagon changed the cause of death to homicide by blunt force injuries and suffocation.
Dr. Robert Jay Lifton, a psychiatrist at Harvard University-affiliated Cambridge Hospital who wrote a book on doctors and torture in Nazi Germany, called the Lancet analysis "a very good, detailed description of violations of medical policies involving medical ethics."
In a July 29 New England Journal of Medicine essay, Lifton urged medics to report what they know about American torture at Abu Ghraib and other prisons, and said in an interview Thursday that a non-military-led investigation of doctors' conduct is needed.
"They made choices," he said. "No doctor would have been physically abused or put to death if he or she tried to interrupt that torture. It would have taken courage, but it was a choice they had."
The World Medical Association, an umbrella group for national medical associations, reiterated its policy of condemning any doctor's involvement in abuse or torture of detainees.
In an editorial comment, The Lancet condemned the behavior of the doctors, saying that despite dual loyalties, they are doctors first and soldiers second.
"Health care workers should now break their silence," the journal said. "Those who were involved or witnessed ill-treatment need to give a full and accurate account of events at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. Those who are still in positions where dual commitments prevent them from putting the rights of their patients above other interests should protest loudly and refuse cooperation with authorities."
Johnson, the Army spokesman, said the U.S. military "will allow no actions that undermine or compromise medical professionals' commitment to caring for the sick and wounded, regardless of who they are or their circumstances."
In his article, Miles dismissed Pentagon officials putting the blame for the abuse on poor training, understaffing, racism, pressure to procure intelligence and the stress of war.
"Fundamentally, however, the stage for these offenses was set by policies that were lax or permissive with regard to human rights abuses, and a military command that was inattentive to human rights," Miles concluded.
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
Honored Veterans
The GOP supports our troops and honors our veterans
So long as you agree 100% with their party line, or at least don't speak out against the current party line, then the GOP supports and honors the troops and veterans just fine. If you disagree with them on anything then there is nothing they won't do to smear your good name, including calling you a traitor.
In 2000, when George W. Bush was running in the republican presidential primary against John McCain the Bush campaign used "push polling" to convince voters that McCain had an illegitimate black child. The truth is that McCain does have a black child, an adopted child. However, when faced with the very real possibility of McCain winning the primary the Bush machine had to do something. Lacking anything that was true to use against McCain, they had to resort to this special tid-bit from the Karl Rove book of politics.
In 2002 the GOP put out a television ad that compared the triple-amputee vietnam veteran Max Cleland to Osama bin Laden. In fact GOP pundit Ann Coulter has even gone so far as to claim that Cleland didn't lose his limbs in Vietnam. There is no lie to large for this GOP administration to make against its opponents. Unfortunately there are enough people who don't do their own research out there that these lies influence people.
Now, in 2004, we have "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth" attacking John Kerry. Well, in this group we have some familiar old names. Merrie Spaeth was involved in the 2000 attack on John McCain. John O'Neill, the founder, was a clerk for Justice Rehnquist (who happens to appear in an article that I wrote yesterday on a completely different subject). Political independents don't clerk for justice Rehnquist. Also in O'Neill's lawfirm is Margaret Wilson, General Counsel to Governor George W. Bush. Doesn't sound too politically independent to me.
O'Neill, and the others, claim to have served with Kerry yet O'Neill didn't arrive in Coastal Division 11 until two months after Kerry left Vietnam.
Here are some quotes from CBS News about this latest attack group:
More information:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/04/eveningnews/main615566.shtml
http://www.duckstrap.com/swiftboatveteransfortruth_debunked.php
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/4/21/172634/848
So long as you agree 100% with their party line, or at least don't speak out against the current party line, then the GOP supports and honors the troops and veterans just fine. If you disagree with them on anything then there is nothing they won't do to smear your good name, including calling you a traitor.
In 2000, when George W. Bush was running in the republican presidential primary against John McCain the Bush campaign used "push polling" to convince voters that McCain had an illegitimate black child. The truth is that McCain does have a black child, an adopted child. However, when faced with the very real possibility of McCain winning the primary the Bush machine had to do something. Lacking anything that was true to use against McCain, they had to resort to this special tid-bit from the Karl Rove book of politics.
In 2002 the GOP put out a television ad that compared the triple-amputee vietnam veteran Max Cleland to Osama bin Laden. In fact GOP pundit Ann Coulter has even gone so far as to claim that Cleland didn't lose his limbs in Vietnam. There is no lie to large for this GOP administration to make against its opponents. Unfortunately there are enough people who don't do their own research out there that these lies influence people.
Now, in 2004, we have "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth" attacking John Kerry. Well, in this group we have some familiar old names. Merrie Spaeth was involved in the 2000 attack on John McCain. John O'Neill, the founder, was a clerk for Justice Rehnquist (who happens to appear in an article that I wrote yesterday on a completely different subject). Political independents don't clerk for justice Rehnquist. Also in O'Neill's lawfirm is Margaret Wilson, General Counsel to Governor George W. Bush. Doesn't sound too politically independent to me.
O'Neill, and the others, claim to have served with Kerry yet O'Neill didn't arrive in Coastal Division 11 until two months after Kerry left Vietnam.
Here are some quotes from CBS News about this latest attack group:
"But if you think this just a group of concerned veterans, think again. Some of the organizers have a track record of going after Democrats and Republican opponents of President Bush."
"the same John O'Neill who debated Kerry about Vietnam on "The Dick Cavett Show" in 1971. Back then he was handpicked by the Nixon administration to discredit Kerry."
"The press conference was set up by the same people who tried to discredit John McCain when McCain faced George W. Bush for the Republican nomination in 2000."
"It's the same strategy used to go after Georgia Sen. Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam."
More information:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/04/eveningnews/main615566.shtml
http://www.duckstrap.com/swiftboatveteransfortruth_debunked.php
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/4/21/172634/848
Observers could monitor US elections
Guardian Unlimited
Observers could monitor US elections
Mark Oliver and agencies
Tuesday August 10, 2004
After the shambles of the hanging chads in 2000, it emerged today that this year's US presidential election might be the first in the country's history to be monitored by international observers.
The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) - which has a respected track record of monitoring elections, mainly in developing countries - revealed it had been approached by the US state department.
The Vienna-based OSCE said it would send a team to the US next month to determine whether to accept the task of monitoring the November elections.
"The whole idea is to make an overall assessment and then determine what sort of observation, if any, should be carried out," Curtis Budder, a spokesman for the OSCE's Warsaw-based human rights office, said.
The OSCE has 55 participating nations, of which the US is one. The organisation sent teams to monitor last year's gubernatorial recall election in California and the 2002 Congressional elections, Mr Budder said.
The last US presidential election, four years ago, was marred by disputed results in the close race for Florida, which led to a long drawn-out recount. A row erupted after ballots that had been punched but not totally cleanly, leaving a hanging or dimpled chad, were disqualified.
With the world watching and waiting for the results of the election, the intricacies of the system and the varieties of potentially spoiled ballots became the focus of huge media attention and a source of massive embarrassment for the US.
Since 2002, the OSCE has called on all its members to seek election observers.
Such teams usually meet with members of electoral commissions, political parties and non-governmental organisations. Mr Budder said he did not yet know exactly where the US mission would go.
The OSCE says it has sent 10,000 observers to more than 150 elections in the past 10 years. Its member countries include European nations, Russia and Canada.
Observers could monitor US elections
Mark Oliver and agencies
Tuesday August 10, 2004
After the shambles of the hanging chads in 2000, it emerged today that this year's US presidential election might be the first in the country's history to be monitored by international observers.
The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) - which has a respected track record of monitoring elections, mainly in developing countries - revealed it had been approached by the US state department.
The Vienna-based OSCE said it would send a team to the US next month to determine whether to accept the task of monitoring the November elections.
"The whole idea is to make an overall assessment and then determine what sort of observation, if any, should be carried out," Curtis Budder, a spokesman for the OSCE's Warsaw-based human rights office, said.
The OSCE has 55 participating nations, of which the US is one. The organisation sent teams to monitor last year's gubernatorial recall election in California and the 2002 Congressional elections, Mr Budder said.
The last US presidential election, four years ago, was marred by disputed results in the close race for Florida, which led to a long drawn-out recount. A row erupted after ballots that had been punched but not totally cleanly, leaving a hanging or dimpled chad, were disqualified.
With the world watching and waiting for the results of the election, the intricacies of the system and the varieties of potentially spoiled ballots became the focus of huge media attention and a source of massive embarrassment for the US.
Since 2002, the OSCE has called on all its members to seek election observers.
Such teams usually meet with members of electoral commissions, political parties and non-governmental organisations. Mr Budder said he did not yet know exactly where the US mission would go.
The OSCE says it has sent 10,000 observers to more than 150 elections in the past 10 years. Its member countries include European nations, Russia and Canada.
Monday, August 09, 2004
S.F. Takes the Lead in New Voting Method
I've been a proponent of this for a long time, posting about it on many a message board and talking to many a friend about it. I endorse run-off voting because I am a proponent of trying to open our electoral system to other parties besides just republican and democrat. Run-off means that you can vote your preferred candidate from any party as #1 and not have your vote wasted if that candidate does not score highly since your #2 and posssibly #3 vote will come into play. Anyway, without further ado, here is the article:
- Chanur
Los Angeles Times
August 9, 2004
S.F. Takes the Lead in New Voting Method
By Lee Romney, Times Staff Writer
S.F. Takes the Lead in New Voting Method
- In November, voters will select their first, second and third choices for candidates in city races.
SAN FRANCISCO — The city that brought the nation beat poetry, free love and sourdough bread now is taking on election reform. With a quiet nod from the secretary of state, San Francisco will soon let voters rank multiple candidates in citywide elections, a system that proponents say would eliminate the "spoiler" problem if used nationwide.
In November, San Francisco will become the first U.S. city to adopt the voting method since a short-lived experiment three decades ago in Michigan.
Under the system, voters will rank their top three candidates in order of preference. If no one wins 50% of the votes when first choices are tallied, the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated. The second choice of those voters is then added to the remaining candidates' tallies. The process — which some call an instant runoff — continues until a majority winner emerges.
The voting method has been touted recently by former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, among others.
Racism in the GOP
I have this tendancy to research things. You tell me something, I won't believe you until I've researched it myself. Well, when my wife told me about an unabashed racist running for a house seat in Tennessee I had to look it up. Not only did I find that to be true, but I came up with all of this other stuff as well:
Kentucky - Former Republican National Committee chairman Haley Barbour is running for Senate in Kentucky. The man is openly racist. He is pictured here with members of the white supremacist group Council of Conservative Citizens. He has not been denounced by the GOP.
Haley Barbour and other elected officials pose with members of the white supremacist group Council of Conservative Citizens (C of CC) Pictured L-R: Chip Reynolds, State Senator Bucky Huggins, Ray Martin, Barbour, John Thompson and C of CC Field Director Bill Lord. Lord was also in a picture with Sen. Trent Lott that surfaced when Lott tried to suggest he knew nothing of the group.
Mississippi - Senator Trent Lott, as mentioned above, also has ties to white supremacist group Council of Conservative Citizens.
Senator Trent Lott posed with officials of the pro-white Council of Conservative Citizens in 1997. From left, William D. Lord, state coordinator; Mr. Lott; Tom Dover, president, and Gordon L. Baum, executive officer. Lott later tried to deny knowledge of the group.
Here is an advertisement that I found on the internet:
The Council of Conservative Citizens will hold its national conference in Jackson, Mississippi, on November 6 & 7. Other speakers include Samuel Francis and Mississippi governor Kirk Fordice. The CCC is the most effective pro-majority activist group in America. Please call Gordon Baum at (314) 291-8474 for details.
North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms and Republican National Committee member Buddy Witherspoon have also endorsed the Council of Conservative Citizens and spoken at the groups meetings. Helms has also been interviewed by Southern Partisan.
Tennessee - James L. Hart, an unabashed racist, will represent the Republican Party in the November election for a congressional seat.
Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist launched his career as a GOP operative in 1964 by harassing black voters.
Vice President Dick Cheney opposed measures strengthening laws against housing discrimination and collecting hate-crime data. Cheney also supported apartheid in the racist South African regime, even as it crumbled. Here is what Landover Babtist Church had to say about Mr. Cheney during the 2000 election year:
Cheney has done his part to put colored people in their place worldwide as well. Cheney consistently voted against sanctions on South Africa for its policy of apartheid (which, translated in English, means "God's chosen few"). Cheney even had the courage to vote against every House resolution calling for the release from prison of Nelson Mandela.
White House - Attorney General John Ashcroft, like Trent Lott, granted an interview to Southern Partisan. The Southern Partisan is published in Columbia, South Carolina and is the oldest and the leading neo-Confederate publication. Ashcroft opposed racial integration and the appointment of African Americans to offices as Missouri governor.
Pictured: Ashcroft's article in "Southern Partisan", a magazine that glorifies southern racists.
The Republican Party in general launched a strategy during the late 1960s to capture the southern racist vote by opposing affirmative action, supporting the rights of states like South Carolina to fly the Confederate flag in front of public buildings, and similar positions. Dubya Bush himself spoke before the segregationist Bob Jones University in South Carolina, genuflected before the Confederate flag, and helped implement the racist Willie Horton ad during the 1988 presidential campaign of Bush Sr., who approved the racist ad after lobbying by his son. Both Bush's have appointed many racists - both subtle and overt - to high offices, who now work to further erode civil rights.
These are just the people who are currently in, or running for, office in the GOP. There are many more examples if you look back through the years. We all remember Strom Thurman, of course, and the KKK grand wizard David Duke. There are many more. I didn't really want to believe it, but a little research shows that the GOP is chalk full of supporters of racist agendas.
Friday, August 06, 2004
Black conservative groups run by white republicans
Blackwashing
By Joshua Holland, Gadflyer.
AlterNet
July 26, 2004.
"Black Conservative to Rebut NAACP Leader's Remarks in C-SPAN Interview," read the press release from Project 21, an organization of conservative African-Americans.
I had read in Reuters that Kweisi Mfume, president of the NAACP, had called groups like Project 21 "make-believe black organizations," and a "collection of black hustlers" who have adopted a conservative agenda in return for "a few bucks a head."
So I tuned into C-SPAN with interest to hear what a leading voice in the black conservative movement had to say. But then a funny thing happened: The African-American spokesperson for Project 21 caught a flat on the way to the studio, and the group's director had to fill in. And he was white.
As the segment began there was an awkward Wizard of Oz moment as C-SPAN's Robb Harlston – himself black – turned to Project 21's Caucasian director, David Almasi, and said, "Um...Project 21... a program for conservative African Americans... you're not African American."
It was a remarkable moment. A flat tire had led to a nationally televised peek into what lies behind a murky network of interconnected black conservative organizations that seek ostensibly to bring more African-Americans into the conservative movement. But they're not just reaching out to the community. They also speak out publicly for conservative positions that might evoke charges of racism if advocated by whites. And while that's not to say that there aren't some blacks who embrace conservative values, the groups that claim to represent them are heavily financed by business interests and often run by white Republicans.
Almasi replied defensively, "I wanted to make clear right at the beginning that I'm an employee, I'm an employee of Project 21, my bosses are the members of Project 21, the volunteers...I take my marching orders from them, not from anybody else."
Almasi told me by phone that he is Project 21's only paid staffer, and that he works part-time. He said that the approximately 400 volunteers – among whom there was a core of "a few dozen" – were simply conservative blacks "willing to do interviews, be quoted for press releases and be available to write for Project 21 publications," and that his role was simply to serve as "a syndicator, an editor and a scheduler."
But Project 21 is a subsidiary of the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR), which, according to the liberal watchdog Mediatransparency.org, was formed in the 1980s to support Reagan's military interventions in Central America. NCPPR's leadership – president, vice president, executive director – are all white. Amy Ridenour, former Deputy Director of the College Republican National Committee and the organization's president, also sits on the board of Black America's PAC, an organization that claims to be nonpartisan but whose IRS filings state that its mission is to elect Republicans.
NCPPR's directors are also all white. In fact, one of them – Jack Abramoff – is so white that he's actually a high-powered GOP lobbyist and Bush 'Pioneer' who, according to the Washington Post, is the target of multiple investigations into alleged funny-money payments from Indian gambling concerns (along with the $45 million in fees they collected from them, Abramoff and his partner Michael Scanlon convinced the tribes to donate large sums to conservative organizations run by Scanlon, which then funneled the money back to Abramoff, according to the Post).
In the 1990s, NCPPR got into the business of denying that climate change warnings were based on sound science. If the connection between black conservative outreach work and environmental skepticism doesn't seem clear, that's because it's not. But it's logical considering that ExxonMobil donated $30,000 to NCPPR for "educational activities" and $15,000 for general support in 2002, and last year they hiked their operating support to $25,000 and kicked in another $30,000 for NCPPR's 'EnviroTruth' website, according to company financial records.
Project 21 also received funding from R.J. Reynolds and "has lobbied in support of tobacco industry interests, opposing FDA regulation of the industry, excise taxes and other government policies to reduce tobacco use," according to the Center for Media and Democracy. Almasi denied that Project 21 received tobacco industry money, but said he was not sufficiently aware of the details of NCPPR's fundraising to say whether the parent organization had.
A Mile Wide, an Inch Deep
Project 21 is one small part of a broad coalition of black conservative groups that fight for issues of concern to the business community. These organizations draw their intellectual inspiration from Thomas Sowell's landmark 1975 book Race and Economics, one of the founding documents of the new black conservative movement. Just as born-again conservatives like David Horowitz and Zell Miller are showered with praise and money, black conservatives are embraced and elevated by the conservative movement as living repudiations of liberalism.
So Sowell and others – like Robert L. Woodson of the American Enterprise Institute, J.A. Parker of the Lincoln Institute, sometime presidential candidate Alan Keyes of Black America's PAC (BAMPAC), and Jackie Cissel of the Black Alliance for Educational Options – have little trouble finding cushy think-tank sinecures and generous support for their organizations. Many among this small group of prominent black conservatives are on several groups' advisory boards, adding to the appearance of a broad ideological movement. Cissel, for one, also serves as regional director for the African American Republican Leadership Council, a group whose mission "is to break the liberal democrat stranglehold over Black America," according to their web site. As Washington Post columnist Gene Weingarten reported last year, 13 out of the 15 members of the AALRC's Advisory Panel are white. They include such well known minority champions as the Free Congress Foundation's Paul Weyrich, Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, the Reverend Lou Sheldon, Gary Bauer of the Family Research Council, David Keene of the American Conservative Union, and Fox News host Sean Hannity.
What do people like Weyrich, Norquist, Bauer and Hannity have in common with the black conservatives? It's more than a common affection for low taxes and non-existent government regulation of business. Conservative activists understand that the GOP's history of tolerating bigots in their ranks and seeking out their votes, from Nixon's "Southern Strategy" to George H.W. Bush's use of Willie Horton to George W. Bush's courting of the confederate vote in the 2000 South Carolina primary, presents a problem for moderate voters of all races. Finding African-Americans to make the conservative case goes a long way toward wiping those memories from the public mind.
Big Men on Campus
But ideology starts outside of Washington, and one of the most important ideological battle grounds for the black conservative movement is on campus, where many of the faculty in the social sciences and humanities believe the silly notion that structural racism still exists in America, and aren't afraid to say so.
So in 1998, the Young America's Foundation formed the Alternative Black Speakers Program "in response to the overwhelmingly leftist bent of Black History Month on campuses," according to a press release. The program sends conservative black speakers to college campuses across the country, "giving students an alternative to the often radical and irresponsible message of black lecturers appearing on campuses as part of official university programs." One of YAF's top executives is Floyd Brown, the infamous dirty trickster responsible for creating the 1988 anti-Dukakis ads featuring Willie Horton's menacing mug shot.
Perhaps the most visible black conservative in the campus wars is Ward Connerly, president of the American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI). Connerly was a protégé of former California Governor Pete Wilson, who appointed him to the University of California's Board of Regents. Connerly drafted Wilson's anti-affirmative action initiative Prop 209, and is now attempting to bring a similar ballot measure to Michigan.
When asked what he thought about Trent Lott's comments about segregation in 2002, Connerly told CNN: "Supporting segregation need not be racist. One can believe in segregation and believe in equality of the races."
According to the civil rights group By Any Means Necessary (disclosure: I am a member of BAMN), Connerly reportedly makes $400,000 dollars per year as the president of ACRI.
Follow the Money
And that's what seems to unite these seemingly disparate groups – money. Every black conservative group I've mentioned – without exception – receives a significant portion of their funding (in some cases all of their funding) from at least three of four ultra-conservative foundations (the Lincoln Institute gets its share funneled indirectly through the conservative Hoover Institution).
The four are the usual suspects of the Right's political ATM: Richard Scaife's family foundations, Adolph Coors' Castle Rock Foundation, The John M. Olin Foundation, and the Linde and Harry Bradley Foundation. What's striking about these groups' underwriting of "minority organizations" is that some of them have at times displayed what many would consider a frankly racist agenda.
Scaife has gained notoriety as one of the great funders of the "New Conservative" movement. While he is best known for his anti-Clinton activities, including paying for the American Spectator's "Arkansas Project," he has plenty of unsavory grantees; the Charlotte Observer reported that he provided funding for Children Requiring A Caring Community, a scary fringe group that pays poor women to be surgically sterilized or to undergo long-term birth control.
According to People For The American Way (PFAW), William Coors gave a speech in 1984 in which he reportedly told a largely African American audience that "one of the best things they [slave traders] did for you is to drag your ancestors over here in chains." Later in the speech, he asserted that weakness in the Zimbabwe economy was due to black Africans' "lack of intellectual capacity."
The speech drew controversy and a boycott by African American and Hispanic groups. In response, Coors pledged hundreds of millions of dollars to African American and Hispanic organizations. Apparently, black conservative groups run by white Republicans count.
The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation is a particularly interesting case. According to PFAW, Bradley, whose recipients list "reads like a Who's Who of the U.S. Right," is a major funding source for the Center for Individual Rights, which brought the Hopwood v. Texas case that ended affirmative action at the University of Texas law school. Bradley played a major role in financing Pete Wilson and Ward Connerly's Prop 209, and, through the Pacific Legal Foundation, Bradley "provided pro bono representation to ...Wilson in his challenge to five state statutes dealing with affirmative action ..." Clint Bolick, vice president of the Institute for Justice, another recipient of Bradley money, "played a pivotal role in attacks on Lani Guinier, President Clinton's nominee to head the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. Bolick's Wall Street Journal opinion piece headlined 'Clinton's Quota Queen' dredged up the worst racist and sexist stereotypes and helped throw the Guinier nomination on the defensive."
Even more striking is that Bradley grants supported Charles Murray and the late Harvard psychologist Richard Hernstein while they wrote The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. According to PFAW, "the book was widely seen as a piece of profoundly racist and classist pseudo-science, and was denounced by the American Psychological Association. It had relied heavily on studies financed by the Pioneer Fund, a neo-Nazi organization that promoted eugenicist research. Immediately after its publication, Bradley raised Murray's annual grant to $163,000."
The boards of these foundations aren't exactly "multicultural," if you know what I mean. But they have a message to get out: They're coming after affirmative action, the minimum wage, social welfare programs, pre- and after-school programs and, indeed, multiculturalism itself. And when that's the message, it's good to have it delivered by an African-American.
So there you have it, the leading lights of the black conservative movement. If you believe that the most pressing problems facing the African-American community today are the minimum wage, too many regulations on energy companies and too many people trying to get kids to quit smoking, then maybe you should join the black conservative movement yourself. You don't have to be black, or even know anyone who is. And heck, if you are black and you leave the house early enough, they may even put you on TV to "rebut" the NAACP.
Joshua Holland is a student at the University of Southern California and Editor-in-Chief of the Trojan Horse, USC's "fiercely Progressive voice of reason."
By Joshua Holland, Gadflyer.
AlterNet
July 26, 2004.
So I tuned into C-SPAN with interest to hear what a leading voice in the black conservative movement had to say. But then a funny thing happened: The African-American spokesperson for Project 21 caught a flat on the way to the studio, and the group's director had to fill in. And he was white.
"Black Conservative to Rebut NAACP Leader's Remarks in C-SPAN Interview," read the press release from Project 21, an organization of conservative African-Americans.
I had read in Reuters that Kweisi Mfume, president of the NAACP, had called groups like Project 21 "make-believe black organizations," and a "collection of black hustlers" who have adopted a conservative agenda in return for "a few bucks a head."
So I tuned into C-SPAN with interest to hear what a leading voice in the black conservative movement had to say. But then a funny thing happened: The African-American spokesperson for Project 21 caught a flat on the way to the studio, and the group's director had to fill in. And he was white.
As the segment began there was an awkward Wizard of Oz moment as C-SPAN's Robb Harlston – himself black – turned to Project 21's Caucasian director, David Almasi, and said, "Um...Project 21... a program for conservative African Americans... you're not African American."
It was a remarkable moment. A flat tire had led to a nationally televised peek into what lies behind a murky network of interconnected black conservative organizations that seek ostensibly to bring more African-Americans into the conservative movement. But they're not just reaching out to the community. They also speak out publicly for conservative positions that might evoke charges of racism if advocated by whites. And while that's not to say that there aren't some blacks who embrace conservative values, the groups that claim to represent them are heavily financed by business interests and often run by white Republicans.
Almasi replied defensively, "I wanted to make clear right at the beginning that I'm an employee, I'm an employee of Project 21, my bosses are the members of Project 21, the volunteers...I take my marching orders from them, not from anybody else."
Almasi told me by phone that he is Project 21's only paid staffer, and that he works part-time. He said that the approximately 400 volunteers – among whom there was a core of "a few dozen" – were simply conservative blacks "willing to do interviews, be quoted for press releases and be available to write for Project 21 publications," and that his role was simply to serve as "a syndicator, an editor and a scheduler."
But Project 21 is a subsidiary of the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR), which, according to the liberal watchdog Mediatransparency.org, was formed in the 1980s to support Reagan's military interventions in Central America. NCPPR's leadership – president, vice president, executive director – are all white. Amy Ridenour, former Deputy Director of the College Republican National Committee and the organization's president, also sits on the board of Black America's PAC, an organization that claims to be nonpartisan but whose IRS filings state that its mission is to elect Republicans.
NCPPR's directors are also all white. In fact, one of them – Jack Abramoff – is so white that he's actually a high-powered GOP lobbyist and Bush 'Pioneer' who, according to the Washington Post, is the target of multiple investigations into alleged funny-money payments from Indian gambling concerns (along with the $45 million in fees they collected from them, Abramoff and his partner Michael Scanlon convinced the tribes to donate large sums to conservative organizations run by Scanlon, which then funneled the money back to Abramoff, according to the Post).
In the 1990s, NCPPR got into the business of denying that climate change warnings were based on sound science. If the connection between black conservative outreach work and environmental skepticism doesn't seem clear, that's because it's not. But it's logical considering that ExxonMobil donated $30,000 to NCPPR for "educational activities" and $15,000 for general support in 2002, and last year they hiked their operating support to $25,000 and kicked in another $30,000 for NCPPR's 'EnviroTruth' website, according to company financial records.
Project 21 also received funding from R.J. Reynolds and "has lobbied in support of tobacco industry interests, opposing FDA regulation of the industry, excise taxes and other government policies to reduce tobacco use," according to the Center for Media and Democracy. Almasi denied that Project 21 received tobacco industry money, but said he was not sufficiently aware of the details of NCPPR's fundraising to say whether the parent organization had.
A Mile Wide, an Inch Deep
Project 21 is one small part of a broad coalition of black conservative groups that fight for issues of concern to the business community. These organizations draw their intellectual inspiration from Thomas Sowell's landmark 1975 book Race and Economics, one of the founding documents of the new black conservative movement. Just as born-again conservatives like David Horowitz and Zell Miller are showered with praise and money, black conservatives are embraced and elevated by the conservative movement as living repudiations of liberalism.
So Sowell and others – like Robert L. Woodson of the American Enterprise Institute, J.A. Parker of the Lincoln Institute, sometime presidential candidate Alan Keyes of Black America's PAC (BAMPAC), and Jackie Cissel of the Black Alliance for Educational Options – have little trouble finding cushy think-tank sinecures and generous support for their organizations. Many among this small group of prominent black conservatives are on several groups' advisory boards, adding to the appearance of a broad ideological movement. Cissel, for one, also serves as regional director for the African American Republican Leadership Council, a group whose mission "is to break the liberal democrat stranglehold over Black America," according to their web site. As Washington Post columnist Gene Weingarten reported last year, 13 out of the 15 members of the AALRC's Advisory Panel are white. They include such well known minority champions as the Free Congress Foundation's Paul Weyrich, Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, the Reverend Lou Sheldon, Gary Bauer of the Family Research Council, David Keene of the American Conservative Union, and Fox News host Sean Hannity.
What do people like Weyrich, Norquist, Bauer and Hannity have in common with the black conservatives? It's more than a common affection for low taxes and non-existent government regulation of business. Conservative activists understand that the GOP's history of tolerating bigots in their ranks and seeking out their votes, from Nixon's "Southern Strategy" to George H.W. Bush's use of Willie Horton to George W. Bush's courting of the confederate vote in the 2000 South Carolina primary, presents a problem for moderate voters of all races. Finding African-Americans to make the conservative case goes a long way toward wiping those memories from the public mind.
Big Men on Campus
But ideology starts outside of Washington, and one of the most important ideological battle grounds for the black conservative movement is on campus, where many of the faculty in the social sciences and humanities believe the silly notion that structural racism still exists in America, and aren't afraid to say so.
So in 1998, the Young America's Foundation formed the Alternative Black Speakers Program "in response to the overwhelmingly leftist bent of Black History Month on campuses," according to a press release. The program sends conservative black speakers to college campuses across the country, "giving students an alternative to the often radical and irresponsible message of black lecturers appearing on campuses as part of official university programs." One of YAF's top executives is Floyd Brown, the infamous dirty trickster responsible for creating the 1988 anti-Dukakis ads featuring Willie Horton's menacing mug shot.
Perhaps the most visible black conservative in the campus wars is Ward Connerly, president of the American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI). Connerly was a protégé of former California Governor Pete Wilson, who appointed him to the University of California's Board of Regents. Connerly drafted Wilson's anti-affirmative action initiative Prop 209, and is now attempting to bring a similar ballot measure to Michigan.
When asked what he thought about Trent Lott's comments about segregation in 2002, Connerly told CNN: "Supporting segregation need not be racist. One can believe in segregation and believe in equality of the races."
According to the civil rights group By Any Means Necessary (disclosure: I am a member of BAMN), Connerly reportedly makes $400,000 dollars per year as the president of ACRI.
Follow the Money
And that's what seems to unite these seemingly disparate groups – money. Every black conservative group I've mentioned – without exception – receives a significant portion of their funding (in some cases all of their funding) from at least three of four ultra-conservative foundations (the Lincoln Institute gets its share funneled indirectly through the conservative Hoover Institution).
The four are the usual suspects of the Right's political ATM: Richard Scaife's family foundations, Adolph Coors' Castle Rock Foundation, The John M. Olin Foundation, and the Linde and Harry Bradley Foundation. What's striking about these groups' underwriting of "minority organizations" is that some of them have at times displayed what many would consider a frankly racist agenda.
Scaife has gained notoriety as one of the great funders of the "New Conservative" movement. While he is best known for his anti-Clinton activities, including paying for the American Spectator's "Arkansas Project," he has plenty of unsavory grantees; the Charlotte Observer reported that he provided funding for Children Requiring A Caring Community, a scary fringe group that pays poor women to be surgically sterilized or to undergo long-term birth control.
According to People For The American Way (PFAW), William Coors gave a speech in 1984 in which he reportedly told a largely African American audience that "one of the best things they [slave traders] did for you is to drag your ancestors over here in chains." Later in the speech, he asserted that weakness in the Zimbabwe economy was due to black Africans' "lack of intellectual capacity."
The speech drew controversy and a boycott by African American and Hispanic groups. In response, Coors pledged hundreds of millions of dollars to African American and Hispanic organizations. Apparently, black conservative groups run by white Republicans count.
The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation is a particularly interesting case. According to PFAW, Bradley, whose recipients list "reads like a Who's Who of the U.S. Right," is a major funding source for the Center for Individual Rights, which brought the Hopwood v. Texas case that ended affirmative action at the University of Texas law school. Bradley played a major role in financing Pete Wilson and Ward Connerly's Prop 209, and, through the Pacific Legal Foundation, Bradley "provided pro bono representation to ...Wilson in his challenge to five state statutes dealing with affirmative action ..." Clint Bolick, vice president of the Institute for Justice, another recipient of Bradley money, "played a pivotal role in attacks on Lani Guinier, President Clinton's nominee to head the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. Bolick's Wall Street Journal opinion piece headlined 'Clinton's Quota Queen' dredged up the worst racist and sexist stereotypes and helped throw the Guinier nomination on the defensive."
Even more striking is that Bradley grants supported Charles Murray and the late Harvard psychologist Richard Hernstein while they wrote The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. According to PFAW, "the book was widely seen as a piece of profoundly racist and classist pseudo-science, and was denounced by the American Psychological Association. It had relied heavily on studies financed by the Pioneer Fund, a neo-Nazi organization that promoted eugenicist research. Immediately after its publication, Bradley raised Murray's annual grant to $163,000."
The boards of these foundations aren't exactly "multicultural," if you know what I mean. But they have a message to get out: They're coming after affirmative action, the minimum wage, social welfare programs, pre- and after-school programs and, indeed, multiculturalism itself. And when that's the message, it's good to have it delivered by an African-American.
So there you have it, the leading lights of the black conservative movement. If you believe that the most pressing problems facing the African-American community today are the minimum wage, too many regulations on energy companies and too many people trying to get kids to quit smoking, then maybe you should join the black conservative movement yourself. You don't have to be black, or even know anyone who is. And heck, if you are black and you leave the house early enough, they may even put you on TV to "rebut" the NAACP.
Joshua Holland is a student at the University of Southern California and Editor-in-Chief of the Trojan Horse, USC's "fiercely Progressive voice of reason."
Kerry's commanding officer retracts criticism
Boston Globe
August 6, 2004
Veteran retracts criticism of Kerry
By Michael Kranish
yesterday, a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book. The affidavit was given to The Boston Globe by the anti-Kerry group to justify assertions in their ad and book.
Elliott is quoted as saying that Kerry ''lied about what occurred in Vietnam . . . for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back."
The statement refers to an episode in which Kerry killed a Viet Cong soldier who had been carrying a rocket launcher, part of a chain of events that formed the basis of his Silver Star. Over time, some Kerry critics have questioned whether the soldier posed a danger to Kerry's crew. Crew members have said Kerry's actions saved their lives.
Yesterday, reached at his home, Elliott said he regretted signing the affidavit and said he still thinks Kerry deserved the Silver Star.
''I still don't think he shot the guy in the back," Elliott said. ''It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here."
Elliott said he was no under personal or political pressure to sign the statement, but he did feel ''time pressure" from those involved in the book. ''That's no excuse," Elliott said. ''I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake."
The affidavit also contradicted earlier statements by Elliott, who came to Boston during Kerry's 1996 Senate campaign to defend Kerry on similar charges, saying that Kerry acted properly and deserved the Silver Star.
The book, ''Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry," is to be published next week. Yesterday it reached number one on the bestseller list on Amazon.com, based on advance orders, in part because of publicity about it on the Drudge Report.
August 6, 2004
Veteran retracts criticism of Kerry
By Michael Kranish
yesterday, a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book. The affidavit was given to The Boston Globe by the anti-Kerry group to justify assertions in their ad and book.
Elliott is quoted as saying that Kerry ''lied about what occurred in Vietnam . . . for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back."
The statement refers to an episode in which Kerry killed a Viet Cong soldier who had been carrying a rocket launcher, part of a chain of events that formed the basis of his Silver Star. Over time, some Kerry critics have questioned whether the soldier posed a danger to Kerry's crew. Crew members have said Kerry's actions saved their lives.
Yesterday, reached at his home, Elliott said he regretted signing the affidavit and said he still thinks Kerry deserved the Silver Star.
''I still don't think he shot the guy in the back," Elliott said. ''It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here."
Elliott said he was no under personal or political pressure to sign the statement, but he did feel ''time pressure" from those involved in the book. ''That's no excuse," Elliott said. ''I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake."
The affidavit also contradicted earlier statements by Elliott, who came to Boston during Kerry's 1996 Senate campaign to defend Kerry on similar charges, saying that Kerry acted properly and deserved the Silver Star.
The book, ''Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry," is to be published next week. Yesterday it reached number one on the bestseller list on Amazon.com, based on advance orders, in part because of publicity about it on the Drudge Report.
Thursday, August 05, 2004
McCain Condemns Bush Ad for being 'Dishonest and Dishonorable'
ABC News
05 Aug 2004
McCain Condemns Anti-Kerry Ad
McCain Calls Ad Criticizing Kerry's Military Service 'Dishonest and Dishonorable'
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON Aug. 5, 2004 — Republican Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry's military service "dishonest and dishonorable" and urged the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well.
The White House declined.
"It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me," McCain said in an interview with The Associated Press, comparing the anti-Kerry ad to tactics in his bitter Republican primary fight with President Bush.
The 60-second ad features Vietnam veterans who accuse the Democratic presidential nominee of lying about his decorated Vietnam War record and betraying his fellow veterans by later opposing the conflict.
"When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry," one of the veterans, Larry Thurlow, says in the ad. Thurlow didn't serve on Kerry's swiftboat, but says he witnessed the events that led to Kerry winning a Bronze Star and the last of his three Purple Hearts. Kerry's crewmates support the candidate and call him a hero.
The ad, scheduled to air in a few markets in Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin, was produced by Stevens, Reed, Curcio and Potham, the same team that produced McCain's ads in 2000.
"I wish they hadn't done it," McCain said of his former advisers. "I don't know if they knew all the facts."
Asked if the White House knew about the ad or helped find financing for it, McCain said, "I hope not, but I don't know. But I think the Bush campaign should specifically condemn the ad."
McCain, chairman of Bush's campaign in Arizona, later said the Bush campaign has denied any involvement and added, "I can't believe the president would pull such a cheap stunt."
White House spokesman Scott McClellan declined to condemn the ad. He did denounce the proliferation of spending by independent groups, such as the anti-Kerry veterans organization, that are playing on both sides of the political fence.
"The president thought he got rid of this unregulated soft money when he signed the bipartisan campaign finance reform into law," McClellan said. A chief sponsor of that bill, which Bush initially opposed, was McCain.
In 2000, Bush's supporters sponsored a rumor campaign against McCain in the South Carolina primary, helping Bush win the primary and the nomination. McCain's supporters have never forgiven the Bush team.
McCain said that's all in the past to him, but he's speaking out against the anti-Kerry ad because "it reopens all the old wounds of the Vietnam War, which I spent the last 35 years trying to heal."
"I deplore this kind of politics," McCain said. "I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is, none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crew have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam. I think George Bush served honorably in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War."
Retired Adm. Roy Hoffmann, head of the Swift Boat group, said they respected McCain's "right to express his opinion and we hope he extends to us the same respect and courtesy, particularly since we served with John Kerry, we knew him well and Sen. McCain did not."
McCain himself spent more than five years in a Vietnam prisoner of war camp. A bona fide war hero, McCain, like Kerry, used his war record as the foundation of his presidential campaign.
The Kerry campaign has denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, saying none of the men in the ad served on the boat that Kerry commanded. Three veterans on Kerry's boat that day Jim Rassmann, who says Kerry saved his life, Gene Thorson and Del Sandusky, the driver on Kerry's boat, said the group was lying.
They say Kerry was injured, and Rassmann called the group's account "pure fabrication."
Hoffmann said none of the 13 veterans in the commercial served on Kerry's boat but rather were in other swiftboats within 50 yards of Kerry's. The group claims that there was no gunfire on the day Kerry pulled Rassmann from a muddy river in the Mekong Delta and that Kerry's arm was not wounded, as he has claimed.
05 Aug 2004
McCain Condemns Anti-Kerry Ad
McCain Calls Ad Criticizing Kerry's Military Service 'Dishonest and Dishonorable'
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON Aug. 5, 2004 — Republican Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry's military service "dishonest and dishonorable" and urged the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well.
The White House declined.
"It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me," McCain said in an interview with The Associated Press, comparing the anti-Kerry ad to tactics in his bitter Republican primary fight with President Bush.
The 60-second ad features Vietnam veterans who accuse the Democratic presidential nominee of lying about his decorated Vietnam War record and betraying his fellow veterans by later opposing the conflict.
"When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry," one of the veterans, Larry Thurlow, says in the ad. Thurlow didn't serve on Kerry's swiftboat, but says he witnessed the events that led to Kerry winning a Bronze Star and the last of his three Purple Hearts. Kerry's crewmates support the candidate and call him a hero.
The ad, scheduled to air in a few markets in Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin, was produced by Stevens, Reed, Curcio and Potham, the same team that produced McCain's ads in 2000.
"I wish they hadn't done it," McCain said of his former advisers. "I don't know if they knew all the facts."
Asked if the White House knew about the ad or helped find financing for it, McCain said, "I hope not, but I don't know. But I think the Bush campaign should specifically condemn the ad."
McCain, chairman of Bush's campaign in Arizona, later said the Bush campaign has denied any involvement and added, "I can't believe the president would pull such a cheap stunt."
White House spokesman Scott McClellan declined to condemn the ad. He did denounce the proliferation of spending by independent groups, such as the anti-Kerry veterans organization, that are playing on both sides of the political fence.
"The president thought he got rid of this unregulated soft money when he signed the bipartisan campaign finance reform into law," McClellan said. A chief sponsor of that bill, which Bush initially opposed, was McCain.
In 2000, Bush's supporters sponsored a rumor campaign against McCain in the South Carolina primary, helping Bush win the primary and the nomination. McCain's supporters have never forgiven the Bush team.
McCain said that's all in the past to him, but he's speaking out against the anti-Kerry ad because "it reopens all the old wounds of the Vietnam War, which I spent the last 35 years trying to heal."
"I deplore this kind of politics," McCain said. "I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is, none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crew have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam. I think George Bush served honorably in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War."
Retired Adm. Roy Hoffmann, head of the Swift Boat group, said they respected McCain's "right to express his opinion and we hope he extends to us the same respect and courtesy, particularly since we served with John Kerry, we knew him well and Sen. McCain did not."
McCain himself spent more than five years in a Vietnam prisoner of war camp. A bona fide war hero, McCain, like Kerry, used his war record as the foundation of his presidential campaign.
The Kerry campaign has denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, saying none of the men in the ad served on the boat that Kerry commanded. Three veterans on Kerry's boat that day Jim Rassmann, who says Kerry saved his life, Gene Thorson and Del Sandusky, the driver on Kerry's boat, said the group was lying.
They say Kerry was injured, and Rassmann called the group's account "pure fabrication."
Hoffmann said none of the 13 veterans in the commercial served on Kerry's boat but rather were in other swiftboats within 50 yards of Kerry's. The group claims that there was no gunfire on the day Kerry pulled Rassmann from a muddy river in the Mekong Delta and that Kerry's arm was not wounded, as he has claimed.
"Our American government has strayed too far from American values," - Bruce Springsteen
Thu, Aug 05, 2004
Reuters
Springsteen Gets Political with Attack on Bush
By Mark Egan
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Rocker Bruce Springsteen has stayed out of party politics for 25 years, but now he says the stakes are too high and he's urging fellow Americans to vote President Bush out of office in November.
A day after he announced he would join two dozen other stars in nine "battleground" states for a rock 'n' roll tour aimed at ousting Bush, the man known as "The Boss" explained his decision in a sharply worded editorial.
"Personally, for the last 25 years I have always stayed one step away from partisan politics," Springsteen wrote in The New York Times, noting he built a career singing about universal issues like human rights, dignity and freedom instead.
"This year, however, for many of us the stakes have risen too high to sit this election out."
Republicans and Democrats both asked to use Springsteen's 1984 hit "Born in the U.S.A." -- a song about how unwelcoming America was to returning Vietnam veterans but often mistaken for a patriotic anthem -- for use in political campaigns. Springsteen declined the requests.
And in June, when a concert promoter urged Springsteen to headline a large concert to upstage Bush's nominating convention in New York, he insisted he would not play any events tied to the Democratic or Republican conventions.
TAKING SIDES
But now Springsteen, whose blue-collar roots have resonated through his music for 30 years, making him the quintessential American rock hero to the working class, is taking sides.
He says Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry and his running mate, John Edwards , "are sincerely interested in asking the right questions and working their way toward honest solutions."
Of the "Vote for Change" tour -- 34 shows in 28 cities -- in the first week of October, one month before the U.S. presidential election, Springsteen said, "Our goal is to change the direction of the government and change the current administration come November."
He then launched a blistering attack on Bush for undertaking an "unnecessary war in Iraq ," running record budget deficits, cutting spending on social programs and giving a massive tax cut for the richest Americans -- a group that includes Springsteen himself.
"Our American government has strayed too far from American values," Springsteen wrote. "It is time to move forward. The country we carry in our hearts is waiting."
Six concert lineups will play simultaneous shows in a blitz of swing states which could go either Democrat or Republican in November: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin.
Dave Matthews, James Taylor, the Dixie Chicks , Pearl Jam, R.E.M , John Mellencamp, Jackson Browne and Bonnie Raitt are among the other performers.
While Springsteen has stayed out of politics, in May he posted the text of an anti-war speech by former Vice President Al Gore on his official Web site, calling it "one of the most important speeches I've heard in a long time."
Reuters
Springsteen Gets Political with Attack on Bush
By Mark Egan
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Rocker Bruce Springsteen has stayed out of party politics for 25 years, but now he says the stakes are too high and he's urging fellow Americans to vote President Bush out of office in November.
A day after he announced he would join two dozen other stars in nine "battleground" states for a rock 'n' roll tour aimed at ousting Bush, the man known as "The Boss" explained his decision in a sharply worded editorial.
"Personally, for the last 25 years I have always stayed one step away from partisan politics," Springsteen wrote in The New York Times, noting he built a career singing about universal issues like human rights, dignity and freedom instead.
"This year, however, for many of us the stakes have risen too high to sit this election out."
Republicans and Democrats both asked to use Springsteen's 1984 hit "Born in the U.S.A." -- a song about how unwelcoming America was to returning Vietnam veterans but often mistaken for a patriotic anthem -- for use in political campaigns. Springsteen declined the requests.
And in June, when a concert promoter urged Springsteen to headline a large concert to upstage Bush's nominating convention in New York, he insisted he would not play any events tied to the Democratic or Republican conventions.
TAKING SIDES
But now Springsteen, whose blue-collar roots have resonated through his music for 30 years, making him the quintessential American rock hero to the working class, is taking sides.
He says Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry and his running mate, John Edwards , "are sincerely interested in asking the right questions and working their way toward honest solutions."
Of the "Vote for Change" tour -- 34 shows in 28 cities -- in the first week of October, one month before the U.S. presidential election, Springsteen said, "Our goal is to change the direction of the government and change the current administration come November."
He then launched a blistering attack on Bush for undertaking an "unnecessary war in Iraq ," running record budget deficits, cutting spending on social programs and giving a massive tax cut for the richest Americans -- a group that includes Springsteen himself.
"Our American government has strayed too far from American values," Springsteen wrote. "It is time to move forward. The country we carry in our hearts is waiting."
Six concert lineups will play simultaneous shows in a blitz of swing states which could go either Democrat or Republican in November: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin.
Dave Matthews, James Taylor, the Dixie Chicks , Pearl Jam, R.E.M , John Mellencamp, Jackson Browne and Bonnie Raitt are among the other performers.
While Springsteen has stayed out of politics, in May he posted the text of an anti-war speech by former Vice President Al Gore on his official Web site, calling it "one of the most important speeches I've heard in a long time."
Viagra spam forces legal action
BBC News
World Edition
05 Aug 2004
Viagra spam forces legal action
Drug giant Pfizer has started a legal campaign against spammers and online pharmacies pushing fake Viagra.
The campaign will try to seize domains selling fake pills and stop spammers sending messages offering the drug.
The pharmaceutical firm began the campaign after survey results showed that many people believe Pfizer is the source of spam offering Viagra.
World Edition
05 Aug 2004
Viagra spam forces legal action
Drug giant Pfizer has started a legal campaign against spammers and online pharmacies pushing fake Viagra.
The campaign will try to seize domains selling fake pills and stop spammers sending messages offering the drug.
The pharmaceutical firm began the campaign after survey results showed that many people believe Pfizer is the source of spam offering Viagra.
Maybe with the pharmaceutical industry getting involved we might get some real anti-spam legislation.
- Chanur
Tuesday, August 03, 2004
Daily mislead goes to Dick Cheney
Below is the article. Dick Cheney is blaming the democrats for high gas prices because they voted against his energy plan.
Apparently Dick doesn't realize that with a majority in all three branches of the federal government they do not need the support of the democrats. Or, perhaps more correctly, Dick just wants to blame it on the democrats rather than the members of his own party that don't think losing 20% of the wildlife refuge land in the U.S. is a good idea (ANWR is 20% of the wildlife refuge land in the U.S. according to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service website)
Cheney Blames Democrats for Gas Prices
Vice President Cheney, Campaigning in Arkansas, Blames Democratic Opponents for High Gas Prices
The Associated Press
HOT SPRINGS, Ark. Aug. 3, 2004 — Vice President Dick Cheney said Tuesday that rising consumption and decreasing domestic production have led to high gasoline prices but also blamed his Democratic opponents and their opposition to the Bush administration's energy policies.
The Bush-Cheney campaign accuses Senate Democrats of blocking a Bush energy plan that would increase petroleum drilling and energy conservation and provide new tax breaks and other incentives to spur exploration and production.
"John Kerry and John Edwards voted no," Cheney said. "It's another area where I think there is a significant difference."
Cheney advocated increasing domestic oil production in wildlife areas in Alaska and other regions that are off-limits to development.
"We have put ourselves into a box. The only thing I can think of to do is to keep pushing for a comprehensive energy policy," he said. "We are at the mercy of those international oil prices."
Cheney, making his third trip to Arkansas this year, also criticized Democratic filibusters that have blocked consideration of Bush appointees to the bench.
"Anybody that might disagree with their liberal philosophy doesn't get to come to the floor of the Senate for a vote, and that's just wrong," he told a hand-picked audience of supporters in response to audience questions. One questioner accused federal judges of legislating from the bench.
"The vast majority of Americans believe this is one nation under God, and we believe we ought to be able to say that when we pledge allegiance to the flag," Cheney said.
Cheney said Bush's re-election is crucial to making America safer.
"This campaign is about what kind of strategy (voters) want. Do they think the president and the rest of us who serve him are on the right track?" he asked. "Sometimes the other team is stuck in the pre-9/11 mentality. They haven't made the transition."
Cheney said the heart of the strategy for the war in Iraq is to do what the coalition is doing in Afghanistan and Iraq training, supporting and equipping locals to take over the political and security responsibilities for their own country.
"We don't want to leave too soon and leave a mess there," he said. "The bottom line is ... to leave behind the kind of government that will never again be a safe haven for terrorists."
Cheney spoke from a podium that was in sight of a handful of protesters who marched outside the Convention Center, some carrying signs that included a reference to Bush, Cheney and Attorney General John Ashcroft as "the axis of evil."
Apparently Dick doesn't realize that with a majority in all three branches of the federal government they do not need the support of the democrats. Or, perhaps more correctly, Dick just wants to blame it on the democrats rather than the members of his own party that don't think losing 20% of the wildlife refuge land in the U.S. is a good idea (ANWR is 20% of the wildlife refuge land in the U.S. according to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service website)
Cheney Blames Democrats for Gas Prices
Vice President Cheney, Campaigning in Arkansas, Blames Democratic Opponents for High Gas Prices
The Associated Press
HOT SPRINGS, Ark. Aug. 3, 2004 — Vice President Dick Cheney said Tuesday that rising consumption and decreasing domestic production have led to high gasoline prices but also blamed his Democratic opponents and their opposition to the Bush administration's energy policies.
The Bush-Cheney campaign accuses Senate Democrats of blocking a Bush energy plan that would increase petroleum drilling and energy conservation and provide new tax breaks and other incentives to spur exploration and production.
"John Kerry and John Edwards voted no," Cheney said. "It's another area where I think there is a significant difference."
Cheney advocated increasing domestic oil production in wildlife areas in Alaska and other regions that are off-limits to development.
"We have put ourselves into a box. The only thing I can think of to do is to keep pushing for a comprehensive energy policy," he said. "We are at the mercy of those international oil prices."
Cheney, making his third trip to Arkansas this year, also criticized Democratic filibusters that have blocked consideration of Bush appointees to the bench.
"Anybody that might disagree with their liberal philosophy doesn't get to come to the floor of the Senate for a vote, and that's just wrong," he told a hand-picked audience of supporters in response to audience questions. One questioner accused federal judges of legislating from the bench.
"The vast majority of Americans believe this is one nation under God, and we believe we ought to be able to say that when we pledge allegiance to the flag," Cheney said.
Cheney said Bush's re-election is crucial to making America safer.
"This campaign is about what kind of strategy (voters) want. Do they think the president and the rest of us who serve him are on the right track?" he asked. "Sometimes the other team is stuck in the pre-9/11 mentality. They haven't made the transition."
Cheney said the heart of the strategy for the war in Iraq is to do what the coalition is doing in Afghanistan and Iraq training, supporting and equipping locals to take over the political and security responsibilities for their own country.
"We don't want to leave too soon and leave a mess there," he said. "The bottom line is ... to leave behind the kind of government that will never again be a safe haven for terrorists."
Cheney spoke from a podium that was in sight of a handful of protesters who marched outside the Convention Center, some carrying signs that included a reference to Bush, Cheney and Attorney General John Ashcroft as "the axis of evil."
Material Behind New U.S. Alert Is Years Old
Material Behind New U.S. Alert Is Years Old
Tue Aug 3, 8:35 AM ET
Reuters
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Much of the information obtained from al Qaeda that led the United States to raise terror alerts in Washington and New York was at least three years old but a top U.S. official said on Tuesday it remained relevant.
Asked in morning television interviews whether material gathered more than three years ago was out of date, White House homeland security adviser, Fran Townsend, said this was not the case.
She said al Qaeda had originally collected information about key financial buildings in the United States in 2000 and 2001 but that this was updated as recently as January of this year.
"What we have learned about the 9/11 attacks, is that they do them (plan for attacks), years in advance and then update them before they launch the attacks," she told ABC's "Good Morning America" show, referring to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks against America.
Al Qaeda was behind the Sept. 11 hijacked plane attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center in New York and struck the Pentagon in Washington.
Last Sunday, the United States raised its terror level to "high" and warned of possible attacks soon, naming the New York Stock Exchange , World Bank , and International Monetary Fund as among potential targets in the New York area and Washington.
Townsend said the U.S. government got its latest intelligence of planning for more attacks as little as 72 hours ago from Pakistan.
"We thought we had to get it to the American people so that they could protect themselves," she said.
Security has been tightened in New York and Washington in response to the new terror alert and Washington police chief Charles Ramsey said new security measures could stay in place at least until after the November presidential election.
Democrats have raised questions over the timing of the alert, saying it could be politically motivated ahead of the election.
"The allegation is outrageous," Townsend said.
The Washington Post and The New York Times reported in Tuesday editions that officials were still analyzing documents seized late last month in Pakistan that showed al Qaeda was gathering information about specific U.S. targets.
Federal authorities said they were unsure whether al Qaeda's surveillance continued, the newspapers reported.
The Post cited officials as saying that much of the information al Qaeda gathered on buildings in Washington, New York and Newark, New Jersey, was obtained through the Internet or other "open sources" available to the general public, including floor plans.
"What we've uncovered is a collection operation as opposed to the launching of an attack," a senior U.S. official told the Post.
Tue Aug 3, 8:35 AM ET
Reuters
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Much of the information obtained from al Qaeda that led the United States to raise terror alerts in Washington and New York was at least three years old but a top U.S. official said on Tuesday it remained relevant.
Asked in morning television interviews whether material gathered more than three years ago was out of date, White House homeland security adviser, Fran Townsend, said this was not the case.
She said al Qaeda had originally collected information about key financial buildings in the United States in 2000 and 2001 but that this was updated as recently as January of this year.
"What we have learned about the 9/11 attacks, is that they do them (plan for attacks), years in advance and then update them before they launch the attacks," she told ABC's "Good Morning America" show, referring to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks against America.
Al Qaeda was behind the Sept. 11 hijacked plane attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center in New York and struck the Pentagon in Washington.
Last Sunday, the United States raised its terror level to "high" and warned of possible attacks soon, naming the New York Stock Exchange , World Bank , and International Monetary Fund as among potential targets in the New York area and Washington.
Townsend said the U.S. government got its latest intelligence of planning for more attacks as little as 72 hours ago from Pakistan.
"We thought we had to get it to the American people so that they could protect themselves," she said.
Security has been tightened in New York and Washington in response to the new terror alert and Washington police chief Charles Ramsey said new security measures could stay in place at least until after the November presidential election.
Democrats have raised questions over the timing of the alert, saying it could be politically motivated ahead of the election.
"The allegation is outrageous," Townsend said.
The Washington Post and The New York Times reported in Tuesday editions that officials were still analyzing documents seized late last month in Pakistan that showed al Qaeda was gathering information about specific U.S. targets.
Federal authorities said they were unsure whether al Qaeda's surveillance continued, the newspapers reported.
The Post cited officials as saying that much of the information al Qaeda gathered on buildings in Washington, New York and Newark, New Jersey, was obtained through the Internet or other "open sources" available to the general public, including floor plans.
"What we've uncovered is a collection operation as opposed to the launching of an attack," a senior U.S. official told the Post.
Sunday, August 01, 2004
Democrats vs. the GOP: Do the Math
LA Times
August 1, 2004
Michael Kinsley:
Democrats vs. the GOP: Do the Math
You know how sometimes, when it's really, really hot, you get this urge to crank up the old spreadsheet, download a bunch of numbers from the Web and start crunching away like there's no next fiscal year?
Me neither. But I did spend a bit of the past week watching the Democratic convention on TV, and I needed something to exercise my mind while that was going on. Convention season is the one time every four years when we pretend that political parties matter. In general, we have accepted the reality that campaigns for national office have become entrepreneurial, united more by shared political consultants than by old-fashioned parties.
So I thought I'd see if there was a difference between the parties that transcended the differences between the candidates. Is one of them, for example, a better steward of the economy? One year won't tell you much, or even one administration. But surely differences will emerge over half a century or so, if they exist.
With that thought, I headed for the Web. Specifically, I went to the charts attached to the President's Economic Report, released in February. There, I downloaded like a madman and then distilled the mess into a few key stats.
The figures I'm using are from 43 years, 1960 through 2002. I didn't choose the years in order to skew the results; these are the years that were available for the categories I wanted to include.
The results are pretty interesting. Maybe presidents have little power over the economy. And we know that they must fight with Congress over the budget. Still, elections are based on the premise that who you vote for does matter. So let's at least entertain that assumption for a few minutes.
It turns out that Democratic presidents have a much better record than Republicans. They win in a head-to-head comparison in almost every category. Real growth averaged 4.09% in Democratic years, 2.75% in Republican years. Unemployment was 6.44%, on average, under Republican presidents, and 5.33% under Democrats. The federal government spent more under Republicans than Democrats (20.87% of GDP, compared with 19.58%), and that remains true even if you exclude defense (13.76% for the Democrats, 14.97% for the Republicans).
What else? Inflation was lower under Democratic presidents (3.81% on average, compared with 4.85%). And annual deficits took more than twice as much of GDP under Republicans than Democrats (2.74% of GDP versus 1.21%). Republicans won by a nose on government revenue (i.e., taxes), taking 18.12% of GDP, compared with 18.39%. That, of course, is why they lost on the size of the deficit.
Personal income per capita was also a bit higher in Republican years ($16,061 in year- 2000 dollars) than in Democratic ones ($15,565). But that is because more of the Republican years came later, when the country was more prosperous already.
There will be many objections to all this, some of them valid. For example, a president can't fairly be held responsible for the economy from the day he takes office. So let's give them all a year. That is, let's allocate each year to the party that controlled the White House the year before. Guess what? The numbers change, but the bottom-line tally is exactly the same: higher growth, lower unemployment, lower government spending, lower inflation and so on under the Democrats. Lower taxes under the Republicans.
But maybe we are taking too long a view. The Republican Party considers itself born again in 1981, when Ronald Reagan became president. That's when Republicans got serious about cutting taxes, reducing the size of government and making the country prosperous. Allegedly. But doing all the same calculations for the years 1982 through 2002, and giving each president's policies a year to take effect, changes only one result: The Democrats pull ahead of the Republicans on per capita personal income.
As they say in the brokerage ads, past results are no guarantee of future performance.
August 1, 2004
Michael Kinsley:
Democrats vs. the GOP: Do the Math
You know how sometimes, when it's really, really hot, you get this urge to crank up the old spreadsheet, download a bunch of numbers from the Web and start crunching away like there's no next fiscal year?
Me neither. But I did spend a bit of the past week watching the Democratic convention on TV, and I needed something to exercise my mind while that was going on. Convention season is the one time every four years when we pretend that political parties matter. In general, we have accepted the reality that campaigns for national office have become entrepreneurial, united more by shared political consultants than by old-fashioned parties.
So I thought I'd see if there was a difference between the parties that transcended the differences between the candidates. Is one of them, for example, a better steward of the economy? One year won't tell you much, or even one administration. But surely differences will emerge over half a century or so, if they exist.
With that thought, I headed for the Web. Specifically, I went to the charts attached to the President's Economic Report, released in February. There, I downloaded like a madman and then distilled the mess into a few key stats.
The figures I'm using are from 43 years, 1960 through 2002. I didn't choose the years in order to skew the results; these are the years that were available for the categories I wanted to include.
The results are pretty interesting. Maybe presidents have little power over the economy. And we know that they must fight with Congress over the budget. Still, elections are based on the premise that who you vote for does matter. So let's at least entertain that assumption for a few minutes.
It turns out that Democratic presidents have a much better record than Republicans. They win in a head-to-head comparison in almost every category. Real growth averaged 4.09% in Democratic years, 2.75% in Republican years. Unemployment was 6.44%, on average, under Republican presidents, and 5.33% under Democrats. The federal government spent more under Republicans than Democrats (20.87% of GDP, compared with 19.58%), and that remains true even if you exclude defense (13.76% for the Democrats, 14.97% for the Republicans).
What else? Inflation was lower under Democratic presidents (3.81% on average, compared with 4.85%). And annual deficits took more than twice as much of GDP under Republicans than Democrats (2.74% of GDP versus 1.21%). Republicans won by a nose on government revenue (i.e., taxes), taking 18.12% of GDP, compared with 18.39%. That, of course, is why they lost on the size of the deficit.
Personal income per capita was also a bit higher in Republican years ($16,061 in year- 2000 dollars) than in Democratic ones ($15,565). But that is because more of the Republican years came later, when the country was more prosperous already.
There will be many objections to all this, some of them valid. For example, a president can't fairly be held responsible for the economy from the day he takes office. So let's give them all a year. That is, let's allocate each year to the party that controlled the White House the year before. Guess what? The numbers change, but the bottom-line tally is exactly the same: higher growth, lower unemployment, lower government spending, lower inflation and so on under the Democrats. Lower taxes under the Republicans.
But maybe we are taking too long a view. The Republican Party considers itself born again in 1981, when Ronald Reagan became president. That's when Republicans got serious about cutting taxes, reducing the size of government and making the country prosperous. Allegedly. But doing all the same calculations for the years 1982 through 2002, and giving each president's policies a year to take effect, changes only one result: The Democrats pull ahead of the Republicans on per capita personal income.
As they say in the brokerage ads, past results are no guarantee of future performance.
All articles in this archive are used under "fair use" as they are important to the national discussion of whether or not the people of this country are being deceived by their government. These articles are used as evidence in that discussion.
