You are currently browsing the monthly archive for April 2007.
Some photo fun today over at Illinois Review.
Question: Who holds the pencil, drives the car, lifts the spoon … and pulls the trigger? Is it some magic force? Perhaps invisible leprechauns or even fairies?
Or is it real, live people?
For a country that isn’t fighting a war inside its borders, didya ever wonder why America is home to the highest number of gun fatalities in the world? It’s because you and I can type in a URL and buy a gun and ammo over the ‘Net sight unseen, or head over to the local gun show and pick up whatever we want nigh scot free — essentially, because our gun laws are so liberal. Heaven forfend the gun industry not sell so much product. E gad.
Spelling bees and Rosie O’Donnell have nothing to do with it.
No one with any power wants to take guns away (as Bruno Behrend points out), but a lot of folks do wonder why there’s this obsession with being able to buy stuff for which the sole purpose is to kill things.
Guns don’t kill people. People shooting easy-to-get guns kill people. And it’d be a heckuva lot more difficult to kill people without it.
Ed Murnane posts at Illinois Justice blog that Illinois is among the “worst” states as considered by corporate lawyers. Corporate attorneys such as those which help defend Exelon as a result of the water they poisoned in central Illinois. Corporate lawyers such as those who defend the hospital and the doctor which accidentally amputates the wrong limb from your body. Corporate attorneys who are employed by the companies which fund the US Chamber of Commerce, the organization that gave Madison County, Illinois the oh-so-flattering pejorative moniker “judicial hellhole” and set up a silly propaganda paper replete with an editor from the big city to keep pumping that perception out.
Those corporate attorneys.
I wonder what a poll of folks who are hurt by corporate malfeasance, negligence or downright ineptitude would show… (In his defense Mr. Murnane almost asks that same question, but clearly doesn’t care to know the answer since he so quickly dismisses the thought.)
Is the lawsuit climate out of whack? Perhaps. But remember that everyone hates lawyers til they need the best one they can afford — and corporations can generally afford much better attorneys than the rest of us. And Erin Brockovich is still considered a hero among the “little guys” … and a nemesis among the corporate elite.
COMPLETE TANGENT: I wonder if such comments make Mr. Murnane an “Illinois hater”. It’s clear that he thinks our Prairie State is one of the “worst” among the 50. Under the partisan conservatives’ logic, questioning (let alone disparaging) any aspect of a given country or state or person earns one the label “Bush Hater” or “America Hater”. Hmm… see how ridiculous such hyperpartisan name-calling is?
Seeing as how today sort of turned into John Ruskin Day here at Illinois Reason (hey, we can’t help it that most of his comments are beyond goofy)…
Not sure if this means John Ruskin agrees with the rest of his fellow Americans, but he at least does everyone the honor of repeating a recent Gallup poll on the war with little editorial/partisan comments on the findings.
The 10 points Mr. Ruskin echoes from that poll are all things I and a good many other mainstreamers have been saying for some time as proof that conservative partisans are now outliers on the war (yet it continuously seems to fall on deaf partisan conservative ears).
Mr. Ruskin says it well simply by reiterating his fellow citizens’ ideas:
- The Iraq war is an extremely high priority for Americans
- A majority of Americans feel it was a mistake for us to get involved in Iraq
- Americans perceive that the war is not going well
- Americans do not believe the troop surge is having a positive effect
- Americans perceive that the benefits of winning the war do not outweigh the costs involved
- Most Americans support a timetable for removing troops from Iraq within the next year, but not immediate withdrawal
- A majority of Americans are against cutting funding for the war
- Democrats are better positioned than Republicans on handling the issue of Iraq
- Views on the war are highly partisan
- A gender gap exists concerning views on the Iraq war
Mr. Ruskin reaches a valid conclusion. He says: “It would seem that now is a time for leadership on the part of the Administration. But I wouldn’t hold out too much hope for that folks.”
And this is why folks are attracted to the Democratic candidates — their ideas are aligned. To date, the Republican candidates are still supporting the Bush strategy of never-ending battle in Iraq. Sen. McCain even goes several degrees further by one-upping the president’s current surge plan (Sen. McCain doesn’t really explain from whence these extra troops will magically appear to round out his hyper-surge strategy).
In all honesty, the Republican candidates are stuck. The clear majority of Americans are both highly concerned about Iraq and want our brave troops home, yet (as Mr. Ruskin notes above) desires on the Iraq War are highly partisan and the Republican/conservative base wants the war to continue.
(Delving deeper, McCain’s promotion of a hyper-surge is, IMHO, another half-measure. If the strategy is a surge, make it an actual surge instead of just a bump. Pentagon wargames demonstrated a need for roughly half a million troops. While this is unsustainable without a draft or a significant increase in allies, instead of the current continuous decrease, it is what is required to meet the president’s currently stated goal of stability in Iraq.)
And apparently we now know its name.
So John Ruskin finds a photo of the Democratic presidential contenders’ debate (which shows a few spouses’ rear views) and says “Nice Ass-es” (yes, I get the lame double-entendre about the butt-shot and the Democratic donkey). Is it just another laughless Illinois Review joke or something else?
Pantsuit profiles notwithstanding, perhaps the truth behind the post is that Mr. Ruskin must be envious that Democrats have (from their perspective at least) a pleasantly difficult choice between very reasonable candidates who reflect the values of not just their party and its current spate of rationality but also our nation which has clearly grown weary of Bush- and Ruskin-style uberpartisanship and wants to head back to the mainstream.
Or perhaps Mr. Ruskin, who doesn’t seem to like Illinois’ front-runner* for GOP nomination Sen. McCain (*-according to the recent Rich Miller poll), is envious that the Democratic candidates have been attracting audiences upwards of 10x the size of their Republican equivalents.
Pure class, Ruskin style.
John Ruskin had a busy weekend of trying to find things to write that make no sense, even in his bizarro world of hypocrisy and made-up malarkey…
On Saturday he made up stuff about the Trib’s article on a Gilead Center study which found there are a growing number of uninsured citizens in Illinois.
Guess what Mr. Ruskin — neither the Trib nor the Gilead Center made anything up in their reports on the matter.
To follow Mr. Ruskin’s format…
First: There are more people who lack health insurance in Illinois, just like throughout America. How’s that the fault of a governor who is trying to solve the problem? Businesses, the main provider of such a benefit, are slowly but surely peeling away layer after layer of health care insurance (if not dropping it altogether). This is an effect of ever-spiralling costs and waste systemic to the current healthcare, pharmaceutical and payment coverage (HMOs, insurance, etc) systems.
You may not like the governor’s solution or the organizations which support his solution (it’s clear that you do not — that is your right), but that does not give you the magical right to make stuff up in a weak effort to boost your side of things.
Second: Anti-choice solutions? Sure, that’s why others on the opposite end of the political spectrum are complaining (not quite as ridiculously as Mr. Ruskin) that the governor’s plan is market-based and does not eliminate built-in corporate waste.
Third: Any person can walk into a hospital and, so long as they need care, the hospital must give them care. Doesn’t matter if their great-great-great-great-grandfather rowed across the Delaware with Washington or if they came here illegally last week… It also doesn’t matter if they are a millionaire or out-of-work homeless person with nary a penny… hospitals by law must give them care.
It’s only logical that the Gilead Center study would include all people eligible for care in Illinois (everyone in Illinois). Your hyperbole sounds like quite the whine.
Fourth: What part of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness does Mr. Ruskin not understand? Yes, health care is considered a right in these United States. This is why, by law, we as a society say that anyone who walks into a hospital and needs help must be given that help. We don’t leave our people to just die in the streets. We are not that country, no matter how much whining partisan conservatives do to promote the notion that we should be.
Kind of strange for an anti-abortion conservative to now speak out of both sides of his mouth by railing against health care, eh?
Yet more hypocrisy from partisan John Ruskin.
We know John Ruskin hate-hate-hates liberals, but is he really this desperate to throw another slab o’ hate on the barby?
Racial Profiling – Liberal Style
by John Ruskin
Notice anything similar between Virginia Tech murderer Seung-Hui Cho and Cary-Grove High School senior Allen Lee? …
The Illinois educrats did. Seems they’ve been doing a little racial profiling — and ruining a kid’s life in the process.
(It actually gets worse, as Mr. Ruskin compares progressives to the Klan… Yes, really, he did go there.)
Teri O’Brien, well, she was as Teri O’Brien as she could be, saying basically the same thing (sans the racial profiling angle) as Mr. Ruskin in her slightly earlier post on the topic at Illinois Review. And Cal Skinner complained that the Tribune gave this issue front-page coverage a few times over the course 3 days — which is interesting since Illinois Review has now covered the Allen Lee story 3 times in 24 hours.
Back to Mr. Ruskin. What sort of goofball looks at what Mr. Lee wrote in the days after the Virginia Tech massacre and then thinks that his school administrators and the police are committing racial profiling?!? Read the text, Mr. Ruskin.
While yes it was for a creative writing class and, by all appearances, Cary-Grove Trojan Allen Lee appears to be a very well-rounded, upstanding student and citizen, the text of his essay is disturbing and should give anyone pause. And while I think the police overreacted certainly some sort of consequences were appropriate (the area’s police are known for that — don’t drive 31mph in a 30mph zone…. I’m just sayin’). My preference, though I don’t know all the facts — only the text of the essay, would have been for a detention or two.
It may have been a creative writing class, but restraint is also an important lesson.
Given that the school turned the matter over to the police and it is the police who brought the charges (and thus are hampering Mr. Lee’s plans to join the Marines) it would seem to be the police, not the teachers, with whom Mr. Ruskin ought to take up his complaints of racial profiling.
Obviously, none of this explains where Mr. Ruskin came up with this kooky theory of his … especially seeing as how he himself is a profiler. (Mr. Ruskin was all too happy to promote the conservative Christianists’ idea that the VaTech killer was Muslim.)
The only logical explanation? John Ruskin hates public school teachers and/or the unions that support them (ie, them thar “educrats” as Mr. Ruskin puts it).
Here’s a wee li’l crack at creative writing of my own:
Hypocrisy: Thy name be John Ruskin
and thee be blinded by partisan hate.
Hope you drop those scales from your eyes
‘fore the hour grows too late.
Again we head to Capitol Fax blog to find our quote of the day. Here is Rich Miller in his newspaper column, repeated at CapFax blog, describing findings from a presidential poll he had done for his own edification:
Meanwhile, the poll also showed that Illinois’ Republican presidential primary appears to be wide open.
Based on the polls results, that’s an understatement. The two jockeying for “front-runner” label nationally are also 1-2 in Mr. Miller’s poll — Sen. John McCain comes in at a weak 26.1 with former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani nipping at his heels with 25.7.
But it is the bronze finisher that piqued my interest. Former Senator and current TV actor Fred Dalton Thompson (who is also battling cancer) came in with as solid a third place as any at 17.4.
As Mr. Miller and others note, a very interesting point about Sen. Thompson’s showing in this poll is that he has not announced. In terms of presidential campaigning, he has a lot of the same things as Sen. Obama going for him. (Sen. Obama was the first placer — with a clear majority, not just a plurality — on the Dems’ side of Mr. Miller’s poll.)
Sen. Thompson has a bit of noteriety — Sen. Thompson from acting, Sen. Obama from his “hit” DNC speech in 2004. Both are getting attention via the media, boosting their bio and name recognition nationally. The pair also have wives from Illinois — Michelle Obama from Chicago, Jeri Kehn from Naperville (though, only Sen. Thompson is a divorcee having left his first wife, Sarah Elizaebeth Lindsey).
Politically and civicly, both of course are/were Senators and have been involved in promoting the common good (Sen. Thompson famously vis a vis Watergate and other corruption investigations and Sen. Obama through his community activism). Both have strong and growing grassroots contingents (the door-to-door, shoe leather type of support). And both are still relative unknowns to most of the nation meaning they will each be able to fill in the blanks, lest others start to do it for them.
I wonder why Mr. Miller chose to add an undeclared candidate to a poll of what are otherwise declared or exploring candidacies.
UPDATE: Duh. I thought I had linked to the post but I must’ve misclicked. Here it is:
As Chief Engineer Montgomery Scott said, the old Scottish proverb is “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”
Progressives in general and Illinois progressives in particular need to stop fighting the drivel from the Diersen’s of the Land of Lincoln on their turf.
One thing Illinois Republicans clearly lack is imagination. I mean, the party of George Ryan, Jim Ryan and then Jack Ryan needs to branch out once in awhile. They did, of course, think outside the box once with the whole Alan Keyes thing but, um, that one didn’t work out very well.
Having no native imagination, they rely too much on sound bites and allegedly catchy phrases from HQ. “Tax and spend liberal” is never far from their keyboard, for example, even though the Bush Administration and Karl Rove’s Republican Congress clearly never met a spending bill or pork project they didn’t like. Bush still has yet to cast his first veto about spending our money. Democrats, now in control of Congress, silly us, are advancing they pay-go idea as a step toward, you know, actually having the money for stuff before spending it. But that inconvenient truth hasn’t kept troglodytic Republicans from hauling out the old lumber. Maybe if we explained that it’s like the I-Pass…
Read the rest of this entry »
At that same post in which George Dienhart dances a little jig over the delayed news release of the capture of al-Iraqi, he also makes a point to again blame President Clinton for 17-year cicadas 9/11 despite the fact the man hadn’t been in office for 9 months and National Security Advisor Condi Rice ignored every single warning she was given.
He calls it the “Clinton Doctrine” — which is apparently a reference to Clinton’s retaliatory strike in Syria, etc. I seem to recall that at the time Republicans went bonkers that Clinton was wasting time and missiles, just putting on a show, and wagging the dog — essentially that he did too much for little reason. But now those strikes are considered to be not enough.
Maybe all conservatives are forced to take a Hypocritical Oath before they can join their little club.
Mr. Dienhart continues on with a heckuva whopper:
If anything, President Bush’s administration has proved that the best defense is a good offense. There have been no domestic attacks since 2001. If we had just bombed some aspirin factories in retaliation, we would have been hit again. (emphasis added)
Mr. Dienhart, I know Londoners who were steps away from the bus that exploded on that bloody Thursday in 2005. And perhaps you’d care to explain your claim to the families in Madrid who lost loved ones in 2004. While you’re at it, talk to the Jordanians, Australians and others who have also had to bury loved ones (if their bodies were found) as a results of other terrorist attacks since 2001.
These bombings may not have happened here in the “domestic” US… but they have happened. Qualifying your phrases to gloss over reality doesn’t change that fact.
Our good pal George Dienhart is excitedly wagging his finger over at Illinois Review on the occasion of a news release about another terrorist capture. This time, it is one Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi (aka Abu Abdallah). I agree — good for the CIA for reeling in this monster.
Interestingly enough, al-Iraqi (as his name implies) was an Iraqi before becoming an international outlaw. In fact, he left Saddam Hussein’s army (al-Iraqi was a major at one time) in order to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan back in the 80s. But to conservative partisans, this retroactively proves that Hussein again had direct ties to bin Laden because… they say so. (Actually, it proves that Presidents Carter and Reagan made a strategic blunder in funding and training the pre-born al Quaida in Afghanistan in order to “get back” at the Soviets. Very short-sighted given Middle Eastern fundamentalists’ acts of terror even before that point. Hindsight’s always 20/20.)
Al-Iraqi went on to become a director for al Quaida training camps that were destroyed in the invasion of Afghanistan. News reports indicate he was most recently coordinating terrorist activity at least in Iraq if not also in Europe and that he was the one who, after the US invaded Iraq, eventually convinced now-killed Zarqawi (a Jordanian terrorist who set up operations in Iraq after the US invaded) to join forces with al Quaida. Again, all this after the US invaded Iraq.
Not to discount the significance of any capture of actual terrorists, but it appears as though al-Iraqi had been captured previously in Afghanistan in 2001 or 2002 after our initial invasion to retaliate for 9/11, remove the Taliban and al Quaida, and capture bin Laden. If he was so important, how did he get out that we had to then capture him again?
Further, the man has apparently been in custody since last year (caught by the CIA in late ‘06). Why spill the bean’s of his capture now and possibly imperil on-going stings or other counter-terror ops? Of course, as many conservatives have already noted, there was that vote in the Senate yesterday…
It’s odd and not the least bit disturbing that conservatives such as Mr. Dienhart and others would hold up the news of a single individual’s capture (even though the capture apparently happened last year) as proof that our troops must continue to act as target and training practice for terrorists in Iraq, whether afiiliated with al Quaida or not. This flypaper strategy does just as much to draw out terrorists as it does to create them (let alone give them live-action training that they are now exporting out of Iraq). Why can’t the few partisans still supporting this war that was based on lies from the start comprehend this?
The Iraq War is spawning an ever-growing number of al-Iraqis… not killing them off.
As for al-Iraqi himself, put the guy on trial and, if found guilty (likely), hang him from the nearest gallows — but don’t let him out again as apparently happened at some point a few years ago. And all this again begs the question, where is bin Laden?
Conservatives enjoy railing against what they see as a bloated pension system among government employees. Said conservatives also fail to mention that those same government employees would have typically earned much more salary-wise throughout their career had they been employed by the private sector — you pay for what you get.
And while Bruno Behrend does his fair share of such ranting, he also is rather disillusioned by the current state of overcompensation among the corporate CEO set even though they are typically a staunch ally (not to mention funder) of conservative candidates and causes. So while it may raise an eyebrow or two for those who haven’t been reading or listening to Mr. Behrend, it comes as little surprise that today he joins with libertarian-leaning liberals who fight for fairness and have long decried the huge and growing gap between the haves and the rest of us (ie, the CEO-to-employee income gap).
Here’s Mr. Behrend on the recent announcement of AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre, Jr.’s retirement. (He cross-posts at both his blog and Illinois Review which I take to mean Mr. Whitacre’s wheel of fortune winnings really get under Mr. Behrend’s craw):
Speaking of Obscene Pensions…
AT&T CEO Whitacre may end up being the biggest Pension Pig of all. As an aggressive (and accurate) critic of the obscene pensions showered upon “public servants” (quotes indicate sarcasm & irony), I find corporate retirement packages – along with the often unwarranted ‘parachutes’ they get for bankrupting their companies – just as vile, but for different reasons. [emphasis is original to BB's post]
Come now Mr. Behrend, when’s the last time a public school CEO … I mean superintendent … received a retirement package that included $25,000 per year for a country-club membership? 
Now Hascat at Illinois Review gives Mr. Whitacre the benefit of the doubt in by commenting some of that jackpot will be spent on charities, goods and services and in the long-run benefit the economy. Pres. Reagan tried trickle-down voodoonomics. It didn’t work back then either. Based on the history of such wealthy individuals it is much more likely the bulk of the money will be divvied up between political contributions, some charitable giving (which could also mean deductible political-philosophy contributions), and any heirs.
Mr. Whitacre, by the looks of his past donations (which, while bipartisan, skew Republican) is Mr. Behrend’s political ally, whether Mr. Behrend likes it or not. Perhaps if he finds Mr. Whitacre’s pension jackpot to be obscene he ought to speak a little louder and a little more often to his fellow conservative friends, many of whom seem to buy into the goofy notion of socio-economic darwinism which would dictate that Mr. Whitacre has earned such an “obscene” retirement package by virtue of being better than all the rest of us (ie, a somehow more ‘evolved’ citizen-worker).
COMPLETE TANGENT: Maybe our state legislators will be reminded of all this when they settle on voting for or against AT&T’s “TV 4 us” malarkey.
“TV 4 us” is the shell political organization set up by AT&T to introduce a false sense of competition to the near-monopolistic cable industry. This group, oddly enough, runs the exact same TV commercials across a great many states, not just Illinois, to chide citizens to call their legislators and “support HB such-and-such” (check out all those yellow, “non-video choice” states on their website’s map). Go figure.
I’ve always wondered who they consider to be the “us” in their group’s name? Is it we the people, or is it AT&T and their jackpot-winning CEO retiree? And I’ve always wondered why they consider more of the same (albeit with a different name, and a cell-phone contract as part of the bundle) to be “choice.”
True choice in cable TV would involve a la carte channel options so that folks with, say, tots could pick Nick, Disney, Noggin, etc. and avoid F/X and the other basic cable channels ill-suited to kids. It would also work for home-improvement fans who could pick every DIY channel under the sun while foregoing the channels they don’t want, etc. Bachelors could get all 19 ESPNs, plus the Golf Channel, Bowling Channel, and Squash Channel — while not having to buy Lifetime, Oh! or the Hallmark Channel (vice versa for the gals).
Then again, who would watch all 500 channels with nothing on them if we weren’t forced to buy them all at once? (Gee, maybe that’s why there’s no a la carte basic cable.)
-I-N-I…
AP says Jeffrey Jordan, 3-year starter at Loyola Academy in Wilmette, announced today he’d like to play as a walk-on at U of I.
Should be interesting to see how that works out as Coach Weber continues to rebuild. I also wonder if it will help recuitment at all. If his dad continues to watch games from the stands as he did at Loyola Academy … it should.
Congrats to the Jordans. Illinois is a good school, then again I’m biased.
Libby Gray Macke, director of a Glenview outfit called “Project Reality”, has a letter in today’s Tribune promoting abstinence-only education. Ms. Macke is herself an abstinence educator and, as such, has a reason to continue to promote such folly as abstinence-only which has been proven time and again to simply not work as intended.
Ms. Macke refers to an earlier Trib article (originally from the Associated Press) which reported on a Mathematica Policy Research study that showed students in abstinence-only programs had their first intimate experience at the same average age as students who were not in such classes — 14.9 years old (which is younger than the national average of 16). That study conducted research in areas as varied as Milwaukee, Miami, and rural Virginia and Mississippi. Others have questioned the implications of the study’s release, given that so many Federal tax dollars are given to such programs under the direction of the conservative Bush Administration.
Unfortunately for Ms. Macke, the program she runs (Project Reality) is misnamed. In her letter defending her livelihood of abstinence-only education, Ms. Macke refers to not just one but three other studies as proof the Mathematica Policy study is wrong.
But she avoids reality by failing to name any of her referenced studies so we have no way to gauge their accuracy or relevance. She might as well have told us that an increase in cricket chirping helps promote abstinence… that’s just as helpful.
Ms. Macke also seems to have ignored reality by griping about what she claims is a flaw in the Mathematica study’s methodology. She says the study cannot be trusted because the abstinence-only study subjects and the control group subjects were all in the same schools, and could thus talk to each other, presumably about sex ed.
News flash to Ms. Macke: kids talk to each other whether they go to the same school or not. Welcome to the electronic age where a kid isn’t a kid without cell phone ears and keypad hands.
And lest ye think I’m simply tearing hole after hole in Ms. Macke’s weak, self-interested arguments… there is plenty of evidence from other legitimate research to bolster the Mathematica study Ms. Macke is disingenuously trying to critique.
Finally, Ms. Macke says only ‘just say no’ to sex programs come under attack (the good ol’ woe-is-me-I’m-such-a-lone-martyr defense) and that people don’t question the effectiveness of ‘just say no’ programs against drugs, alcohol and tobacco. Which, like so many other aspects of Ms. Macke’s letter, is also just plain wrong. There are plenty of folks who question the effectiveness of those programs, but given Ms. Macke’s conservative leanings it’s unlikely she would agree with them either.
Now don’t get me wrong. I firmly believe abstinence education ought to be a major component of any comprehensive sex ed class. Abstinence from all forms of sexual activity is the only way to completely avoid STDs, pregnancies, and emotional harm. Parents also ought to play a much larger role in teaching their children the responsibilities and possible results of intimacy so their children (even if “mature”) can be truly expected to be accountable for their actions.
More to the point, I am certain Ms. Macke has what she considers to be the best interests of our youth at heart. She has every right afforded her as a citizen to believe what she wants to believe, ignore what she wants to ignore and promote what she wants to promote. But, she also has a responsibility, as an educator of our children and a recipient of our tax money, to be accurate, honest and open. Sadly, she is so clearly not.
If you’d like to help clear the air and demonstrate the lack of reality in Ms. Macke’s claims, write the Trib: ctc-tribletter@tribune.com
Actually, this is now from yesterday… (Thought I hit “publish” but I must’ve hit “save”.)
Ladies and gentlemen, this may be Bill Baar’s first appearance on Illinois Reason. He earned it with this whopper. In response to another George Dienhart screed on how Democrats are evil and all wrong and to blame for everything bad ever… Mr. Baar tells us his thoughts on Sen. Obama’s vote and press release against the Iraq War. Bill Baar says:
This poor foolish man has no idea how much tougher this war is going to get with America flinching like this.
It will get bigger, costlier, and bloodier. American’s [sic] will rightly blame Democrats for this failure of will. It’s going to be a hell of way to learn the lesson though.
Neomeme did a little digging after we all learned that Karl Rove had been using a Republican National Committee email account to conduct quasi-government/quasi-political work from the West Wing. The account Mr. Rove was using was on a little RNC-owned domain called gwb43.com (Pres. Bush being the 43rd president, “43″ is also his family nickname with his father being called “41″ — cute, no?).
In doing the digging, Neoneme found what he calls several “Strange Domains Registered by the RNC“. One of the more curious domains discovered is one called “democratflipflops.com”. As we all know, in 2004 the Republicans’ knock against Senator John Kerry was that he somehow flip-flopped on legislation and policies. Kerry-Edwards events often had goofball protesters running in giant flip & flop costumes, though even Sen. Kerry shot himself in the foot by saying he voted for the Iraq war before he voted against it (which, in Senatorese, is technically true since there were several bills related to the Iraq War, some worse than others).
But Neoneme explains why that particular domain name is so interesting in light of the 2004 presidential campaign:
democratflipflops.com is particularly interesting, because it was registered in 2002, suggesting the Republican war machine for labeling Bush’s 2004 opponent a flip-flopper was working long before the election.
This makes sense: write the script long before you need to act out the play. Had the primaries produced a candidate by the name of Howard Dean or John Edwards … why they too would’ve had the “flip-flopper” label thrown at them.
Karl Rove has a history of plugging pieces into a puzzle whether they fit or not. We saw him do it time and again to Vice-President Gore in 2000, labeling him a fibber (at worst) or exaggerator (at best). One of the most famous 2000 lines is that VP Gore claimed to have “invented” the Internet. He, of course, never made such a claim. It was then-candidate Bush who twisted Gore’s words … in order to fit the script that had already been written.
Unfortunately, it’s apparently easier for the national media to buy into a storyline — even a made-up political storyline — than it is for those journalists to actually, you know, do journalism. Even worse… some folks sadly lap it up like cats to milk.
