Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

Word Frequency Counts Reveal a Major Problem

Pandagon reports in Terrorist Who?:

Did a quick term count in yesterday's “major” speech on terrorism. The results, amazingly, are even more ridiculous than I expected:

  • Frequency of John Kerry (with the terms “Senator”, “Senator Kerry”, or “my opponent”): 41
  • Frequency of “Saddam Hussein”: 4
  • Frequency of “Al Qaeda”: 1
  • Frequency of “Osama bin-Laden” or “bin-Laden”: 0

Assuming this was, as stated, a speech on terrorism, it seems quite clear that George W. Bush believes the main terrorist threat facing our country is John Kerry.

He probably does at that.

Posted in Politics: US: 2004 Election | 1 Comment

Of the Dilbertian Pointy Headed Boss and the Next, Wonkish, Presidency

A lucid essay at the aptly named Making Light, wherin not levity but illumination. The title may be Motivation and doubt, but the topic is management style and the world view of the PHB — and what it means to have an ur-PHB in the Oval Office. (Hint: reality need not apply.) Great reading. (And, as always, the comments are good too.)

So too, in a very different way, is Stirling Newberry's The Great Silence:

Bush Wilts without the Media Light, which begins with meditations on the 'ground game' in the last weeks of the campaign, and then takes off in a flight of plausible fancy to imagine the arc of the first term of a Kerry Presidency. Rather than a PHB, suggests Newberry, it will be a wonk's Presidency—at first.

Posted in Politics: US | Comments Off on Of the Dilbertian Pointy Headed Boss and the Next, Wonkish, Presidency

Visualize Winning

Needlenose says, Visualize Winning.

It's good advice for the next two tense weeks.

Posted in Politics: US: 2004 Election | 2 Comments

ROFL

Talk about two cultures divided by a common language. Wonkette channels the Guardian's followup to its letter-writing campaign directed to Clark County, Ohio in So Long and Thanks for All the Castles:

Americans respond to the Guardian's call for Britons to lobby Ohio voters against Bush. Mostly, they are not pleased, though some are more polite than others:

I used to visit the UK every year. I love the history and culture of your country. But after I heard about your campaign to influence our elections, I've decided that neither myself, nor my family will ever visit again. I'm offended by your campaign and because of it, I'm remembering more of the negative aspects I've seen in the UK than the positive ones. Though I still love the castles!

Versus, say:

Who in the hell do you think you are??? Well, I'll tell you, you're a bunch of meddling socialist pricks! Stay the hell out of our country and politics. And another thing, John Kerry is a worthless lying sack of crap so it doesn't surprise me that a socialist rag like yours would back him. I hope your cynical ploy blows up in your cowardly faces, you bunch of mealy-mouthed morons!

Our take: Yeah! Imagine that! A foreign power trying to, you know, assert control over a sovereign nation by writing letters. Why don't they just hand-pick a ruling coalition like a real empire would? Pussies.

Dear Limey assholes [Guardian]

Posted in Politics: US: 2004 Election, UK | 4 Comments

Krugman Feels a Draft

One of Krugman's best columns ever (where's that Pulitzer?): Feeling the Draft, makes exactly the right analogy:

Those who are worrying about a revived draft are in the same position as those who worried about a return to budget deficits four years ago, when President Bush began pushing through his program of tax cuts. Back then he insisted that he wouldn't drive the budget into deficit – but those who looked at the facts strongly suspected otherwise. Now he insists that he won't revive the draft. But the facts suggest that he will.

There were two reasons some of us never believed Mr. Bush's budget promises. First, his claims that his tax cuts were affordable rested on patently unrealistic budget projections. Second, his broader policy goals, including the partial privatization of Social Security – which is clearly on his agenda for a second term – would involve large costs that were not included even in those unrealistic projections. This led to the justified suspicion that his election-year promises notwithstanding, Mr. Bush would preside over a return to budget deficits.

It's exactly the same when it comes to the draft. Mr. Bush's claim that we don't need any expansion in our military is patently unrealistic; it ignores the severe stress our Army is already under. And the experience in Iraq shows that pursuing his broader foreign policy doctrine – the “Bush doctrine” of pre-emptive war – would require much larger military forces than we now have.

This leads to the justified suspicion that after the election, Mr. Bush will seek a large expansion in our military, quite possibly through a return of the draft.

Mr. Bush's assurances that this won't happen are based on a denial of reality.

The poignant part of this is that four years ago when Krugman pointed out that the Bush economic policies didn't add up, the GOP slime machine started calling him shrill and suggesting he was out of the mainstream (which is code for something like 'commie' or 'we don't have to listen to him').

But Krugman was right about the deficit.

Posted in National Security | 21 Comments

Speak Truth, Lose Job

Not an unusual circumstance in the working world: speak the truth, criticize the boss, lose your job. Somewhat odder when the job is allegedly journalism.

Sinclair DC News Bureau Chief Fired After Publicly Criticizing Management on Kerry Special.

But it's not about journalism, is it?

Posted in Politics: US: 2004 Election | 4 Comments