Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

2nd Presidential Debate, 1st Impressions

Posted on October 8, 2004 by Michael Froomkin

What a weird event. The only thing clear is that the citizen questioners won. They are much better than the moderators.

As between the candidates, Bush did not self-destruct like in the first debate, but at the price of some strange behavior, notably a very blank expression when he was sitting down and a very odd speaking style for the first hour — shouting, almost ranting. His demeanor in the last half-hour was much better than in the first hour.

The Big Lie made its appearance early and often, as Bush claimed that yesterday’s report by the chief United States weapons inspector for Iraq (the Duelfer Report) somehow vindicated the decision to attack. There basically isn’t a shred of truth to that description of a thousand-page report most voters will never read. If anything, the report showed that the UN sanctions were working better than anyone suspected. And, if there is any justice, Bush's claim that he isn't blocking drug re-importation will come back to haunt him. He did much better in the last 30 minutes, even told what counts as a good joke about timber under the circumstances. [Although fact checking reveals that Kerry was right and Bush wrong on the facts as to Bush's $84 in timber income making him a “small business”.] But Bush flubbed the Patriot Act question badly by patronizing the questioner. And he cratered again when asked if he could identify three mistakes he's made in the last 3.5 years. He couldn't bring himself to come up with even one specific example.

Kerry was forceful, although I find some of his canned speeches a bit robotic, and if I were drinking every time he said he had a Plan I would be blotto if not hospitalized. He started strong (“The military's job is to win the war; the president's job is to win the peace”; slamming Bush on the deficit) but as the night wore on he stumbled a few times, albeit more in style than substance, notably on the stem cell question where he seemed to be fumbling for words. Other than on the abortion issue, Kerry smashed Bush both on Iraq and domestic issues. Even on the abortion issue, Kerry did well in his rebuttal on explaining why parental notification and 'partial birth' abortion were more complex questions than Bush lets on, the only time on that subject when Kerry didn't look uncomfortable.

In general, Kerry looked tired by the end, Bush looked better at the end than the start (when he looked awful). Kerry had better get more rest the day before the third debate. Even so, he won significantly on points — but not by a knockout until and unless the fact checkers hit the Big Lie issue squarely.

But within the four corners of the TV screen (or, in my case, Real Video feed) Bush did better than the first time. Bush looked substantially less stupid, albeit every bit as pig-headed. Some people see that as resolve. Others see it as denial of reality. Kerry's domination on substance was perhaps insufficient to shake the faith of Bush supporters not already scared away from him.

And a lot depends on the factcheckers: if they do as good a job as they did for the first two debates, that should help Kerry substantially.

Posted in Politics: US: 2004 Election | 20 Comments

Today’s Tinfoil Hat Link

Posted on October 8, 2004 by Michael Froomkin

Is Bush Wired?, a web site dedicated to exploring the odd bulges in GW Bush's jackets…was he wearing some sort of electronic prompter during the first debate?

I'd dismiss this as pure nutso fantasy but for this Salon article (ad view req.) which includes this tidbit:

“Repeated calls to the White House and the Bush national campaign office over a period of three days, inquiring about what the president may have been wearing on his back during the debate, and whether he had used an audio device at other events, went unreturned.”

The failure to deny it may be due to the view it's beneath contempt. Or…

Posted in Politics: Tinfoil | 21 Comments

Has the FBI Nothing Better to Do?

Posted on October 8, 2004 by Michael Froomkin

If the FBI is rational — bear with me here! — then its decision to allocate resources to trying to figure out who writes in the margin of library books in rural Whatcom County, Washington, suggests that it is vastly overstaffed. And if this is how the FBI spends its time, I can't imagine why we want to give it more authority…

Posted in Civil Liberties | 3 Comments

Wonkette’s Expectations Are So Low…

Posted on October 8, 2004 by Michael Froomkin

Wonkette accepts the NYT's offer to craft a question for GW Bush:

Questions for Bush: Personal experience can often change political opinions. So, just hypothetically: Let's say your vice president's daughter was gay … Oh, wait. Umm … What if you were responsible for the biggest deficit in American history – oh, ha. O.K.: Let's say you invaded a country based on faulty intelligence … Er, oops … No, we got it: How did “The Pet Goat” end, anyway?

Can't. Resist. Low. Humor. “Wonkette Expectation Is So Low, It's Below the Belt”

Posted in Politics: US: 2004 Election | 2 Comments

My Kerry-Edwards Sign (I)

Posted on October 8, 2004 by Michael Froomkin

We live less than a block from campus, only a few blocks from where the first presidential debate was held. So the day before the debate we decided we needed a Kerry-Edwards yard sign. In an earlier post I described how I found the local Kerry-Edwards office. I went there the morning of the debate, and they gave me a yard sign, with the metal mount, saying it was just about the last one, they were going fast. We installed it as soon as we got home. That afternoon, returning from collecting the kids, I saw our neighbor from across the street, whom I'll call Ms. 'Morales'.

I should explain about the 'Morales' family. Viewed from across the street, they seem to be your typical Coral Gables residents—a very successful Cuban-American couple, a few years older than us, one college-age son. Mr. Morales is an accountant, she's a not-quite-full-time Realtor.

(I will never forget one of my first encounters with Mr. Morales back in 1992. Having just arrived from London, we moved into our house a few days after Hurricane Andrew, at a time when there was no electricity anywhere in the neighborhood, roads were impassible due to trees down, and everything was in confusion. Our house was basically untouched, but theirs sustained severe damage. Despite this, we were more disoriented than they, in part because we were not used to the heat and humidity, had no clue where anything was, no emergency supplies, not even a candle or flashlight to unpack by when it got cool enough at night to actually move.

Despite their own serious damage, the Moraleses made every effort to be helpful. When the radio started warning about not leaving damaged houses unattended due to the danger of looters, Mr. Morales come over to comfort us. We had nothing to worry about, he said. He had an arsenal in his house, and was keeping watch on things. Any looter came by he was going to shoot him. The idea of an amateur, armed with an arsenal, poised for looters across the street scared me much more than the remote prospect of the looters themselves, though I understood that Mr. Morales meant his remarks to be friendly.)

So anyway, Ms. Morales made polite conversation about the construction on our house (which proceeds, but not fast enough). Then she came to the point. “I noticed you have a new sign on your lawn.” Uh-oh, thought I. She sees it all day out of her window. This isn't going to be good.

Then she floored me: “Where can I get one?”

It seems the Moraleses, perhaps because of the college (ie draft!) age child, are now virulently anti-Bush. They voted for him in 2000, and boy are they sorry. She is angry about the war in Iraq, Ms. Morales told me—and she looked the way I feel, shaking with anger. And they're angry about the new rules that restrict travel to Cuba, and limit helping any but the closest relatives still there. They're very very anti-Bush; they're voting Kerry.

Of such things are victories made.

(This is the first of at least three stories I plant to tell over the next few days about my Kerry-Edwards sign.)

Next: Someone steals my sign two days after I put it up.

Posted in Personal, Politics: US: 2004 Election | 8 Comments

More from the ‘Buck Stops WHERE?’ Dept

Posted on October 7, 2004 by Michael Froomkin

Newsweek has an informative article about the apostasy of L. Paul Bremer III and the White House attempt to put the lid back on. But it buries the lead lede, and misses the real point in an interesting and sadly predictable way.

MSNBC – Inner Circle No More? At the heart of the controversy is a still-unresolved dispute over who was mainly responsible for one of the biggest mistakes of Bremer's 15-month tenure in Iraq, one that is commonly ascribed to him. This was the decision in May 2003 to reverse the efforts of Bremer's predecessor, retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, to put the ragged elements of the Iraqi Army to work. After Bremer formally disbanded the army, some disaffected soldiers were believed to have joined the insurgency, which still rages.

Administration officials said today that this decision was made on the ground in Iraq, rather than in Washington. Before the war, the plan was to get rid of Iraqi Army officers but use regular troops for security and reconstruction after Saddam's ouster. But Bremer “flipped that around,” said a White House official. He added that Bremer and his deputy, Walt Slocombe, made the decision by themselves.

But Bremer and Garner have previously indicated the decision was made in Washington. According to one official who attended a meeting that Bremer had with his staff upon his arrival in Baghdad in mid-May of 2003, Bremer was warned he would cause chaos by demobilizing the army. The CIA station chief told him, “That's another 350,000 Iraqis you're pissing off, and they've got guns.” According to one source who was at the meeting, Garner then asked if they could discuss the matter further in a smaller meeting. Garner then said: “Before you announce this thing let's do all the pros and cons of this, because we are going to have a hell of a lot of problems with it. There are a hell of a lot more cons than there are pros. Let's line them all up then get on the phone to [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld.” Bremer replied: “I don't have any choice. I have to do this.” Garner then protested further, but Bremer cut him off. “The president told me that de-Baathification comes before the immediate needs of the Iraqi people.”

That Bush himself is directly and personally responsible for one of the major boneheaded judgments of the post-invasion period explains a lot. It should have been the lead lede of the story, not that poor Mr. Bremer can expect a horse's head in his bed Real Soon Now.

But lurking behind the story is yet another example of the soft bigotry of low expectations. Somehow, GW Bush is only potentially responsible for errors he personally orders? He has no responsibility for how his team screws up? Even when he keeps them around?

Talk about teflon!

Posted in Iraq, Politics: US: GW Bush Scandals | 6 Comments