Public Enquiry Project

DNC ELECTION MANUAL: CHARGE VOTER INTIMIDATION, EVEN IF NONE EXISTS

**World Exclusive**

The Kerry/Edwards campaign and the Democratic National Committee are advising election operatives to declare voter intimidation -- even if none exists, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

A 66-page mobilization plan to be issued by the Kerry/Edwards campaign and the Democratic National Committee states: "If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a 'pre-emptive strike.'"

[HIGHLIGHT OF ELECTION DAY MANUAL, NOVEMBER 2004. CLICK FOR IMAGE .PDF FILE]

The provocative Dem battle plan is to be distributed in dozens of states, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

One top DNC official confirmed the manual's authenticity, but claimed the notion of crying wolf on any voter intimidation is "absurd."

"We all know the Republicans are going to try to steal the election by scaring people and confusing people," the top DNC source explained.

MATT DRUDGE

The Regulated Bi-partisan Shared Press Conference "Debate" Show - Episodes 1 and 2

So the president has always had the power to declare preemptive war. Huh. How about that.

I almost vomited when John Kerry said that. It’s like, “We have always been at war with Oceana.” I would have expected that from anyone in BushCo, but from the candidate of the supposed left? Please just kill me.

The debates were at least satisfying on a visceral level. Kerry looked calm and collected, and Bush acted like a big baby. “I know bin Laden is responsible for September 11th! I know that!” He sounded like a fifth grader, so that was at least funny. But of all that Kerry could have said about himself… I just found out he was a big supporter of the Iran Contra investigation, yeah John, you go girl – but he just kept saying the same tired old things over and over, about his big plan to go to the UN and ask the French and Germans and Swiss to send their troops to die for something the U.S. started. And when the UN tells him to go to hell? He hasn’t gotten that far in his plan, I don’t think. He’s going to strengthen the military, I assume that includes spending more on it, and he’s going to go after the terrorists wherever they might pose a threat and kill a whole lot of the people around them. Great.

I don’t know why you guys are so worried about what would happen if Kerry gets elected. I think Bill Kristol was right when he said Kerry’s foreign policy will look a lot like Bush’s. The wonderful plan to give the Jihadists the holy world war they want will continue unabated.

I was a little more heartened by John Edwards blasting at Dick Cheney’s voting record and about Halliburton. I figured those were “hands off” topics like Bush’s ties to Enron and The Project For The New American Century. I wish he had mentioned duck hunting and asked why his Energy Task Force is kept secret from the American people. I wish he had talked about Cheney’s dirty dealings in South America in the 80s. I mostly wish he would have thrown a pie in his face, because Dick Cheney honestly makes my skin crawl.

The Bush administration is the most corrupt gang of oil pirates and warmongers that has ever hijacked the country. I could make a good case as to why they should be led out in shackles and carted off to Club Fed for 100 years. Kerry/Edwards can’t even make a good case of why they shouldn’t be reelected.

Amsterdam is looking better and better…

BY BEWILDERED BONNIE

A Mythic Reality by Paul Krugman

Posted by Joe Lopisi

The best book I've read about America after 9/11 isn't about either America or 9/11. It's "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning," an essay on the psychology of war by Chris Hedges, a veteran war correspondent. Better than any poll analysis or focus group, it explains why President Bush, despite policy failures at home and abroad, is ahead in the polls.

War, Mr. Hedges says, plays to some fundamental urges. "Lurking beneath the surface of every society, including ours," he says, "is the passionate yearning for a nationalist cause that exalts us, the kind that war alone is able to deliver." When war psychology takes hold, the public believes, temporarily, in a "mythic reality" in which our nation is purely good, our enemies are purely evil, and anyone who isn't our ally is our enemy. This state of mind works greatly to the benefit of those in power.

One striking part of the book describes Argentina's reaction to the 1982 Falklands war. Gen. Leopoldo Galtieri, the leader of the country's military junta, cynically launched that war to distract the public from the failure of his economic policies. It worked: "The junta, which had been on the verge of collapse" just before the war, "instantly became the saviors of the country."

The point is that once war psychology takes hold, the public desperately wants to believe in its leadership, and ascribes heroic qualities to even the least deserving ruler. National adulation for the junta ended only after a humiliating military defeat.

George W. Bush isn't General Galtieri: America really was attacked on 9/11, and any president would have followed up with a counterstrike against the Taliban. Yet the Bush administration, like the Argentine junta, derived enormous political benefit from the impulse of a nation at war to rally around its leader.

Another president might have refrained from exploiting that surge of support for partisan gain; Mr. Bush didn't. And his administration has sought to perpetuate the war psychology that makes such exploitation possible.

Step by step, the fight against Al Qaeda became a universal "war on terror," then a confrontation with the "axis of evil," then a war against all evil everywhere. Nobody knows where it all ends. What is clear is that whenever political debate turns to Mr. Bush's actual record in office, his popularity sinks. Only by doing whatever it takes to change the subject to the war on terror - not to what he's actually doing about terrorist threats, but to his "leadership," whatever that means - can he get a bump in the polls.

Last week's convention made it clear that Mr. Bush intends to use what's left of his heroic image to win the election, and early polls suggest that the strategy may be working. What can John Kerry do?
Campaigning exclusively on domestic issues won't work. Mr. Bush must be held to account for his dismal record on jobs, health care and the environment. But as Mr. Hedges writes, when war psychology makes a public yearn to believe in its leaders, "there is little that logic or fact or truth can do to alter the experience."

To win, the Kerry campaign has to convince a significant number of voters that the self-proclaimed "war president" isn't an effective war leader - he only plays one on TV.

This charge has the virtue of being true. It's hard to find a nonpartisan national security analyst with a good word for the Bush administration's foreign policy. Iraq, in particular, is a slow-motion disaster brought on by wishful thinking, cronyism and epic incompetence.

If I were running the Kerry campaign, I'd remind people frequently about Mr. Bush's flight-suit photo-op, when he declared the end of major combat. In fact, the war goes on unabated. News coverage of Iraq dropped off sharply after the supposed transfer of sovereignty on June 28, but as many American soldiers have died since the transfer as in the original invasion.

And I'd point out that while Mr. Bush spared no effort preparing for his carrier landing - he even received underwater survival training in the White House pool - he didn't prepare for things that actually mattered, like securing and rebuilding Iraq after Baghdad fell.

Will it work? I don't know. But to win, Mr. Kerry must try to puncture the myth that Mr. Bush's handlers have so assiduously created.

The Neocons Have Taken Over The Asylum

BEWILDERED BONNIE SAYS: What is a neoconservative? I actually had a tough time finding a solid definition. Webster's says it's "a former liberal espousing political conservatism." It's kind of American exceptionalism + Christian fundamentalism + Zionism on steroids. It originated in the sixties when a group of Jewish liberal intellectuals, some of whom had lost family members to the concentration camps, became disillusioned with the New Left. Irving Kristol, who's known as the godfather of neoconservatism, stated in a Weekly Standard article that it's about cutting taxes, eliminating all forms of social welfare, and government involvement in cultural and personal issues including sexuality and religion. They highly value patriotism and a black-and-white view of "friends from enemies". Hawkish to the core, he says, "Appeasement is prevented by a powerful military capable of defeating any foe, the constant anticipation of new threats, and the willingness to pre-empt them." They see their mission as a battle of good versus evil. They have an exaggerated sense of America being the moral high point of God's creation. This is a fine ideology to debate in a bar, but it's not, in my opinion, the ideology that American policy should be based on. But thanks to George W., it now is the ideology American policy is based on. These guys have taken over the U.S. government and have started implementing their big plans for the planet without even telling us or letting us take a vote on it. The war on Iraq is only phase one. They've got a lot of plans still to be implemented. They've decided to become the yang to the yin of Bin Laden, and together they're plunging the world into a big Christian/Jew versus Muslim Armageddon.They must be stopped. In 1992 cold war had just ended and America was the sole remaining superpower. The neocons saw a golden opportunity for a new world pounded militarily into shape for American interests. Dick Cheney was defense secretary, Paul Wolfowitz was Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and Scooter Libby was Principal Deputy Under Secretary (Strategy and Resources). Together, they came up with the "Defense Policy Guidelines", a radical military strategy that came to be known as "The Wolfowitz Doctrine" According to a Frontline report on the document, it stated, "First the U.S must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role." It also states that what is most important is "the sense that the world order is ultimately backed by the U.S." and that "the United States should be postured to act independently when collective action cannot be orchestrated" or in a crisis that calls for quick response. Unfortunately for them, Bill Clinton was elected. But the neocons kept busy through the Clinton administration evenwhile their grand plan lay dormant. And apparently they really wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein. In 1996 Neocons Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, among others, authored "A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000" which suggested, "... This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq - an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right - as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions." In 1997 William Kristol, son of neocon godfather Irvin, and Robert Kagan gave birth to The Project for a New American Century (PNAC). According to their website, "The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership." It's "Statement of Principals" declares, "As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?" Signatories included Elliot Abrams, Gary Bauer, Bill Bennett, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Steve Forbes, Scooter Libby, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. In 1998 they wrote a letter to President Clinton about getting rid of Saddam. This suggested, "The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy." Signatories included Bill Bennett, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and James Woolsey. In September 2000 PNAC came out with "Rebuilding America's Defenses". Here are some of what it states should be the U.S. military's core missions: • Fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous theater wars. • Develop and deploy global missile defenses to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world • Control the new "international commons" of space and "cyberspace" and pave the way for creation of a new military service - U.S. Space Forces - with the mission of space control. It also warns: "The true cost of not meeting our defense requirements will be a lessened capacity for American global leadership and ultimately, the loss of a global security order that is uniquely friendly to American principles and prosperity." And it laments, "... the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalzying event - like a new Pearl Harbor." Under Clinton, their nutty ideas were just nutty ideas. The along came W. He installed neocons Cheney as vice president, Libby as Cheney's Chief of Staff, Wolfowitz as Deputy Secretary of Defense, Robert Bruce Zoellick as Trade Representative, and several others in other key positions. It was the neocons time at last. All they needed to put their grandious plan into effect was a new Pearl Harbor. Next - The conclusion

Right Center and Left: Body, Mind and Soul

Another search for the truth by Bewildered Bonnie, the raging liberal guest poster I understand better and better the conservative mindset, yet my own mindset does not change. I can understand the good that's come of the Iraq war; that is the people are no longer oppressed by a horrible despot. But the bad still looks just as bad to me as it did before. I'm not jumping on the conservative bandwagon and taking all the garbage that comes with it, but I do want to see what they see that liberals don't see, and recognize and overcome the more harmful and disingenuous aspects of the liberal reality tunnel. Hopefully I'm accomplishing that. It's very evident to me that though there are as many different points of view as there are human beings, the model labeled Left and Right is pretty useful and generally applies to political belief. I don't see it as being like a line with a L on one side and an R on the other side; I believe it's more like this: The two extremes come so close they almost merge. I see George W. Bush and Fidel Castro as being two examples. (Castro is a dictator, and Bush wants to be a dictator) Both the conservative and liberal positions are partial, fragmented, alienated and alienating. Both are ultimately oppressive. But taken together, they form a pretty good picture of the objective world, at least as far as we can perceive an objective world. For example, poverty. The conservative will say, "They're lazy, they think they're entitled, they don't work hard enough; I worked hard for my money, let them work hard for theirs!" The liberal will say, "They're oppressed, they're a victim of their environment, they're not given a fair chance, so they should be helped by the society that destroyed them." Who's right and who's wrong? I believe that's a meaningless question. I think the real question is: who sees what part and who misses what part of the whole? I didn't respond to the recent post about poverty because I was so chilled from the coldness of the answers. From the books about it I've read, and hearing interviews with people who actually work for the poor, it's a horrible life. You can't deny that a child who grows up in such a neighborhood is going to grow up pretty fucked up. It would take an extraordinary individual with exceptional inner stregth to jump out of that. Unfortunately most people aren't extraordinary. I believe the harm comes ultimately because we arrive at a low compromise. We'll give poor people $500 a month and food stamps but we won't put any money into rebuilding their neighborhoods or getting businesses to invest there, nor will we give enough money to children's social workers to rescue children from such a life before they grow up all screwed up. So they remain in this world where they have just enough money to survive on in some shithole neighborhood (and maybe get a satellite dish) and they don't care enough about themselves to care about their children, so it's a vicious continuing cycle generation after generation. The cycle of poverty continues because conservatives won't admit that the environment of poverty makes these people so dysfunctional, and liberals won't admit that the victims of poverty need to change internally and find their own strength. The change needs to come from within and without. We need to work for what we see but not undermine what the other side is working for, because they're working for the good just like we are. I admit I'm just playing a game here, trying to fit all human beings with all their various perceptions of reality into one healthy forward-moving organism. What I'm really doing is art, not science. But it makes sense to me; Right, Center and Left are as connected and necessary as Body, Mind and Soul. And another thing; John Kerry is humanity's only hope for destroying America like we want to, and Hillary Clinton is our Earth Goddess Mother.

Was Nixon A Jerk?

THIS IS THE FIRST POST OF BONNIE ROSE WHO I HOPE WILL BE A REGULAR POSTER HERE ON THE PUBLIC ENQUIRY PROJECT. AS YOU CAN TELL, BONNIE IS EXTREMELY BRIGHT, KNOWLEDGEABLE AND TALENTED AND MORE THAN CAPABLE OF COUNTER BALANCING MY OWN RIGHT WING RANTINGS.

I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO INVITE OTHER THOUGHTFUL AND RESPECTFUL RIGHTIES AND LEFTIES TO BE GUEST AUTHORS. SIMPLY COMMENT A FEW TIMES ON OUR POSTS HERE AND YOU CAN THEN REQUEST AUTHORSHIP PRIVILEGES.

TO MY KERRY SUPPORTING FRIENDS, BONNIE IS PRETTY FAR LEFT AND THINKS KERRY IS "IN THE POCKET" OF THE CORPORATIONS, WOULD RATHER VOTE FOR A REAL SOCIALIST AND MIGHT NOT VOTE FOR HIM. SINCE THE PURPOSE OF THIS SITE IS TO PROVIDE A FORUM FOR LEFTIES AND RIGHTIES TO CONVINCE UNDECIDEDS, I INVITE YOU TO TRY AND CONVINCE BONNIE TO VOTE FOR YOUR CANDIDATE.

Was Nixon A Jerk? Another search for the truth by I'm sure you all know about the Nixon tapes that were released over the past few years. I don't like Nixon personally because he treated everybody who was against the war as the enemy, not as his constituency, which they were. And he started the War On Drugs, I do believe. But from what I understand, he was a great statesman; opened relations with the Soviet Union and China, passed wonderful environmental and social policy legislation that was even left of Clinton. BUT... He talked like some idiot you'd run into in a bar. If these transcripts are to be believed - these are available from the National Archives to anyone so I'm making a leap of faith that all these various transcriptions all over the internet are accurate - he was a jerk. 1971 Nixon:"I want to be sure he is a ruthless son of a bitch, that he will do what he's told, that every income tax return I want to see I see, that he will go after our enemies and not go after our friends." Nixon describing his ideal candidate for IRS commissioner in 1971 Nixon: "John, we have the power but are we using it to investigate contributors to Hubert Humphrey, contributor to Muskie, the Jews, you know, that are stealing every--what the hell are we doing?" Ehrlichman: "I don’t know." Nixon: "Are we going after their tax returns? Are we looking in Muskie’s return?". Ehrlichman: "No, we haven’t." Nixon: "Hubert, Hubert’s been in a lot of funny deals." Ehrlichman: "Yes, he has." Nixon: "Teddy, who knows about the Kennedys? Shouldn’t they be investigated?" Ehrlichman: "IRS-wise I don’t know the answer. Teddy we are covering.". Nixon: We're going to [put] more of these little Negro bastards on the welfare rolls at $2,400 a family—let people like [New York Sen.] Pat Moynihan ... believe in all that crap. But I don’t believe in it. Work, work—throw 'em off the rolls. That's the key ... I have the greatest affection for [blacks], but I know they're not going to make it for 500 years. They aren't. You know it, too. The Mexicans are a different cup of tea. They have a heritage. At the present time they steal, they're dishonest, but they do have some concept of family life. They don't live like a bunch of dogs, which the Negroes do live like. Nixon: You know what happened to the Greeks? Homosexuality destroyed them. Sure, Aristotle was a homo, we all know that, so was Socrates. [...] Do you know what happened to the Romans? The last six Roman emperors were fags. [...] You know what happened to the popes? It's all right that popes were laying the nuns. That's been going on for years—centuries. 1972 Nixon: See, the attack in the North that we have in mind … power plants, whatever's left — POL [petroleum], the docks … And, I still think we ought to take the dikes out now. Will that drown people? Kissinger: About two hundred thousand people. Nixon: No, no, no … I'd rather use the nuclear bomb. Have you got that, Henry? Kissinger: That, I think, would just be too much. Nixon: The nuclear bomb, does that bother you? … I just want you to think big, Henry, for Christsakes. Nixon: The only place where you and I disagree … is with regard to the bombing. You're so goddamned concerned about civilians and I don't give a damn. I don't care. Kissinger: I'm concerned about the civilians because I don't want the world to be mobilized against you as a butcher. We can do it without killing civilians. Colson: People are beginning to sense that we're doing pretty damn well, that American casualties are down, which they are … 19 Americans killed last week. They're used to hearing about 25 killed on automobiles in a weekend … Nixon: … We want to decimate that goddamned place … North Vietnam is going to get reordered … It's about time. It's what should have been done years ago. Sources include: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/july-dec97/nixon_11-26.html http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5079259/site/newsweek/ Forgive me, but these are not the words of a great man. I wonder if he was only regarded as a great statesman because of Kissinger. Again, keeping in mind this could be complete fabrication, if these transcripts are accurate, he flat out admits using the IRS to cause trouble for individual Democrats. Worse than that, he has no respect for human life or Jews or minorities. And how he equates homosexuality with the decline of civilization just plain retarded. (Moral decline doesn't cause economic and social decline; they co-devolve, in my opinion) Now there is the possibility that these were just things he spouted off but didn't really mean. I'm sure any of us, if there was a tape recorder on us 24 hours a day, would spout out some doozies of our own. In my most angry lefists moments, I'll make sweeping generalizations like all republicans are Nazis or something stupid like that. It doesn't mean I really believe it once I regain my sanity. Maybe that explains his racist and jerkish remarks. Still, using the IRS to get at his enemies is pretty bad. I really think that falls into the category of "crooked." I also think his remarks about civilians proves that U.S. foreign policy has nothing to do with humanitarianism. (Is it still that way? Does Bush have any regard for Iraqi life? I don't know.) Maybe it was his very low-brow-ness that made him so popular with so many Americans. (How's that for a leftie elitist snob thing to say?) My conclusion - Yes, Nixon was a jerk. Posted by Bewildered Bonnie

 
 

Prof Brad Delong makes me proud of him.

THE MORE I THINK ABOUT BRAD'S PLAN, THE MORE I LIKE IT. LISTEN MY REPUBLICAN FRIENDS, THE PROBLEM OF AMERICAN HEALTHCARE IS A PROBLEM OF PAYING FOR EXPENSIVE NEW AND HIGH TECH THERAPIES. BRAD DOESN'T POINT OUT THAT AMERICAN HEALTH CARE IS MORE EXPENSIVE BECAUSE AMERICANS HAVE MORE AND BETTER OPTIONS BECAUSE WE HAVE THE MONEY TO BOTH FINANCE RESEARCH AND GIVE OUR CITIZENS BETTER CARE.

I HOPE BUSH HIRES BRAD TO IMPLEMENT THIS PLAN AFTER W CRUSHES KERRY IN NOVEMBER.

Some Thoughts on Health Care
This came out quite well, I think:

FT.com / Comment & analysis / Comment - A cure for America's ailing healthcare system: By Brad Delong | Published: August 24 2004 21:49 | Last updated: August 24 2004 21:49

Whenever I contemplate America's healthcare financing crisis, I find myself sunk in the Slough of Despond and the Pit of Despair. America spends easily twice as much per capita on healthcare as the typical post-industrialised country. Yet US life expectancy lags behind. America's doctors, nurses, pharmacists and molecular biologists do amazing things. But what things they do are constrained and controlled by the bizarre, disruptive and wasteful healthcare-financing system.

I have felt this despond and despair since 1993, when I worked (part-time) on the Clinton healthcare reform effort. How to provide patients and doctors with powerful incentives to reduce the proportion of US medical spending - roughly a third - that is unnecessary and inappropriate? We wanted to find some way to bring the incentives of the market system to bear on healthcare decisions. But that proved hard to do without producing a cure worse than the original cost-overrun disease.

Only one in 250 patients claiming on private insurance files for more than $50,000 a year. But these patients account for 20 per cent of insurance payouts. US health maintenance organisations (HMOs) and insurers have incentives to keep their customers healthy and to make sure they get preventive care. But their biggest incentive is to figure out who is likely to get really sick - and then to make sure they are insured by somebody else, or not at all. Increasing bottom-line pressure on HMOs and insurers increases their desire not to cover sick people.

Another problem is that consumers who purchase health insurance are charged both for those who do not have insurance and for their own care. If you do not purchase health insurance and you do get really sick, somebody else will pick up most of the tab. If you are relatively young and healthy with few assets, buying health insurance can seem like a sucker's game. Increasing the bottom-line pressure on the system encourages consumers to drop their coverage and so magnifies the problems of the financing system. Increasing market pressure gets you the gain of reduced unnecessary and inappropriate care but also big losses: powerful incentives for HMOs and insurance companies not to cover the really sick and for individuals not to buy insurance. Trying to keep the gains while avoiding the losses is what leads to despair and despond. Today, these problems are bigger and sharper than ever, and getting bigger and sharper every year. The Clinton reform was blocked because, as Republican insider William Kristol wrote at the time, a successful Democratic party-led reform of America's healthcare-financing system would be a mortal threat to the Republican party. The Bush administration today seems to have only four goals: keeping pharmaceutical companies from having to sell drugs to anybody with any bargaining power; keeping Americans from buying drugs in Canada; making it difficult for women to obtain emergency contraception; and telling actuaries to keep their cost estimates secret.

In this context, it is heartening to see that John Kerry's healthcare advisers have been thinking hard about steps forward. They are, alas, only baby steps: even proposals that look big from a federal budget perspective are small, given that America will spend $8,000bn on healthcare over the next five years. But they are steps forward.

The most important element is that Mr Kerry's people have dusted off a clever idea from Stuart Altman of Brandeis University: the government reinsures private insurers and HMOs by constructing a “premium rebate” pool to pay annual healthcare bills over $50,000. This greatly diminishes the cost to insurers and HMOs of covering the really sick, and diminishes their incentive to make sure they do not provide insurance to anyone who needs it. Insurance rates fall and, as they fall, the incentive for the healthy to go uninsured falls. It is a serious and clever proposal for the government to do something - spread risk - for which it has, potentially at least, a powerful comparative advantage. It is a government programme that would significantly diminish the market failures that gum up the private-sector portion of the healthcare-financing system.

It is a Kerry idea. But why is it not a Bush idea, too? What reason does a Bush administration have for existing, if not to lay the foundations for the market system to work its powerful magic? And what does the Bush campaign need more right now than credible proposals to show that it is serious about improving opportunity for Americans, not just millionaires?

The writer is professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley

Posted by DeLong

John Kerry requests Purple Heart for Moqtada al Sadr

Abu al Dimikrati reporting from Detroit USA for the TEHERAN TIMES

Detroit USA (TT) – Speaking before a crowd of Arab Americans in this city’s enlightened East End district, Favored Infidel of Allah John Kerry demanded that Spawn of Satan George W. Bush press the Navy Department to issue a Purple Heart to Moqtada al Sadr for a heroic scratch he received from infidel American shrapnel in action in the holy city of Najaf.

FIOA Kerry explained to the raucous, cheering crowd of true believers how this was his first initiative in his Sensitive War on Terror. FIOA Kerry brilliantly explained -

“As soon as I take office, my Sensitive Warriors will be forcefully directed to conduct serious studies to find out why all the world’s true believers were so mad at America. Then I will craft a warlike but sensitive, powerful but wise apology to al Islamia before pushing a massive reparations bill through my Democrat controlled House and Senate. This is the one true way to make America safer.”

He went on blaming SOS Bush for this

“…terrible state of affairs we find ourselves in with the entire world mad at us.” He continued that “After apologizing and reparating al Islamia he would wisely but powerfully direct his Sensitive Warriors to start the same process with the French, Germans and Russians. This is my vision for a peaceful world where America is loved, not hated.”

In a later one on one interview he averred to me –

“When I grew up in France I was taught the beauty of the Holy Koran and I knew that someday I would save the enlightened people of al Islamia from the Satans of the West.”

I am happy to report that America will soon be on our side when FIOA John Kerry smashes SOS Bush in November, and to that end we must kill as many Americans and their wives and children as we can so we can scare the terrified American voters into voting for the great FIOA John Kerry.

From America, ALLAHU AHKBAR! God is Great!

Matthew is Right and Brad is wrong

Matthew Yglesias, my favorite Lefty, agrees that "Neocons" have a noble goal while Prof Brad Delong claims Matthew just hasn't been around long enough to understand how things really are.

My money is on Matthew for understanding and honesty and PLEASE BRAD, why must you warp everything to make it fit your narrow-minded world view.

I realize that Matthew meant that having a noble goal is not justifucation for weilding power.... This is precisely my argument against lefties who, I admit, definitely have noble goals.

Is Brad so petty that he can't even admit that us Republicans can't even have noble goals? Brad, you should save your anger for our real enemies, the terrorists, and at least admit that your political oponents can at least have noble goals.

Adrian who can't believe how petty some of these supposed Lefty intellectuals are

What Kerry Advisors are thinking

This is a continuation of my efforts to show my Republican pals what the Democrat intelligentsia is thinking so we can A- incorporate any good ideas they might have and B - defeat them in debate and ultimately, the election.

They admit that kerry is "hilariously mediocre" while they continue to misunderstand and lie about W's policy successes which, I remind you, are;

1 - The "tax cut for the rich" is exactly the right kind of tax cut to goose the economy in the short term and increase the slope of the economic growth curve and job creation in the long term.

2 - President Bush has created two nascent democracies in the middle east where there were terrorist supporting dictatorial regimes. No democrat would ever have the nerve and balls to make such an undertaking although they now say it is a good idea but they would have done better by being more "sensitive."

3 - Bush, Ascroft, Rumsfeld and Ridge should be honored for protecting America so well that there have been no more successful attacks on America since 9/11. Does any thinking individual believe Gore et al could have managed that superhuman feat?

Respected abroad? I'd rather be FEARED abroad in this world.

Adrian