Dumping Grounds

OK, so the liberal Democrats have Michael Moore, who is a certifiable lunatic with a personal vendetta against the Bush family. (I have to give him credit though, he got people to pay $7 each to watch his 90 minute long section 527 political ad disguised as a movie… The Swift Boat Vets had to buy air time for their hatchet job.)

Not to be outdone, the conservatives have their own freaking nutjob, in the person of one Michelle Malkin. Her most recent book, In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror, is a defense of the Japanese internment in California during World War II, and possible applications of a similar technique that could be used today against Muslims. NOTE: I have not read the book, and maybe it’s not as Stalinist as it sounds, but I have heard it characterized as an argument for the internment of (at least some) American citizens of the Islamic faith, without charges, given the current war on terrorism. If I’m wrong, Michelle can contact me, and I’ll edit this paragraph.

While on Hardball with Chris Matthews on MSNBC (where she was supposed to be discussing her book), she said the following in reference to John Kerry during a discussion about the Swift Boat ads:

“Well yeah. Why don’t people ask him more specific questions about the shrapnel in his leg? There are legitimate questions about whether or not it was a self-inflicted wound.”

Ahem. OK, Let’s get our facts straight. 1) Chris Matthews is an asshole. On this point we agree. The way he handled her outlandish statement was deplorable. Ms. Malkin was busy hanging herself without Matthews gleefully throwing more rope around her neck. 2) She was misquoted by Keith Olbermann on his blog recounting the incident (and congratulating his friend and co-worker at MSNBC) [the offending blog entry has mysteriously disappeared from the MSNBC site] 3) Olbermann claims, among other things that Ms. Malkin is lobbed softballs by FOX, and is not used to real journalists questioning her, uh, unusual views. (To be fair, Ms. Malkin was coddled on Dennis Miller Live [on CNBC, MSNBC's sister channel] less that two weeks ago when presenting views defending her somewhat questionable book)

Now, all that aside, she’s a nut. Her blog entry on the subject cites numerous quotes about Kerry’s wounds (from Unfit for Command) and claims that the accusation of self inflicted wounds occurs on pg. 36 (which strangely, among a large number of other book quotes in the very same paragraph… goes completely unquoted). I don’t see ANY quote, even on her own website that seems to indicate that ANYONE said the wounds were self-inflicted. Even if the wound was caused by the incorrect deployment of a grenade launcher… how is it relevant? Who cares? All it proves is that President Bush is (likely) better with firearms than John Kerry. Not exactly one of my prime concerns when selecting a President.

Her comments were exceptionally poorly placed, and reflected poorly on her, and conservatives in general.

I think that any service of your country in wartime (or otherwise, as a matter of fact) is honorable, and worthy of respect. A Purple Heart as recognition that you were wounded while serving is a nice gesture, but it is not the type of medal that makes you qualified to be President.

(Please folks, I am not trying to disparage ANY veteran… but a Purple Heart does not indicate any particular competence or valor, it proves you can stop a bullet.)

Ms. Malkin is just as bad as Mr. Moore, she’s just not as well known, or as good of a self-promoter. Neither of them documents their sources, because that would really cramp their style of making the most outlandish statements possible. Both candidates have plenty of flaws that can be exploited by the other camp. Personally, if I don’t hear the word “Vietnam” for the next 20 years, it will still be too damn soon.

“John Kerry has been busy in the weeks leading up to the Republican Convention. I mean, he’s adopted as many positions as Courtney Love.” – Mike Murphy, Dennis Miller Live, CNBC

I think every single person who reads this site is from the Dallas area, but I ask the question anyway… are all cities as screwed up as Dallas, or does, say, San Jose, California have their shit together?

I present my evidence: 1) Dallas manages to screw up the opportunity to move the home of the Dallas Cowboys to one of the most financially impoverished areas of the city, thereby revitalizing the area, presenting a financial boon to the African-American community, and allowing the Cowboys to actually (for the first time in over 30 years) play in the city that they sport their name. To be fair, much of the problem was centered on Dallas county government, and it’s inability to work with the Dallas City council in any constructive or creative manner.

2) Last night’s Dallas City Council meeting deteriorated into a screaming match, with Council member Maxine Thornton-Reese wagging her finger at Mayor Laura Miller while accusing her of racism. Ms. Thornton-Reese is black, Ms. Miller is white. At the root of the conflict was a measure before the Council that would have subsidized the Universities of Oklahoma and Texas to keep their annual football game in Dallas for the next five years. The total of the subsidies? $1.25 million. Also included was $450,000 in economic development for Fair Park (which, of course, would have been taken care of already if they had just managed to lure the Cowboys into the area) Does the Texas-OU game benefit the city of Dallas more than $250,000 per year? Undoubtedly. Would this be a good investment? Unquestionably. Besides pumping some money into Fair Park, it would guarantee that the game stays here for another 5 years (sooner [no pun intended] or later, these schools are going to figure out, tradition be damned, that there is more money to be made for the cities of Austin and Norman, and the schools themselves, with a home and home arrangement). On this point, I actually believe there was little disagreement within the Council (inasmuch as they ever agree on ANYTHING. I’m not sure you could get a 15-0 vote on whether the sky was blue). the problems arose when the Council member whose district includes Fair Park, Leo Chaney (who as far as I can tell, was simply doing his job, trying to get more money for his district) asked if it might be possible to also subsidize the Prairie View A&M vs. Grambling (both traditionally black colleges) football game. This game also brings money into the city, and without a subsidy, there was some danger of losing it to Houston. The sum TOTAL asked for? $50,000 over 5 years. I, and most people reading this site, pay more than that individually to the IRS each year. Finding $50K in the budget for a city the size of Dallas should be a non-issue.

To this point, there is still not a problem. However, city lawyers advised that the motion should not be voted on in the same week in which it was proposed. So the vote for the Prairie View-Grambling subsidy was tabled until next week. This was when Ms. Thornton-Reese got up on her high horse, and insisted that the vote on Texas-OU should be tabled until next week as well. To do otherwise would smack of racism, she insisted. The Mayor did not want to delay the Texas-OU vote, as to her, the subsidies for the two games were completely separate issues. Well, at this point, the screaming match was on, and Ms. Thornton-Reese’s aforementioned finger waggling and accusations toward the Mayor began.

How childish. Let’s recap how every single party in this escapade acted poorly.

Council Member Thornton-Reese - her actions speak for themselves. She is a racist, and a reactionary nut who woke up yesterday morning looking for a fight with the Mayor.

Council Member Leo Chaney - should have known the rules about voting the same week a motion was introduced. Asked for a delay to a non-related issue (seemingly) to allow Ms. Thornton-Reese to go on her tirade. This reeks of having been planned beforehand.

Mayor Laura Miller - Good grief, on the other hand, why did she get so uptight about a 7 day delay? She was outvoted 12-2 on that count, and the measure was delayed anyway… but when you are dealing with a hostile city council that sees EVERY issue as a matter of race, then why do you open yourself up to such abuse?

Now, do both subsidies make sense? Yes. Are the relative sizes of the subsidies correct? Probably. Texas-OU is tremendously larger both in national interest and in financial impact that Prairie View-Grambling. Should the two subsidies in any way be linked? No. Should the City Council meeting have fallen to the level of a third grade temper tantrum? No.

It should be noted that I not only do not live in Dallas, I also do not live in Dallas County. I didn’t vote for any of these idiots. But the fact that people did, and the fact that their “representatives” are a bunch of petulant children, is why we’re now rooting for the Arlington Rangers, and come 2009, we’ll be rooting for the Arlington Cowboys. If they’re not careful, we’ll be driving interstate 35 (north and south) to see Texas-OU and Prairie View-Grambling. If that happens, I hope someone remembers to knock the cobwebs off the Cotton Bowl, it looks creepy when you just let them sit there.

Isn’t wireless wonderful? I’m sitting in bed, watching the speech as I write this. Don’t expect anything well-edited or thematic, I’m just doing stream of consciousness as he talks. I’ll post as soon as he’s done.

So far, the theme of the entire Democratic convention has been, without a doubt, “John Kerry will make a great President of these United States, because he served in Vietnam.”

Well, that’s nice and all, and certainly Bush’s military record is a matter of some concern, but my next door neighbor when I was in high school served in Vietnam, and he was most certainly NOT qualified to be President.

John Kerry is nowhere near the dynamic speaker that his running-mate, John Edwards, is.

Shameless pandering to women voters inserted here.

He scored some serious points with his “I will restore trust, I will have a Secretary of Defense who will listen to the military leadership, and I will have an Attorney General who will protect the Constitution.”

I think at this point he mentioned something about Vietnam.

Is anyone else tired of hearing about how John Edwards… all $40 million dollars of his pharmaceutical lawsuit empire… is the son of a mill worker. Big dollar lawsuits against the medical industry is part of the REASON that we have a health care, and health insurance crisis.

At this point he mentioned those Vietnam vets that follow him around.

At this point he evoked 9/11.

“I will immediately reform the intelligence system, so that findings are never influenced by politics.” Yeah, right. Large beaucracies change overnight all the time.

“The United States will not go to war because we want to , we will go to war because we have to.” Oh, and by the way, did I mention that I served? “I know what it’s like to carry an M-16.”

So far in the speech, the “I will improve how we are handling Iraq, and I will restore our alliances wordwide” has been the strongest part without doubt.

At this point, he mentioned again that he served, and defended this country as a young man.

“I will end the backdoor draft of the reservists.” Then why have a reserve?

[paraphrased] “I will strengthen the military, I will add more troops, more special forces, more advanced weaponry.” Isn’t this a Republican view? Or is this the method that he plans to raise employment?

All in all, so far the speech is better than I expected. He’s not a spirited speaker, but he’s doing ok.

“See that flag?” [Inset another two minutes of "Did I mention that I served?" talk here.]

“It’s time for those who talk about family values to start valuing families.” Very nice section of the speech, however, the whole section on “how do I plan to pay for all this?” was suspiciously absent.

“Families taking up a collection to buy body armor for their children serving.” Wasn’t it Kerry who voted against additional funding for the soldiers in Iraq last year?

“Help is on the way” [repeated several times] Wasn’t it “Hope is on the way” last night? This seemed to throw the convention for a bit of a loop. They caught on to Edwards’ “Hope is on the way” almost immediately, and started chanting it with him. “Help is on the way” seemed to kind of sputter out of the gate, and never got the response that Edwards’ phrase did just 24 hours before.

“Close the tax loopholes that reward companies for shipping jobs overseas.” Amen. Preach it, brother.

Prescription drug benefits, support social security, massive investment in technology and job creation, healthcare that is affordable for all Americans… meanwhile, tax cuts for small business and the middle class. This is the same party that spoke of “fuzzy math” and “voodoo economics” in elections past. How is he planning to pay for all this?

Has anyone seen this “plan” he keeps speaking of? Well, I’ll be damned, just as I typed that, he says that the plan is at his website. I’ll see if that is true later.

Karl Rove, are you listening? If you turn this into a mudslinging contest, the democrats are likely going to tear you a new one.

“I don’t wear my religion on my sleeve.” [insert subtle, "Oh, BTW, I was in Vietnam" comment here.]

[He's getting kind of sweaty. laugh I don't think he's used to actually moving when he gives a speech]

“What if?” By far the best part of the speech. The stem cell research issue is one where Bush is extremely vulnerable.

[Insert "I was on a gunboat" section here. I'm really tired of this. He had such momentum, and sucked the enthusiasm out of the room by going back to the "I am a veteran" well once too often.]

[speech ends, not on a hugely high note]

Strong speech, but there was not a unified theme, he seemed to continue to switch themes throughout the speech, and never really stayed with one long enough to gain real momentum. The room did not have nearly the electricity that Edwards’ produced last night.

There was no election catch phrase (Roosevelt’s “New Deal” or Clinton’s “New Covenant”) that seemed to resonate with me, but to be honest, I think that this was a little better than I thought Kerry was capable. Not a home run, but certainly a respectable performance.

So, what did you folks think? I think that for better or for worse, the campaign is under way.