The economy -- from 'soft patch' to 'rough patch'

In recent months, happy talk, and nothing but happy talk, has been the order of the day when economists talk about the future of the economy.

Oil at $50 a barrel? The Fed raising interest rates? Terrorism fears abounding, with no end in sight? Why, that must mean the economy is set to accelerate, most economists -- including those at the Fed -- said, with GDP growth jumping to 4 percent in the third quarter and probably higher in the fourth quarter, and with job growth to return to 1990s-style monthly gains of 200,000 or more.

It's almost as if Wall Street economists -- and the Fed -- have been taking a page from the Bush administration's Iraq playbook: keep saying everything's fine, despite all evidence to the contrary.

But at some point, evidence begins to pile up, and it becomes impossible for all but the most pig-headed economists -- here's looking at you, Brian Wesbury, Joe LaVorgna and David Malpass -- to ignore.

Such was the case with the numbers for September job growth.

They were, as usual, weaker than expected. They were actually somewhat stronger than I'd expected -- I was guessing closer to 50,000, while Rich Yamarone was calling for an outright decline -- but economists across the board recognized their weakness.

In fact, the gloomy talk from economists Friday morning seemed out of sync with the severity of the jobs report -- it wasn't that bad. But, of course, when you've been having sunshine blown up your ass for months on end, the slightest bad news feels like a horrible, horrible disappointment, indeed.

That's the reason I chose a long time ago to be a pessimist about pretty much everything -- that way, I'm more often pleasantly surprised, rather than crushingly disappointed. As a Braves fan, this approach has served me well.

In any event, business leaders don't have time for hopeful talk -- they have to worry about the bottom line, and they're not liking what they're seeing, according to a recent survey by the Business Council, a group of U.S. CEOs. Seventy percent of them see GDP growth of about 2 percent in 2005 -- well below the trend rate -- even as they expect oil prices to retreat to $40 a barrel.

"Doesn't Mr. Greenspan talk to these guys?" asked David Rosenberg, who has been one of the lone voices in the wilderness expressing caution. He goes on to say:

"The result sure dovetails with what the Fed staffers told us in the latest Beige Book. Bloomberg News quotes an economist saying 'I don't see how we get to 2 per cent.' These guys actually produce GDP; all we do is forecast it."

Indeed -- and not very well, at that.

Just a brief word about the Atlanta Braves

YAAAAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

That is all.

OK, just one more thing: I do believe there is some metaphysical reason why all the sports teams I really care about do this sort of thing to me. Look up the football, baseball and basketball records of the University of South Carolina Gamecocks to see what I'm talking about.

The Braves did win a World Series in 1995, but that was a strike-shortened year, about which nobody gave a crap -- including me -- and it did not nearly make up for their previous and subsequent heartbreaking post-season collapses.

As I said, I believe there's a reason for this. I just haven't figured it out yet.

Update: One more word about the Braves:

YAAAAAAAAAAAY!!!!!!

That is all, for now.

Couldn't happen to a nicer pseudo-journalist

Judith Miller is going to the hoosegow.

Weak-eyed devil

TBogg, in quoting from Heart of Darkness, which was quoted in a review of The Plot Against America, drew a very astute connection (click on the link below to see the connection):

"I've seen the devil of violence and the devil of greed and the devil of hot desire. ... But as I stood on that hillside, I foresaw that in the blinding sunshine of that land, I would become acquainted with a flabby, pretending weak-eyed devil of a rapacious and pitiless folly."

Nice.

Just a note on Wall Street economists

YAAAAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

Here's what I mean. The formerly intelligent people at Lehman Brothers, who several months ago drank some kind of idiot juice, squatted down and, after much grunting, squeezed out this turd today:

The Manpower survey was unchanged at +20, the same level it has been at since the second quarter. This suggests that there will be little acceleration in the rate of job growth. However, because this survey only explains a small portion of the variation in payrolls, payrolls could still increase or decrease within a broad range relative to the last quarter. Nevertheless, this report provides further support to our view on payrolls –- we look for payrolls to average 170,000 during the fourth quarter.

Now put on your thinking caps, Drew Matus and Joe Abate, Lehman Brothers economists, because it's time for Fun With Logic!

In the second, third and fourth-quarter surveys, the Manpower Survey's seasonally adjusted "employment index" has held steady at exactly 20 (though the non-seasonally-adjusted numbers actually worsened in the fourth quarter).

As Drew and Joe point out, you can't make a one-to-one comparison between the Manpower Survey's index and the number of new non-farm payroll jobs counted every month by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

But, even accounting for that margin of error, you can't deny that the Manpower Survey's clear message is that corporate hiring plans have been the same, more or less, since April.

But those are just the plans, what companies promised or expected to do with hiring when asked, months in advance, by clipboard-toting Manpower employees. Here's what they actually did with hiring, as measured by the BLS' monthly growth in payrolls:

April: 324,000
May: 208,000
June: 96,000
July: 73,000
August: 144,000

Does that look very steady to you? Of course not.

Granted, the average of those 5 numbers is a tidy 169,000 -- almost exactly what Drew and Joe forecast.

But you can't just ignore the obvious deceleration in the numbers between April and July. You can't just ignore the fact that, while the 2Q average rate of job growth was 209,000, the 3Q average rate of growth slowed way down, to 108,000 -- in clear contravention of the Manpower survey's message of stability.

And we can't yet assume that August's number was the start of a new trend upward, which would be necessary to arrive at the job growth promised by Drew and Joe.

In other words, the Manpower survey does not at all "provide further support" for Drew and Joe's view on payrolls, which (I might add) has been consistently and woefully wrong every month but last month, when job growth somehow miraculously managed to meet the cowardly consensus on Wall Street, to which Drew and Joe have clung like tiny monkeys in the highest branch of a swaying baobab tree in a thunderstorm. Don't expect it to happen again, Drew and Joe!

Get in the boat, James Wolcott

I resisted Mr. Wolcott's blog for a long time. I figured I didn't have time for no frou frou, fancy-pants Van-i-tee Fair celeb-ri-tee blogger, no sir.

But I broke down and read it today and regretted that I'd delayed so long. He's brilliant. I defy you to read the last sentence of this rant without spitting coffee on your computer monitor:

Watching Cheney in inaction, a snapshot phrase popped into my head: "broken-down sidekick."

That's what our vice president is, a broken-down sidekick ready for a lawn sale.

Plopped there on the stage surrounded by loyalty-oathed Republicans--wife Lynne, the honorary den mother of The 'L' Word at his side--Cheney reminded me of Ed McMahon. Not the McMahon of the brassy, highflying Tonight Show years (though George Bush's mannerisms are clearly modeled on Johnny Carson's), but the Ed of the Jerry Lewis telethons and Larry King appearances. A slow-molasses Ed, consumed with bitterness against foes real and imagined, getting through each day on nothing but spite and chocolate eclairs stuffed in his mouth by his evil spouse.

Tracy Morgan voice\\Hilarious!//Tracy Morgan voice

Stuff I missed while I was away

Hello, imaginary readers. I'm back from the partly-sunny shores of South Carolina. Myrtle Beach, that is. Redneck Riviera.

Here are some of the things I apparently missed while I was on the beach.

Transportation meltdown

Some say New York City has the finest public transportation system in the United States, perhaps even in the whole world. Some also say Pat Buchanan has a lovely singing voice. Believe none of them.

From the New York Times:

Heavy rainfall caused by the remains of Hurricane Frances lashed the New York area today, flooding roads and Manhattan's intricate underground subway network at the peak of the morning rush hour. Hundreds of thousands of commuters were forced to overcome delays or negotiate alternative routes to work.

...

In Manhattan, announcements were blared into the cave-like warren of train lines that criss-cross under the city's streets, telling frustrated commuters standing four-deep at empty tracks that several lines were stalled completely or delayed. Those that did pull into stations were so jam-packed with commuters that embarking was impossible.

...

Dina Florez, a 22-year-old event planner for a marketing firm, did manage to catch the N train at 8:30 a.m., even though it was running on the R line heading to Manhattan.

But it stopped between 25th and 36th Streets. "We were stuck in the tunnel for an hour and 10 minutes," Ms. Florez said. "It was horrible. No one could tell us what was going on. People were crying. Some lady passed out."

Sounds fantastic. Similar bullshit happened in 1999, when Hurricane Floyd hit the area.

But I guess I can accept disruptions associated with major hurricanes every five years or so. No big whoop.

What I can't accept is the fact that any rainfall causes the entire system to seize up. It's to the point now that, if I have to use an umbrella on the way to the train, you can bet I'm going to spend the next hour of my life armpit-deep in sweaty strangers.

The inestimable* Jason Mulgrew put it very well:

I never thought I'd look at another human being and think, "So help me god, if you don't let me on this train, I will murder you with my bare hands and fucking eat you right here in front of all these people." I really think this should be a part of training for US Special Forces. Just before going into battle, they should load about 60 on them onto a subway car, make it go four stops (a half mile) in 45 minutes, all the while have people pushing, shoving, and grunting as they move in and out of the car. Then, let them out of the car, give them guns, and just let them go out. We would have the greatest empire the world has ever seen if we did this.

Something about a typewriter

Apparently, the Interblogweb has been ablaze with furious speculation about whether or not a piece of paper that apparently proves that Fuckhead in Chief didn't show up for his super-cushy National Guard duty in the 1960s is actually a fake, and you can prove it's a fake because the t's on it are crossed in a way that they never would have been in the 1960s or because there's a font in the memo that you can only get with Windows XP or because the letters in Dan Rather's name, if translated into Arabic and then rearranged, spell "Candy-Ass Liberal." I don't know. But I have learned a few things from briefly reviewing the "news" articles related to this "story:"

1. People who believe things they read in the Free Republic are douchebags.
2. "Reporters" in the "media" believe things they read in the Free Republic, and thus are douchebags.
3. George W. Bush is a fly-covered donkey anus.
4. John F. Kerry is also a fly-covered donkey anus.
5. This nation is going to hell, immediately to hell, without passing go or collecting $200.
6. I no longer care.

We are all going to die if John Kerry is elected

I'm very sorry I missed the important news, from our Vice President, the extremely evil and nifty Lord Cthulhu, that a John Kerry presidency (God forbid!) would result in horrific terror attacks, probably in which schoolchildren are implanted with uranium and turned into dirty bombs that reduce all theme parks, Build-a-Bear workshops, old folks' homes, nurseries, pre-schools and stores that sell big-eyed puppies into smoking, radioactive wastelands.

Thank you, Lord Cthulhu, for informing me of this! Fortunately, John Kerry will never be elected, because:

1. See lesson #4 in the previous section of this post; and
2. This nation loves it some sweet, sweet fear! Without Lord Cthulhu slithering and grumbling about, without a religious crackpot in the highest office in the land, without weekly terror alerts, without foreign policies that allow and encourage such friendly, stable nations as North Korea and Iran to build nuclear weapons, we won't know what to do with ourselves. We may screw around and do something dumb like elect a President who enjoys pizza and blow jobs, like the last President.

* -- I don't know what "inestimable" means, exactly. I think it means he can't be estimated.

Bush speech, redux; Oh, and World O'Crap is my hero

I'll be gone for the next week or so, down in Myrtle Beach, where I'll try to soothe the psychic wounds done to me by relentless thinking about tax laws and Republicans and the like.

Before I go, though, I have to say that I'm feeling a little embarrassed by my previous post, in which I suggested that I might occasionally "like" our boy king.

I think my reaction to his speech was at least in part affected by the fact that my outrage receptors have just been totally worn out after a week of snarling hate from the right. I'm worn down, then the dumb bastard cries a little bit, and suddenly I'm sympathetic.

With a couple of days to think about it, I feel a little sick about being manipulated by his show of emotion. He can cry all he wants, but he sent those men and women to their deaths.

On top of that, he's spent the past week-- OK, the past three years -- standing on the rubble of the World Trade Center, using the deaths of thousands of my fellow New Yorkers to advance his career and his crazy-ass agenda.

So, actually, Dubya, I'm reminded that I don't like you very much at all. Never have.

Anyway, to start my vacation on a much lighter note, I offer up this take on Dubya's speech, from World O'Crap. Here's just a sampler:

During the past four years as your President, I have accomplished many great things. Most notably, 9/11.

We love our First Lady. It's the law.

My brothers and sister are my closest friends. I talk to them once every couple of months. However, I talk to Karen Hughes everyday. See, I pay her to be my friend, and to pretend that I have super powers, and to shut the hell up when I don't want to listen to her. That's why America is the greatest country on earth.

But I believe that the most solemn duty of the American president is to protect the American people. If America shows uncertainty and weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch. Again, I mean.

In a new term, we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of poor children who are eligible but not signed up for the government's health insurance programs. Hey, we could have done it this term, but it's only medical care for kids, so who cares?

Three days after September 11th, I stood where Americans died, in the ruins of the Twin Towers. Where was I on Sept 11th, 12th, and 13th, you ask. None of your damned business!

Since that day, I wake up every morning thinking about how to better protect our country. And then I read the comic strips. Garfield is my favorite. I also like to glance at the sports section.

On and on it goes. Go read it. It will make you laugh, it will make you cry, it will make you forget about tax laws and Republicans.

Police State, part deux

I blurted out a half-baked semi-rant yesterday about how the police have been handling protesters at the RNC.

The Washington Post has now made my blood even boil-ier than before:

Several dozen of those detained said that they had not taken part in protests. Police apparently swept up the CEO of a puppet theater as he and a friend walked out of the subway to celebrate his birthday; handcuffed two middle-aged women who had been shopping at the Gap, and arrested a young woman as she returned from her job at a New York publishing house.

The story has many more examples of our bravest or finest or drinkingest, or whatever the hell they are, in action.

Boy, am I glad I didn't do something stupid like just swinging by MSG to see what was going on.

Bush's speech

OK, let me get this out of the way right now: Sometimes, I can't help but like George W. Bush.

Yes, he's mean-spirited and shameless and filled with a sense of arrogant entitlement. Yes, he has an adolescent pride in his own ignorance and impatience and provincialism.

But when he teared up last night talking about the families who've lost loved ones in the war, it felt genuine. He's probably a worse actor than Der Gropenator; I doubt he can cry on cue.

His obvious sense of being overwhelmed by the sacrifice these people have made is a feeling I share, just as he obviously shared my sense of frustrated rage in the days after Sept. 11.

But that just means he's a human being with a pulse, and lots of people are -- but lots of people are not qualified to be president of the United States, and this guy sure as hell doesn't deserve to be given another term in that job.

If you need proof, you need look no further than his speech last night.

Despite posting the worst job-creation record of any president since Herbert Hoover, he proposed nothing bold -- as had been promised -- or even particularly constructive. There was more warmed-over mush here than in a high-school cafeteria: For example, please explain to me how an "opportunity zone" is any different from the Clinton-era "empowerment zones?"

Please explain how your plan to privatize social security is any different from your last plan to do that, the one you proposed in 2000, which died on the vine. Please explain how bold of an idea it is to "lead a bipartisan effort to reform and simplify the federal tax code?" What does that mean? Will you form a committee or something? What will be the practical effect?

As Andrew Sullivan and others have noted, he trotted out an awful lot of spending programs, in addition to revenue-draining permanent tax cuts. I understand that Bush thinks his daughters are a pain in the ass, but does he really have to use out-of-control budget deficits to punish the rest of us, and our children, and our children's children, for the sins of Jenna and Barbara?

To be fair, Kerry has proposed a lot of spending and tax cuts, too, but at the very least he's not promising regressive tax shelters, and he'd raise the top tax rate, and he's expressed a willingness to curb his own plans and instill a little spending discipline, if necessary, to keep the deficit under control. Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Clinton did the same thing. This Bush has shown no such discipline. He's never met a pork spending bill he didn't like.

His heart wasn't really in all this economic stuff anyway. After all, fretting about the economy is for girlie men.

To try to coax the soccer moms back out from under the couch, where Zell Miller had chased them, he had no choice but to trot out such ancient chestnuts as "flex time" and "the soft bigotry of low expectations," but he was really chomping at the bit to get to the bloody, red meat of his speech: what passes for "foreign policy" in the Bush administration.

And there, this bold, forward-looking, transformational president offered ... more warmed-over mush.

Special delivery ... of freedom!

In fact, it's warmed-over, discredited, neo-con mush: we'll be delivering freedom and Democracy to the world, it turns out, whether the world wants freedom or not, because -- of course -- God wants us to:

I believe all these things because freedom is not America's gift to the world, it is the Almighty God's gift to every man and woman in this world.

And America is sort of like God's UPS man, delivering big packages of freedom to the world's doorstep.

The only problem with that is, the last place we delivered freedom to is still trying to kill us. With 140,000 of our troops bogged down there, how are we going to deliver freedom to other countries? Stern words? Brain waves?

And let's assume that, somehow, Jeffersonian Democracy does suddenly spring to life in Iraq. Is that going to infect the rest of the Middle East with Democracy Fever? I don't know. Let's take a look at the countries that neighbor another Middle Eastern democracy, Turkey:



Hmm... let's see: Syria, Iran and ... Iraq! Yep, looks like this spreading-democracy thing has a long track record of success.

Where's Poppy?

By the way, the future Mrs. Capt. Willard noticed last night the short shrift Poppy got in the speech. If you happened to be snuffling back tears of patriotic joy at the moment he was mentioned, you might have missed it:

I'm blessed with a sister and brothers who are my closest friends. And I will always be the proud and grateful son of George and Barbara Bush.

My father served eight years at the side of another great American, Ronald Reagan. His spirit of optimism and good will and decency are in this hall and are in our hearts, and will always define our party.

Yep, that's what Poppy contributed to the world: he spawned Dubya and "served" "at the side" of Reagan like a faithful sidekick.

Of course, on second thought, it makes sense for Bush to ignore the fact that his father was also a president, however briefly. After all, we're talking about a guy who flip-flopped, raised taxes and left Saddam Hussein in power. At RNC 2004, that's Kerry-like, treasonous behavior. They probably had to put a Hannibal Lecter mask on Zell Miller any time he got around Poppy, given that track record.

Warning: Iraq re-hashing

Speaking of crazy people, I do have to give Bush credit for wading into the quagmire of Iraq, a fairly taboo subject for much of the rest of the convention:

In Saddam Hussein, we saw a threat. Members of both political parties, including my opponent and his running mate, saw the threat, and voted to authorize the use of force. We went to the United Nations Security Council, which passed a unanimous resolution demanding the dictator disarm, or face serious consequences. Leaders in the Middle East urged him to comply. After more than a decade of diplomacy, we gave Saddam Hussein another chance, a final chance, to meet his responsibilities to the civilized world. He again refused, and I faced the kind of decision that comes only to the Oval Office, a decision no president would ask for, but must be prepared to make. Do I forget the lessons of Sept. 11 and take the word of a madman, or do I take action to defend our country? Faced with that choice, I will defend America every time.

I have to say, this is about as reasonable an explanation as anybody could possibly give for going into Iraq. I didn't think it was necessary at the time, and a lot of other people didn't think it was necessary, either, but I wasn't entirely sure about my opinion.

But there's also little doubt that members of this administration wanted to go into Iraq for months -- in some cases, years -- before Sept. 11, and that the tragedy gave them their excuse. And the administration's credibility about claims that Saddam had WMD was eroded by their relentless effort to misleadingly tie Saddam to al Qaeda and 9/11, in the absence of any evidence.

I doubt very seriously that the decision to go into Iraq was nearly as agonizing as it's described here, not only because of their obvious desire to do so, but also because they obviously believed the war would be a cake walk.

But they were wrong about that, as they were wrong about Saddam's weapons program and about Saddam's involvement with al Qaeda.

What's more, they were willfully, aggressively wrong about how to run "post-war" Iraq, and we and the Iraqis are paying for it with lives, limbs and treasure. Perhaps worse than this, the chaos in Iraq, including our disgraceful treatment of prisoners, has ruined our reputation and inspired a new generation of terrorists.

For how much of this is George W. Bush responsible? It's tough to say, but a guy who claimed he would be a "CEO president" needs to be treated like a CEO: he needs to be fired.

Update: Saletan reacts with a little more relish:

Recession. Unemployment. Corporate fraud. A war based on false premises that has cost us $200 billion and nearly a thousand American lives. They're all hills we've "been given to climb." It's as though Bush wasn't president. As though he didn't get the tax cuts he wanted. As though he didn't bring about postwar Iraq and authorize the planning for it. All this was "given," and now Bush can show up, three and a half years into his term, and start solving the problems some other president left behind.

Saletan's been knocking them out of the park lately.

Barking mad.

Zell Miller is barking mad. He's barkier than those dogs on his porch.

This futile Googlebombing effort (since nobody's reading!) was inspired by Wonkette.

Dang. No aliens.

There's been some talk that the SETI@home project has found a signal that could be a transmission from aliens.

The SETI@home project debunks it.

Good thing. We wouldn't want some alien race to discover that we stood a good chance of making a French-looking, UN-loving, mild-wound-in-Vietnam-getting Massachussetts flip-flopper the most powerful man on the planet, now would we?

Police state

An Indian journalist gets detained at MSG for no apparent reason.

Tourists and onlookers are swept up in a spur-of-the-moment dragnet at the library, again for no apparent reason.

Protesters are being held for 40-48 hours, well past the legal limit, again for no apparent reason.

Welcome to George W. Bush's America, where this guy --



... is considered inspirational.

(AP photo)

Talk about low expectations...

While we're having fun with transcripts, I thought this little exchange between Jeff Greenfield and Andrew Card on CNN's pre-speech round-table last night was interesting, too:

GREENFIELD: Andy, while we wait perhaps for your boss to show up, job figures are supposed to come out, I think, at the end of this week. Advance word is they are not going to be good. Candidly, is the economy not the soft underbelly of your reelection effort?

CARD: Well, I actually feel that the president put a solid foundation, and the economy and is building on that foundation. It was a foundation of tax cuts, and it was a foundation that had to correct for the corporate governance scandal that we had. And all of that made for an opportunity for to us grow. I actually think the jobs numbers will still show growth, so we won't dip into the negative range. They will show growth.

"Advance word?" I didn't think anybody got an advance peek at the jobs report, except for maybe the president and Alan Greenspan. Could Greenfield be referring to the fairly mediocre level of payroll jobs anticipated by the consensus forecast on Wall Street, about 150,000 or so?

Doesn't sound like it -- the way Greenfield and Card are talking sounds as if it will be worse than that.

In fact, Card's statement would seem to imply that the payroll figure will be extremely bad. Could he be trying to lower expectations, so that when a mediocre number comes, it looks better?

Joe Scarborough talks sense

Last night, the "journalists" on Chris Matthews' panel giggled with glee at the brutality of the speeches by Miller and Cheney:

JON MEACHAM, MANAGING EDITOR FOR “NEWSWEEK”: If I taught at the Kennedy School, I would take these two speeches as urtext of partisan rhetoric.

I think it was a brilliant tactical night, one of the most brilliant in the age of television.

It somehow took Joe Scarborough to inject some sense into the proceedings:

SCARBOROUGH: I find it remarkable.

We are three days into this convention, and we have been talking all year about how this election is going to be about George W. Bush. The Republicans, with their ad campaigns, the third-party attacks, this convention, three nights into this convention, this convention remains about John Kerry.

I can‘t remember a major presidential election where you have an incumbent that makes the central focus of their convention about the other guy, about the challenger. It is a radical departure from politics as usual. And what does it say about what they think George Bush has done over the past four years, and, more importantly, what the American people think of George Bush?

It says they're worried. And let's hope they've got good reason to be worried.

Zig Zag Zell

As if his foaming at the mouth on national television and challenging Chris Matthews to a duel didn't convince you, here's another reason to doubt that Zell Miller has any credibility whatsoever:

My job tonight is an easy one: to present to you one of this nation's authentic heroes, one of this party's best-known and greatest leaders – and a good friend.

He was once a lieutenant governor – but he didn't stay in that office 16 years, like someone else I know. It just took two years before the people of Massachusetts moved him into the United States Senate in 1984.

In his 16 years in the Senate, John Kerry has fought against government waste and worked hard to bring some accountability to Washington.

Early in his Senate career in 1986, John signed on to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Bill, and he fought for balanced budgets before it was considered politically correct for Democrats to do so.

John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public education, boost the economy and protect the environment.

Amazingly enough, this is still posted on Zell Miller's web site.

Link via Atrios and others.

But we have all these tokens!

Larry King burnished his SCLM street cred last night with a mostly blue-state panel, including BET Nightly News anchor Jacque Reid, MTV news guy Gideon Yago, UNIVISION anchor Jorge Ramos and political guru David Gergen.

Unbalanced? Maybe, but it was a refreshing change from the GOP-fest on Charlie Rose, MSNBC and, of course, Fox News.

I mean, it's not too quaint to suggest that somebody has to give an opposing viewpoint somewhere on cable, is it?

Anyway, an interesting exchange took place during the call-in session, when a woman complained to Reid about how minorities all flock to the Democrats:

CALLER: I'm a registered Democrat but and Jacque your -- your audience is predominantly black and I don't understand what they -- what your audience does not understand. President Bush, who is Condoleezza Rice? Who is Colin Powell and the head of education for the United States is black. How can they say that President Bush is not inclusive of the black race? How can they say he -- he does not try and help the black race?

KING: Before she...

CALLER: And did he not nominate -- this is for Jorge and Jacque, did he not nominate minority judges and who filibustered against them? Who stopped their nomination, the Democrats and I never hear anyone saying anything about it.

KING: All right. We'll start with Jacque and then Jorge -- Jacque.

REID: Well, to answer the question I think that a number of African Americans, the majority, look at the issues. They don't look at things like who is serving in the president's cabinet according to the polls that we've done and other polls that are out there will support this.

A number of African Americans, you know, the Census Bureau just put out poverty numbers, under insured, jobless rate for African Americans is twice that of the rest of the country. When you look at so many social ills that are out there, that resonates with African Americans.

They don't see the Republican Party doing enough and not just with those issues but issues that touch the hearts of African Americans like disenfranchisement when it comes to voting, like affirmative action, like the criminal justice system and the...

KING: So, they don't see -- they see Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell and the secretary of education as just what?

REID: Well, they think it's wonderful, I think. We looked at the most popular African American figures and Colin Powell was number two. They -- but...

KING: Who was number one?

REID: Jesse Jackson. Jesse Jackson was number one.

KING: Jorge, what about there were many, were there not, Latino judges nominated, held up?

RAMOS: Well, what we can say for sure is the following. Mel Martinez (ph) was the housing secretary with President Bush. Rosario Marin was the treasurer. Hector Barreto works with the Small Business Administration. So, definitely President Bush has been working with Latinos.

But more than blaming President Bush because he has really made an effort to reach the Hispanic voters, I think the problem that many Hispanic voters have is with the Republican Party. This is a party that many Latinos link with Proposition 187 in California, of course, against undocumented immigrants.

This is a party that many Hispanics relate with Pete Wilson, who also has taken many positions against undocumented immigrants. This is a party that has among their members Tom Tancredo, the Congressman of Colorado that constantly criticizes both undocumented and legal immigration.

So, it is very difficult to talk about an inclusive party when still the perception that this is a party that does not accept immigrants and among the many Hispanics is widely seem among many Latinos.

Very nicely done by both Reid and Ramos. The GOP can run its handful of minorities in front of the camera as much as it likes; it's not fooling anybody.

Fire bad!

No, they don't care about the undecideds any more, do they?

That was the conclusion of several pundits last night. The general idea is that the ranks of the undecided are so thin and so likely to break for Kerry that their only hope is to try to get their base as energized as the Democrats are. Zell Miller did a lot to move that ball forward, Cheney a little less so.

It will be interesting to see what Bush does tonight. So far, the economy hasn't been mentioned at all, with the exception of calling economic critics "girlie men," an attempt to inoculate the president against bad econ numbers, but one that would seem to appeal only to people who operate on the emotional level of a 12-year old -- which is to say, many Bush supporters.

Bush will have to mention the economy some -- his campaign has promised as much, anyway. I'm sure he'd rather not mention it at all, but he has to offer new programs to prove he has the "vision thing."

I'm still not sure what to expect on that front. It may be the case that he'll want to keep the ideas fairly small, in order to keep the econ talk to a minimum, because it's anything but his strong point, to say the least.

But a new, bold tax-reform proposal would throw red meat to the base, for sure.

Updated to add: There's a Wall Street Journal article today by Harwood and Hitt saying Bush is still trying to appeal to undecideds, a group they believe is actually leaning to the GOP:

Bush aides suggest that an interest in details is one important characteristic in a candidate for the narrowing group of undecided voters, now estimated by some in the Bush campaign to be as few 6% of those likely to go the polls.

Bush aides say their polls and focus groups suggest the group tends to be consist of moderate to conservative, generally white voters who are likely to be churchgoers. In other words, they have the profile of potential Bush voters.

Odd. That's the exact opposite of what was said last night on CNN -- I believe it was a panel for News Night with Aaron Brown, which actually included John Harwood. The transcript is not available yet, so I can't be sure about that, but if that's so, it's odd that Harwood didn't mention the conclusion of his article. Could it be he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about?

Anyway, the article goes on to say that Bush's polling -- wait, I thought he didn't do that! -- shows that these undecideds also like to hear about specific policy proposals, which is why Bush will lay some out tonight.

It's also why Kerry probably really fucked up by not talking about specifics during the convention.

(That's an AP photo, by the way.)

The new face of the GOP

Oh, well. So much for the undecideds.

(AP photo)

Tony Soprano to GOP: Drop dead

From Salon (subscription required, or just watch an ad):

Then James Gandolfini came before the crowd and spoke briefly and pithily. "I can't tell you how mad I am these people are in my city," the actor who plays Tony Soprano bellowed, pointing backward at Madison Square Garden. "I can't tell you how mad I am it took Bush four days to get here after 9/11." And the crowd of New Yorkers -- sheet metal workers, transportation workers, teachers -- erupted.

Vulva puppets!

'Nuff said.

Things are great!

From Market News International (sub required, and I don't have one yet -- a friend sent the story):

"U.S. pawnbrokers are reporting a rise in the number of people seeking loans to make critical payments for doctors and utility bills -- and more shoppers hunting down bargains, signs of a struggling economy this summer.

"Most pawnbrokers regard their business as counter-cyclical in that they tend to see more activity when things slow -- as long as they don't slow too much, when all get hurt.

"But among pawnbrokers who see their business moving in a more direct line with the economy's ups and downs, there is also marked evidence of an economy adrift again.

"Either way, pawnbrokers paint a picture of Americans swimming in bills and finding it tougher to pare down debt."

Uh-oh.

This couldn't have anything to do with rising poverty, weak income growth and weak job growth, would it?

Oh, wait, sorry -- I was almost feeling girlie for a second there.

Ben Ginsberg, right-wing bloggers: girlie men all

Benjamin Ginsberg, partisan hack at law, whines and cries about his unfair treatment in the press, and the right-wing blogosphere is there to help him to the fainting couch.

At a loss for words

What can I say about Der Gropenator's speech?

I mean, is snark even possible in this situation?

We're talking about an action-movie star, already wealthy beyond the wildest dreams of most Americans and married into one of the wealthiest families in the nation, wagging his Austrian finger at us and informing us that any complaints about the current state of the economy can only possibly be coming from faggotty "girlie men."

There's really no way to approach this, except to shake your head in awe at the spectacle of it.

He even talked about "terminating" terrorism!

Have I finally had a nervous breakdown? Did I wake up in a Simpsons episode?

Others have managed to keep their heads and have done a better job than me: non-girlie-men such as Max Sawicky and Michael Berube. Oh, and of course Fafblog.

Couldn't happen to a nicer team.

I do think it was unfair of the Browns to go for two when they were already up 20-0.

The Wit and Wisdom of Charlie Daniels, Part III

"It cannot be denied and it cannot be ignored, there is at this very point in time a vicious and systematic attack on Christianity and all it pertains to.

"I’m quite sure that the A.C.L.U. would deny the fact that that is their intent and that they are involved in this effort up to their toupees but the Bible says to judge someone by their fruits and look at the fruits of the A.C.L.U. which are so well documented that I won’t even go into them." -- Charlie Daniels, from "Soapbox" column entitled "Christian Soldiers," Oct. 27, 2003

"The American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska today announced that it would defend a Presbyterian church from a forced eviction by the city.

"'There's no reason for the city to force the Church of the Awesome God from its home, and the city is violating both the First Amendment and federal law in doing so," said Tim Butz, Executive Director of the ACLU of Nebraska." -- ACLU press release, Aug. 11, 2004

Shrill Bill

William Saletan has got his panties all in a wad about how the Republicans are painting George W. Bush as a big he-man terrorist-killer, even though the President has had less acquaintance with physical danger in his life than the Bubble Boy:

"I don't mean to be unfair to Bush. Vietnam was a lousy war. He wanted a way out, and he found it. But isn't it odd to see Republicans belittle the physical risks Kerry took in battle while exalting Bush's armchair wars and post-9/11 photo ops?"

It's worth a read -- if you're an America-hater, I mean.

Today's economic numbers

I haven't kept up with this as much as I should have, but we've seen three sets of numbers in the past two days that raise serious doubts about the validity of Alan Greenspan's "soft patch" theory/wish.

On Monday, we learned that, while consumer spending rebounded in July, consumer income growth was extremely weak, up just 0.1 percent, far short of Wall Street expectations and the weakest growth in two years.

The good news in that report was that inflation was tame and June's spending swoon was revised to something a little less disastrous.

The bad news is obvious: consumer spending makes up two-thirds of the economy, and if people aren't making money, they aren't going to spend money, unless they take on more debt, and they've already taken on quite a bit of that.

This morning, we got the Chicago PMI, the read of business activity in the Chicago region. I'm not exactly sure why this gauge is so much more closely watched than the indexes from other regions, but it is, and it showed a sharp slowdown in August.

The Chicago gauge's employment component actually rose a bit -- good news -- but inventories rose, too -- bad news, if shops are getting stuck with a bunch of stuff nobody wants to buy. Production prices rose, too.

Also today, we got the Conference Board's reading on consumer confidence in August. It slumped badly. It's still at a relatively high level, but job prospects have apparently not improved over July or June, when non-farm payrolls posted paltry gains.

I talked to Conference Board economist Delos Smith, who said his boss had gotten about "50 calls" from the White House about the numbers.

And little wonder: the Conference Board's number is the most highly respected in the universe of consumer confidence numbers.

It's also heavily dependent on how consumers feel about job growth and raises the possibility that, when Elaine Chao and Co. roll out their labor market numbers on Friday, they'll show that August was a crappy month to try to find a non-farm job, just as June and July were.

As the always entertaining Bob Brusca said today, ranting in response to those who claim that the comatose weekly jobless claims numbers are a sign of a new job boom:

The trend in job growth is clear: from 353K down to 324K down to 208K down to 78K down to 32K. Any questions?

Is there any REASON for people to think job growth will reverse this pattern? That is, is there a reason other than that such a shift is what is needed to confirm extant economic forecasts? Are there countervailing strong economic reports that say claims data are correct and job trends are wrong?

Friday's report comes the day after the Boy King accepts his party's nomination for a second term. If it's bad, it could crap all over his post-convention "bounce."

Stay tuned.

George W. Bush, master campaigner

My God, Democrats must be quaking in their boots at the awesome majesty of George W. Bush's political skills.

Cower in fear, laughable mortals, as you witness King George unleash the full power of his strategelogical might!

TREMBLE at his unassailable position on the Iraq war:

David Sanger: So if you had to recalculate — what might you have done differently in this case?

THE PRESIDENT: David, what I am now doing is leading us forward. There will be ample time for people to dissect decision making, what went right or what went wrong.

And that "ample time" is right now, apparently!

THE PRESIDENT: What's important is, is that our strategy was flexible enough to adjust to conditions on the ground as we eventually found them. Remember, we thought there would be flows of refugees, we thought there would be starvation, we thought the oil fields would be destroyed. And none of that happened. And so, therefore, our commanders were given the flexibility to adjust, and that's what you're seeing.

Spin that, Democrats. What we're seeing now is not mass death, destruction, chaos and the gradual diminution of American power. No, what we're seeing is our commanders adjusting to the repercussions of their amazing success!

Second Term, here we come!

But silly David Sanger doesn't quite get the picture:

Sanger: So this — the mistake is specifically what?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, it's a — it's a miscalculation of the — what the conditions would be like after a swift victory, because we never dreamt it would be that swift. And so the fundamental question is, what are you doing about it? And what we're doing about it is dealing with it. We've got a flexible plan. In other words, a plan —

Sanger: Was it flexible fast enough? I mean ...

THE PRESIDENT: Well, David, that's what historians and that's what people like yourself could judge. The point is, it was flexible.

There you go, David: it was flexible. 'Nuff said!

WEEP with joyful reassurance at his calm leadership on North Korea:

"Showing none of the alarm about the North's growing arsenal that he once voiced regularly about Iraq, he opened his palms and shrugged when an interviewer noted that new intelligence reports indicate that the North may now have the fuel to produce six or eight nuclear weapons."

SWOON in awe at his stirring optimism about the war on terror:

"As he prepared to accept his party's nomination for a second term in office this week, President Bush said the war against terrorism must be fought but that it's not likely to ever end.

"'I don't think you can win it,' the president said, when asked if the war on terrorism can be won. 'But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world.'"

Yes, George W. Bush: Creating conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world.

I'm printing up the bumper stickers now!

Life during wartime

My Republican National Convention experience will be extremely limited, if I have anything to do with it.

But I am working in the city this week and will be marginally exposed to the insanity, and I will write my marginal thoughts about it here. You're welcome, all two of you.

Friday night, my father and stepmom were in town, and we went to Union Square to gawk at the protesters. Union Square was also ground zero for activism in the months after Sept. 11, and I must say that the atmosphere was more charged in those days than it was Friday night. Maybe people were just getting geared up. Maybe it's just me -- Dad and Stepmom, uber-hippies of a sort, were mightily impressed with the "energy."

We happened to witness the opening moments of the bicycle protest and were amazed at the sheer number of protesters -- 5,000, according to news accounts. I was also surprised to find out later that 250 of them were arrested, apparently for blocking traffic.

They were certainly an an enormous, traffic-blocking mass when they first got moving, heading south on the east side of Union Square Park. But they seemed to have been spread thin when we saw them about a half-hour later, heading north up Sixth Ave.

In any event, it looks like the cops are really playing hardball, arresting even a guy who simply writes easily-washable chalk messages on the sidewalk. (Links via Gothamist, which is covering this all really well.)

I'm not sure what benefit, if any, the city is getting out of such an approach. While it might intimidate protesters and keep them on their best behavior, it might also frustrate them and raise the potential for greater disturbance later in the week.

Gothamist wonders if the hardball approach will be a PR debacle, but I doubt it -- most people in the country don't give a rat's ass about protesters anyway and will think they're getting what they deserve.

In any event, we stayed away from the weekend's big protests, including the very big one on Sunday. We both rode to work on the subway Monday morning and found conditions not much different than on any other work day, although there were cops looking into the cars at most Manhattan stops.

Air Force One

Why aren't the Democrats beating Bush up with this?

BUSH TOOK OUT AD LYING ABOUT HIS MILITARY SERVICE: "A pullout ad from The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal of May 4, 1978, shows a huge picture of Bush with a 'Bush for Congress' logo on the front. On the back, a synopsis of his career says he served ''in the U.S. Air Force and the Texas Air National Guard where he piloted the F-102 aircraft.''" [Source: AP, 7/14/99]

BUSH INSISTED THAT HIS LIE WAS TRUE: When confronted with questions about why he lied about serving in the Air Force, Bush claimed "The facts are I served 600 days in the Air Force.'' That is not true. Bush served stateside in the Texas Air National Guard, not the Air Force. [Source: AP, 7/13/99]

AIRFORCE CONFIRMS THAT BUSH LIED: Bush served stateside in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War. The Air Force says that "Air National Guard members are considered 'guardsmen on active duty' while receiving pilot training. They are not, however, counted as members of the overall active-duty Air Force." [Source: AP, 7/14/99]

Lifted directly from Oliver Willis, because it's too good not to.

The Republicans distorted Al Gore's words and then hammered him with them, in an effort to paint him as an unhinged liar. Can you imagine how much hay the Republicans would be making if Kerry had done something similar?

Bush flip-flops

In what may be a fairly significant development -- but so far largely unremarked upon in the left-wing blogosphere -- is Bush's admission today that "he made a 'miscalculation of what the conditions would be' in postwar Iraq."

First, compare this to his comments in his Meet the Press interview:

Russert: It's now nearly a year, and we are in a very difficult situation. Did we miscalculate how we would be treated and received in Iraq?
President Bush: Well, I think we are welcomed in Iraq. I'm not exactly sure, because the tone of your question is, we're not. We are welcomed in Iraq.

Obviously, he didn't answer the yes-or-no question, "did we miscalculate?" So that insulates him, in just the tiniest way imaginable, from accusations of suddenly flip-flopping.

And then there's that press conference in April:

Q: Mr. President, I'd like to follow up on a couple of these questions that have been asked. One of the biggest criticisms of you is that whether it's WMD in Iraq, postwar planning in Iraq, or even the question of whether this administration did enough to ward off 9/11, you never admit a mistake. Is that a fair criticism? And do you believe there were any errors in judgment that you made related to any of those topics I brought up?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think, as I mentioned, it's -- the country wasn't on war footing, and yet we're at war. And that's just a reality, Dave. I mean, that's -- that was the situation that existed prior to 9/11, because the truth of the matter is, most in the country never felt that we'd be vulnerable to an attack such as the one that Osama bin Laden unleashed on us. We knew he had designs on us, we knew he hated us. But there was a -- nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale.
The people know where I stand. I mean, in terms of Iraq, I was very clear about what I believed. And, of course, I want to know why we haven't found a weapon yet. But I still know Saddam Hussein was a threat, and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. I don't think anybody can -- maybe people can argue that. I know the Iraqi people don't believe that, that they're better off with Saddam Hussein -- would be better off with Saddam Hussein in power. I also know that there's an historic opportunity here to change the world. And it's very important for the loved ones of our troops to understand that the mission is an important, vital mission for the security of America and for the ability to change the world for the better.

My goodness, what a long answer! Again, did you notice any "yes" or "no" in that answer? No, because he completely dodged the yes-or-no question.

From the same press conference:

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa. You've looked back before 9/11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it?
THE PRESIDENT: I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it. (Laughter.) John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could have done it better this way, or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn't yet.

(Fast-forward through long, drawn-out non-answer and many hems and haws.)

I hope I -- I don't want to sound like I've made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't -- you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.

My two cents: This helps him, in as much as it reassures some undecided voters that he at least has the capacity to admit mistakes and change. I'm sure it was polled to the gills.

On the other hand, this hurts him, in as much as it provides fodder for hacks like me to beat him over the head with this press conference, his Tim Russert interview and similar moments when he has refused to acknowledge error.

Also, doesn't this place even more pressure on Donald Rumsfeld? The guy has been fingered in the Abu Ghraib scandal and now has been saddled with "miscalculations" in post-war Iraq. Why does he still have his job? The longer he's in office, the more Dems can beat Bush up about it.
Of course, I don't see anybody doing much beating about this issue. Maybe it will take some time.

And maybe the New York Times needs to tear its eyeballs away from the bright, shiny object of the Not-So-Swift Boat Liars for Bush (NSSBLFB) and notice that this "admission" by Bush is the real headline here.

Unfortunately, they bury it four grafs down. It's Bill Keller's crappy world. We just live in it.

Update: Oliver Willis is on it, but he doesn't spend a bunch of time on it. He's underwhelmed, apparently.

Update 2: TalkLeft is also on it, though he says little about it.

War's cost grows by the minute

970 U.S. deaths, 6,200 U.S. wounded, between 4,900 and 6,300 Iraqis dead.

Dollar costs running up by about $122,000 per minute.

A grieving father sets himself and a Marine van on fire when he finds out his son is killed in Iraq.

Almost an appropriate response. Why aren't we all on fire about this?

The Wit and Wisdom of Charlie Daniels, Part II

"If we’d take the media and the politics out of Iraq and let the military do their job I believe that the war would be over in six months. It’s time to take the gloves off." -- from Charlie Daniels "Soapbox" column entitled "Disgusting," June 18, 2004.

"U.S. officers say the continuing attacks suggest that it will take time, possibly years, to crush the insurgency." -- USA Today, "Insurgents show no sign of letting up," Aug. 22, 2004

The Love Train

Apparently, the F train is "the hot new scene," "definitely a fun train to ride," and has cars "where the sparks fly."

For singles, the hot new scene has no guest list, drink minimum or membership fee -- and the price of admission is just $2.

It's the F train.

...

In the past week, dozens of F train riders have posted their "missed connections" on Craig's List, hoping to make contact with those cute commuters they've silently eyeballed.

...

"Speaking to someone on the train - it's never gonna happen," says Igor, 21, who posted his own missed F train connection this week.

Igor is correct. Speaking to someone on the train is never going to happen.

By the way, the F train I ride every day is not exactly the most romantic place in the world, unless scattered garbage, sweltering heat and humidity, constant physical contact with unattractive, unwashed strangers and the ever-present stench of human waste are what you consider "romantic."

The Wit and Wisdom of Charlie Daniels, Part I

Since Charlie Daniels is going to be entertaining Republicans at an exclusive party at the Republican National Convention here in the honky-tonkin', Bible-totin', pistol-shootin' capital of the world, New York, I thought it would be fun to take a look at some of the common-sense things Mr. Daniels has to say.

"Pat [Robertson] stays on top of current events and issues and his well thought out comments are refreshing for a Christian living in such a secular world." -- Charlie Daniels "Soapbox" column, entitled "Pat Robertson," July 30, 2004.

Jerry Falwell: What we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be minuscule if, in fact, God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.

Pat Robertson: Jerry, that's my feeling.

...

Falwell: The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'

Robertson: I totally concur...

-- Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson discuss current events on Thursday, Sept. 13, 2001.

(Apologies to Atrios for lifting the headline)

Putting Nixon to shame

Noel Koch, a Vietnam vet who served in both the Nixon and Reagan White Houses and saw Bob Dole turned into a Republican hatchet man, expresses his disgust with Dole's attacks on Kerry in a biting op-ed in the Washington Post:

"Time in-country, how often a man was wounded, how much blood he shed when he was wounded -- it is hurtful that those who served in Vietnam are being split in so vile a fashion, and that the wounds of that war are reopened at the instigation of people who avoided serving at all. It is hurtful that a man of Bob Dole's stature should lend himself to the effort to dishonor a fellow American veteran in the service of politics at its cheapest."

"Politics at its cheapest" -- the Bush tactics are making even veterans of the Nixon White House blanch.

Link via Josh Marshall.

1.3 million new Lucky Duckies!

1.3 million more Americans fell below the poverty line last year, according to the Census Bureau.

Lucky Duckies!

Jerkin' back and forth

Everything you always wanted to know about masturbation and the Bible, but were too afraid to ask.

Where would we be without the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? It would be a much less hilarious world, that's for sure.

Link via Unfogged.

Swift-moving developments

I'm just about sick of this whole Not-So-Swift Boat Liars business, but it's almost an impossible thing not to watch, like that slow-motion train wreck bearing down on Richard Kimble.

So I won't beat this to death, but here are the events as they unfolded today:

First, we learned that John O'Neill, the Nixon hatchet man who's been smearing John Kerry for the past 33 years, told Tricky Dick that he himself had actually been in Cambodia, further weakening his claim that Kerry did not go there.

Next, we learned that the Bush campaign's outside attorney, Ben Ginsberg -- part of the team of shitheads that fought for Bush in the 2000 recount battle -- had resigned, due to his connection to the Swift Boaters (henceforth, NSSBLFB, as in Not-So-Swift Boat Liars for Bush).

Then we learned that even more Navy records back up what the Associated Press mistakenly calls "John Kerry's version of events." Note to the AP: It's actually the Navy's version of events! Anyone could make the mistake, I'm sure.

Then Max Cleland and Jim Rassmann went to Crawford to deliver a letter to Dubya asking him to condemn the NSSBLFB, a well-played PR move, in my humble opinion.

Instead of taking the letter, Bush cowered behind the sofa, sending out Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, himself a Vietnam Vet, to accept the letter.

But Cleland refused to give the letter to Patterson and rolled away from him, prompting Patterson to comment on the wheelchair-bound Cleland's "mobility." [Link via Josh Marshall]

Then Patterson and several other Republican Vietnam vets wrote their own letter to Kerry, trotting out the NSSBLFB claim that Kerry had accused vets of atrocities.

We've already linked to the transcript that shows this claim is misleading at best, but what's notable about this re-hashing of the claim is that it was posted on the Bush web site -- in other words, rather than running from the NSSBLFB claims, the Bush campaign is actually embracing them to some extent.

Finally, as Josh Marshall and others have pointed out, Patterson got some $150,000 in contributions from good old Bob Perry, who also funded the NSSBLFB.

It makes your fucking head hurt, doesn't it?

Household vs. Payroll survey: the last refuge of economic scoundrels

This tedious debate is raised every month by administration officials and their apologists, but they keep switching sides -- flip-flopping, if you will -- depending on which set of numbers suits their purposes.

For months, the BLS' establishment survey, which produces the monthly payroll numbers, was showing a dismal labor market, mired in its worst slump since the Great Depression.

But the BLS' household survey, which produces the monthly unemployment numbers, was showing great galloping job gains. Administration officials and their apologists encouraged everyone to pay more attention to this survey, saying it was capturing job growth in new businesses, which were overlooked (so they said) by the payroll survey.

This was widely accepted by many Wall Street economists (many of whom had agendas of their own, to be sure), and even by some in the financial news media.

But then, lo and behold, in the spring of this year, the payroll survey started showing walloping gains, while the household survey showed something of a labor-market slump.

Suddenly, administration officials and their apologists were pointing to the payroll survey as proof of the health of the job market. The once-favored household survey was kicked to the curb, where it joined Iraq's WMD, Bush's plan to go to Mars and other discarded GOP talking points.

But faster than you can say "wishful thinking," the tables turned again, and suddenly the payroll numbers were weak, while the household numbers were strong.

Once again, that old chestnut about the household survey being better than the establishment survey was trotted out, with GOPers pretending it was a pretty new pony. The problem was, that pony had died long, long ago, and the stench of it was getting pretty bad.

The media, to their credit, didn't really buy it, choosing to focus on the weak payroll numbers. More importantly, though, a couple of recent studies have pointed out just how stinky that old horse really is.

First, there was a Fed-related study, the precise origin of which has escaped by addled brain. I'm still trying to find it, and I'll update this post when I do.

Then, today, in the Stock Traders Almanac's latest monthly newsletter (available to subscribers only), Barry Ritholtz, chief market strategist for Maxim Group, helps to further debunk this myth.

He cites the testimony of Alan Greenspan, who said the payroll survey was more accurate. Just because Alan Greenspan says something doesn't make it so, of course.

But he also cites the BLS itself, which recently pointed out [warning: PDF file] that the two surveys are as different as apples and oranges and thus can be consistent, even as they tell of different job-creation totals.

First, the payroll survey is much, much larger, getting results from some 400,000 employers. The household survey only talks to about 60,000 households.

Second, the household survey throws all sorts of jobs into the mix, including farm workers, self-employed and household workers and people on temporary layoffs. The payroll survey doesn't include any of these people.

What's more, both surveys are subject to a host of data goblins, including benchmark revisions to the payroll survey, population controls in the household survey, job-switching by workers, sampling errors, and a lagged accounting for job births in the payroll survey (though there are guesses made about that).

The BLS adjusted the household data by removing those extra folks, and the results are striking -- you get a line that looks almost exactly like the line created by the payroll data.

It's a graphic I'll be saving and trotting out if I ever get in this argument with anybody.

"The argument that the Household Survey more accurately reflects Job creation has been, in our opinion, thoroughly discredited," Ritholtz wrote. "The Household Survey 'excuse' has become the last refuge of economic scoundrels. Employ it at your own risk."

Speaking of maps ...

As an expression of my relentless urge to serve the public, I offered you yesterday a few maps of free bathrooms in New York. You're welcome.

Today, because I am very slow and don't keep up with the news, I'm linking to some "news" about some more maps, coming by way of Gothamist, including a proposed new subway map and a cool three-way map for the tourist types.

The new subway map, which looks like this and this, will probably never be adopted; the MTA doesn't like it.

But the three-way map is already available, and you can buy it here. I'm not saying you should; the Gothamist says it's cool, but I have no idea. I'm just saying you can, if you want.

Frankly, I don't think the current subway map is really all that bad, all things considered. I know some out-of-towners have problems with it, but it never really bothered me much when I first started using it five years ago, and I'm no genius.

I do kind of like the idea of having a new map, just to mix things up. But I'd prefer they spend the money they would have spent on a new subway map on, oh, say, running another F train or two.

Howie Kurtz speaks truth; experts baffled

WASHINGTON (PBR Street Gang) -- Psychologists, media analysts and other such charlatans were scrambling Wednesday morning to find an explanation for a sudden, surprising torrent of actual good sense from Howard Kurtz, media critic for the Washington Post.

Kurtz, working as a correspondent for the CNN program News Night with Aaron Brown, delivered a report on the media's approach to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth controversy that deserves reprinting in its entirety:

HOWARD KURTZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Question, how many people would ordinarily have seen this Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad based on a half million dollar buy in just three states? Answer, not many but that was before the media, and especially cable television, began serving as a megaphone for charges about John Kerry's military record without having the slightest idea whether those charges were true. And when the cable circuit began debating whether Kerry deserved his silver star and his bronze star and his three purple hearts in Vietnam, viewers were also left wondering what was true.

JAMES CARVILLE, CNN HOST: Did you meet him in Vietnam?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

CARVILLE: You mean you never met him in Vietnam?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

CARVILLE: Come on. You're writing a book on a -- oh, come on, man.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He was -- he was only there three months, James.

ROBERT NOVAK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You shout and you yell because you cannot answer the allegations in this book.

KURTZ: Suddenly, it seemed the only issue in the presidential campaign was the war, Vietnam not Iraq.

SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST, "HANNITY AND COLMES": I've read the book. It's frankly devastating to Senator Kerry what his fellow Vietnam guys are saying, what they experienced with him. They contradict just about every story he has told about his experience here.

JOHN O'NEILL, CO-AUTHOR, "UNFIT FOR COMMAND": It's a pattern of total lying and exaggeration, much of it very demeaning to the other people that served with him.

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST, "HARDBALL WITH CHRIS MATTHEWS": Who was the person that told you this that he didn't deserve the purple heart?

LARRY THURLOW: The people -- keep in mind...

MATTHEWS: Can you give me a name, sir?

THURLOW: The name I would give you after the fact is (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

KURTZ: Soon the broadcast networks were putting on swift boat veterans like John O'Neill as well.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And so what specific evidence do you have that John Kerry didn't deserve that purple heart?

O'NEILL: All right, first of all Dr. Letson was the treating physician.

KURTZ: Amid the sound and fury, "The Boston Globe, "Chicago Tribune," "Washington Post" and "New York Times" began poking holes in the Swift Boat Veterans' allegations. Three of the veterans, George Elliott, Adrian Lonsdale and Roy Hoffman had previously praised Kerry for bravery. Thurlow says there was no enemy fire when Kerry turned his boat around to pull crewmate Jim Rassmann out of a river.

JIM RASSMANN: I was receiving fire in the water every time I came up for air.

KURTZ: But Thurlow's own bronze star citation says there was enemy fire. The problem these are lengthy pieces dealing with complicated charges, hard to translate into good television, though some correspondents have certainly tried, besides the media have already moved on to the political question of whether President Bush would denounce the ad, not whether the ad was accurate.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Message wars, that anti-Kerry television commercial, the president praises Kerry's Vietnam service but refuses to condemn the ad.

KURTZ: For journalists of a certain generation, Vietnam remains the irresistible issue to the point that not much else is being covered in the campaign right now. That Kerry volunteered for Vietnam and George Bush did not has been drowned out by the shouting about whether Kerry was sufficiently wounded to justify those medals. For television this back and forth, he's a hero, no, he's a liar, is so much easier than cutting through the fog of a 35-year-old war.

Poker with Dick

I usually hate these things, but this one is actually half funny:

Poker With Dick Cheney
Transcript of The Editors' regular Saturday-night poker game with Dick Cheney, 6/19/04. Start tape at 12:32 AM

The Editors: We'll take three cards.

Dick Cheney: Give me one.

Sounds of cards being placed down, dealt, retrieved, and rearranged in hand. Non-commital noises, puffing of cigars.

TE: Fifty bucks

DC: I'm in. Show 'em.

TE: Two pair, sevens and fives.

DC: Not good enough.

TE: What do you have?

DC: Better than that, that's for sure. Pay up.

TE: Can you show us your cards?

DC: Sure. One of them's a six.

TE: You need to show all your cards. That's the way the game is played.

Colin Powell: Ladies and gentlemen. We have accumulated overwhelming evidence that Mr. Cheney's poker hand is far, far better than two pair. Note this satellite photo, taken three minutes ago when The Editors went to get more chips. In it we clearly see the back sides of five playing cards, arranged in a poker hand. Defector reports have assured us that Mr. Cheney's hand was already well advanced at this stage. Later, Mr. Cheney drew only one card. Why only one card? Would a man without a strong hand choose only one card? We are absolutely convinced that Mr. Cheney has at least a full house.

Tim Russert: Wow. Colin Powell really hit a homerun for the Administration right there. A very powerful performance. My dad played a lot of poker in World War 2, and he taught me many things about life. Read my book.

TE: He's extremely good at Power Point. But we would like to see the cards, or else we can't really be sure he has anything to beat two pair. We don't think he would lie to us, but ... well, it is a very rich pot.

Jonah Goldberg: Liberal critics of Mr. Cheney's poker hand contend that "he doesn't have anything". Oh, really, liberal critics? Cheney has already showed them the six of clubs, and yet these liberals persist in saying he has "nothing". Why do liberals consider the six of clubs to be "nothing"? Is it because the six of clubs is black?

Matt Drudge: ****DRUDGE REPORT EXCLUSIVE****
*****MUST CREDIT THE DRUDGE REPORT*****
The Drudge Report has learned that Dick Cheney has a royal flush, hearts.
Developing ...

TE: Perhaps if you could just show us a subset of your cards which beat 2 pair? Or tell us exactly what your hand is?

DC: We will show you our cards after we have collected the pot. It is important that things be done in this order, otherwise the foundation of our entire poker game will be destroyed.

TE: We aren't sure ...

DC: Very good. And here are my cards. A straight flush.

Judith Miller: Dick Cheney has revealed a straight flush, confirming his pre-collection claims about beating two pair.

TE: Those cards are of different suits. It's not a flush.

Mark Steyn: When will it end? Now liberal critics complain that Dick Cheney's cards are not all the same suit. Naturally, these are the same liberals who are always whining about a lack of diversity in higher education. It seems like segregation is OK with these liberals, as long as it damages Republicans.

MD: ****DRUDGE REPORT EXCLUSIVE****
*****MUST CREDIT THE DRUDGE REPORT*****
A witness has come forward claiming that The Editors engage in racial profiling in blog-linking.
Developing ...

TE: Wait! It's not even a straight! You've got a eight and ten of hearts, a six of clubs, and the seven and five of diamonds. You have a ten high. That's nothing.

Sean Hannity: Well, well, well. In another sign of liberal desperation, liberals now complain that a ten high is "nothing". Does ten equal zero in liberal mathematics? That would explain a lot.

Robert Novak: It's a perfectly valid poker hand. Apparently, liberals have never heard of a "skip straight". It's a kind of straight, just with one card missing. But if you skip around the missing nine, it's a straight.

Alan Colmes: Mother says I mustn't play poker.

TE: There is no such thing as a "skip straight".

Brit Hume: It seems like some people are still playing poker like it's September 10th. Back then, you needed to have all your cards in order to claim a straight. But, as we learned on that day, sometimes you won't have perfect knowledge. Sometimes you have to learn to connect the dots, and see the patterns which are not visible to superficial analysis of the type favored by the CIA and the State Department. Dick Cheney's skip straight is a winning poker hand for the post-9/11 world.

Rush Limbaugh: Do The Editors have two pairs, or a pair of twos? First they say one thing, then another. What are they hiding?

Andrew Sullivan: Dick Cheney never said he had a straight. He was very careful about this. His cards can form many different hands. None of these hands alone can beat a pair of twos; but, taken together, the combination of all possible hands presents a more compelling case for taking the pot than simply screaming "Pair of twos! Pair of twos!" as unprincipled liberal critics of the Vice President so often do.

MD: ****DRUDGE REPORT EXCLUSIVE****
*****MUST CREDIT THE DRUDGE REPORT*****
Did The Editors claim to have "a pair of Jews"? Are they anti-Semites as well as racists?
Developing ...

Zell Miller: As a lifelong liberal Democrat, I believe Dick Cheney, and I hate liberals and Democrats.

William Safire: Why are liberals so obsessed by Dick Cheney's poker hand? The pot has been taken, the deal is done. If liberals are upset that we are no longer playing by the Marquis of Queensbury patty-cake poker rules, they clearly lack the stomach to play poker in the post-September 11th environment. And why do they never complain about Saddam Hussein's poker playing, which was a thousand times worse?

Christopher Hitchens: The Left won't be happy until the pot is divided up equally between Yassar Arafat, Osama bin Laden, and Hitler. Orwell would have seen this.

Ann Coulter: Why do liberals object so strenuously to the idea of conservatives having a "straight"? Perhaps because it doesn't fit in with the radical homosexual/Islamist agenda they hold so dear?

Report of the Bipartisan Commission on Poker Hands: There is no such thing as a "skip straight".

DC: I have access to poker rules that the Commission doesn't, and so I know for a fact that the cards in my hand are all intimately connected.

George W. Bush: Dick Cheney is telling the truth. I'm a nice man who would drink a beer with you.

Vladimir Putin: I dealt Dick Cheney three aces and two kings.

DC: My deal.

The most important NYC map you will ever see

OK, maybe I exaggerated. Then again, maybe not.

You tell me: is a map of all the free bathrooms in Manhattan important to you?

Usage Note: The map says "Click on a neighborhood to find or add restaurants." What you'll find when you click is actually not restaurants at all, but sweet, sweet free bathrooms, along with helpful usage notes.

Update: A fellow blogger points out there's another list, but it:

a. is not as extensive
b. is an about.com site, meaning get ready for annoying pop-ups
c. claims to be a list of "clean" bathrooms, and if you've ever been in some of the Barnes & Noble bathrooms around the city, you know that's stretching it.

Game Over: This list wins. Thanks for playing.

Salam Pax blogs again

I've never been sure whether to believe that this guy actually exists or if he is who he says he is, but in any event he's blogging again, live from Baghdad. Interesting stuff, including several photos of insurgents.

Pleasure Boat Captains for Truth

Now, this is just getting ridiculous. I hereby call on both candidates to condemn these attack ads now:

"Pleasure Boat Captains for Truth has been formed to counter the deliberate misrepresentation of George W. Bush's drinking record. We seek to portray him as he was, and still is: a "lightweight."

"We, the men who were served drinks alongside George W. Bush, have partied with real party animals-- on the shores of Lake Tahoe, up and down the Gulf of Mexico, in the harbors of Kennebunkport. We have seen good men down a dozen kamikazes, and then swim once more onto the beach. We have watched the buzzed and brightest of our generation play beer pong until they were bent double, like beggars under sacks. We have known these party animals, and we have partied with them.

"And George W. Bush is no party animal."

Have they no sense of decency? At long last, have they no sense of decency?

Boy, that hug must have hurt.

John McCain must want to hang on to his GOP secret decoder ring really, really badly, as this exhaustive Kerry campaign press release reminds us:

Rove Suggests Former POW McCain Committed Treason and Fathered Child With Black Prostitute. In 2000, McCain operatives in SC accused Rove of spreading rumors against McCain, such as “suggestions that McCain had committed treason while a prisoner of war, and had fathered a child by a black prostitute,” according to the New Yorker.

Bush Used Fringe Veterans Group to Attack McCain as “Manchurian Candidate.” “In the case of Ted Sampley, the same guy who did Bush's dirty work in going after Sen. John McCain in the 2000 Republican primaries is doing the job against Kerry this year. Sampley dared compare McCain, who spent five years as a Vietnam POW, with ‘the Manchurian Candidate.’”

It goes on and on and on.

Happy campaigning, John!

SBVFT vs. Truth clearing house

eRiposte has quite the clearinghouse of SBVFT facts.

A grown-up Republican weighs in

If there is hope for our republic, it's the possibility that non-hacks such as Andrew Ferguson at the Weekly Standard will say more and more things like this:

in 2004, Republicans find themselves supporting a candidate, George W. Bush, with a slender and ambiguous military record against a man whose combat heroism has never (until now) been disputed. Further--and here we'll let slip a thinly disguised secret--Republicans are supporting a candidate that relatively few of them find personally or politically appealing.

This is not the choice Republicans are supposed to be faced with. The 1990s were far better. In those days the Democrats did the proper thing, nominating a draft-dodger to run against George H.W. Bush, who was the youngest combat pilot in the Pacific theater in World War II, and then later, in 1996, against Bob Dole, who left a portion of his body on the beach at Anzio.

Republicans have no such luck this time, and so they scramble to reassure themselves that they nevertheless are doing the right thing, voting against a war hero. The simplest way to do this is to convince themselves that the war hero isn't really a war hero. If sufficient doubt about Kerry's record can be raised, we can vote for Bush without remorse.

But the calculations are transparently desperate. Reading some of the anti-Kerry attacks over the last several weeks, you might conclude that this is the new conservative position: A veteran who volunteered for combat duty, spent four months under fire in Vietnam, and then exaggerated a bit so he could go home early is the inferior, morally and otherwise, of a man who had his father pull strings so he wouldn't have to go to Vietnam in the first place.

Needless to say, the proposition will be a hard sell in those dim and tiny reaches of the electorate where voters have yet to make up their minds. Indeed, it's far more likely that moderates and fence-sitters will be disgusted by the lengths to which partisans will go to discredit a rival. But this anti-Kerry campaign is not designed to win undecided votes. It's designed to reassure uneasy minds.

Update: DeLong (who coined the phrase "grown-up Republican" is not so impressed:

"So why didn't the grownup Republicans do something about it?" he writes.

Good question.

I thought I was the only one...

When I first drafted my post about Bob Dole, it wasn't nearly as calm and measured as it is now. I posted it and then realized it was so full of rage and venom that I might be embarrassed to read it months from now, so I toned it down.

I'm glad to see, now, that I'm not the only one who's feeling this way about the current stage of the campaign -- the normally quite rational Matt Yglesias had this to say this weekend:

"I'm really so furious about this whole situation that I don't know what to say. I'm taking out my credit card and making some donations and I would strongly advise any readers who don't feel like continuing to see a lying, cowardly, idiot who's willing to go to any lengths whatsoever to maintain his grasp on political power (and that's all there is to it, this isn't deception in pursuit of some higher goal, the man has no ideological principles whatsoever other than his own self-aggrandizement) so that the gang of criminals he's employed at the highest levels of government can avoid prosecution serve in the White House I would suggest that you do the same. The purpose of negative ads is to demobilize your opponent's supporters. Don't let it work. Give the DNC some money. Or your favorite 527. Whatever you can. It's increasingly clear that the bad actors have, quite literally, no shame whatsoever and will stop at nothing to maintain their grip on the government. "

In the comments to that post, I found a link to this, as well, from a blog called "Three Guys:"

"the Swift Boat Veterans are just the very annoying tip of a very, very big iceberg. Phony voting machines, illegal purges, voter intimidation, off-year redistricting, convenient terror alerts, the outing of CIA agents, selective declassification, manipulation of national security for partisan purposes, lying to New Yorkers about the quality of the air they breathe, completely false allegations about anyone and anything, covering up the torture our own soldiers have enacted in all our names...where will it end? Is nothing off limits? Is nothing sacred?"