WaxWorks
|
Friday, February 13, 2004
|
There's been a lot written about concerns potential fraud with touchscreen voting machines, as many do not have a paper ballot back-up, and the fact that the head of the top company that makes those machines recently sent a fundraising letter out saying that he would do everything he could to give Bush Ohio's electoral votes. The concern, of course, is that, without a paper backup, someone with access can change the vote totals electronically and no one would ever know.
So now I see that Florida has made this ruling:
The Department of State has notified elections supervisors that touchscreen ballots don't have to be included during manual recounts because there is no question about how voters intended to vote.
Hmm. Jean Sullivan, a Alabama GOP leader and a friend of Bush's from his Alabama Senate campaign days says this:
Sullivan said she knew Bush drank during the '72 campaign, but usually just one or two beers at a time and not on a nightly basis. "He told me years later that was the only year he ever drank," she said.
Does this jibe with the story we've always heard about him giving up drinking when he was 40?
The Bush Campaign has been e-mailing around a negative ad about John Kerry called "Unprincipled." The ad, in an unbelievably hypocritcal way, claims that Kerry is being bought by special interest money.
If I were the Kerry campaign, I'd just remind people of this:
Aug. 2, 2002, 7:38PM
Bush campaign used Enron, Halliburton jets, records show
Reuters News Service
WASHINGTON -- During the 2000 presidential election recount battle, George W. Bush's campaign used jets owned by several large corporations, including Enron Corp. and Halliburton Co., that are now under federal investigation, according to Internal Revenue Service records and officials.
Democrats said the payments were proof that President Bush and Vice President Cheney were compromised by their close business ties.
"The Bush administration literally flew into power on Enron's and Halliburton's private jets," said Bill Buck, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee.
The recount committee for Al Gore, the Democratic candidate in 2000, did not report using any corporate jets in its Internal Revenue Service filings.
I'm more convinced than ever that the Drudge story on Kerry was just a Republican attempt to change the subject. This is apparently the story: no affair. And Joe Conason on Salon has this today:
Drudge's allegations set off a chain of speculation. Certainly some Democrats wondered if the evidence-free item came from Lehane, who declined public comment this afternoon. Lehane has a reputation as an often rough operator, and that may provide a pretext for Drudge to smear him, too. Following Lehane's dismissal from the Kerry campaign some months ago, the tone of his remarks about his former employer occasionally sounded vengeful. If Clark actually uttered the nasty remark as quoted by Drudge, the general might have heard such rumors from his sharp-edged consultant. But then if Clark believed Kerry was about to "implode," he might not have dropped out of the primary race -- or decided to endorse the Massachusetts senator, as he is expected to do on Friday.
A source close to Lehane vehemently denied to me that Lehane had peddled any rumors about Kerry -- and turned attention back toward the White House as Drudge's likely source. "My assessment is that this is not merely a serendipitous event," he said.
The Drudge item blaming Lehane quoted Craig Crawford, a former Democratic operative who now works as a consultant and columnist for MSNBC. Within 10 minutes after Drudge posted the Kerry intern item, Crawford sent a memo to his superiors that said the story was "something Chris Lehane (clark press secy) has shopped around for a long time." According to Crawford, someone at MSNBC promptly leaked his memo to Drudge. But when Lehane called Crawford with a loudly indignant denial, the MSNBC columnist quickly issued a public retraction. He said:
"The comments attributed to me are from a private email to television news associates based on conversations with Democratic campaign operatives. I did not consider any of it confirmed enough to report or publish. I can only verify that Chris Lehane's rivals in other Democratic campaigns made these claims and I have found no independent source to confirm it. Which is why we did not go with the story. But then someone sent my email to others, which is the only reason it got into the public domain." In other words, there is no proof that Lehane circulated the rumor, let alone that the rumor has any basis in reality.
Once again, Drudge has raised questions -- but they may not be the ones he seeks to raise. The first is about journalistic standards. The second is the identity of his anonymous sources.
So I'm convinced this whole thing was a failed effort to take the media scrutiny away from the White House, and no wonder. Certainly the White House (even one that claims it doesn't "look at polls") must have seen these numbers.
Thursday, February 12, 2004
This takes the cake. I can't even comment on this Ann Coulter column, because it's so outrageous. I'll just remind you that this is from a woman who accused the DEMOCRATS of engaging in slander. Take it away, Ann:
Moreover, if we're going to start delving into exactly who did what back then, maybe Max Cleland should stop allowing Democrats to portray him as a war hero who lost his limbs taking enemy fire on the battlefields of Vietnam.
Cleland lost three limbs in an accident during a routine noncombat mission where he was about to drink beer with friends. He saw a grenade on the ground and picked it up. He could have done that at Fort Dix. In fact, Cleland could have dropped a grenade on his foot as a National Guardsman – or what Cleland sneeringly calls "weekend warriors." Luckily for Cleland's political career and current pomposity about Bush, he happened to do it while in Vietnam.
There is more than a whiff of dishonesty in how Cleland is presented to the American people. Terry McAuliffe goes around saying, "Max Cleland, a triple amputee who left three limbs on the battlefield of Vietnam," was thrown out of office because Republicans "had the audacity to call Max Cleland unpatriotic." Mr. Cleland, a word of advice: When a slimy weasel like Terry McAuliffe is vouching for your combat record, it's time to sound "retreat" on that subject.
Needless to say, no one ever challenged Cleland's "patriotism." His performance in the Senate was the issue, which should not have come as a bolt out of the blue inasmuch as he was running for re-election to the Senate. Sen. Cleland had refused to vote for the Homeland Security bill unless it was chock-full of pro-union perks that would have jeopardized national security. ("OH, MY GOD! A HIJACKED PLANE IS HEADED FOR THE WHITE HOUSE!" "Sorry, I'm on my break. Please call back in two hours.")
The good people of Georgia – who do not need lectures on admiring military service – gave Cleland one pass for being a Vietnam veteran. He didn't get a lifetime pass.
Indeed, if Cleland had dropped a grenade on himself at Fort Dix rather than in Vietnam, he would never have been a U.S. senator in the first place. Maybe he'd be the best pharmacist in Atlanta, but not a U.S. senator. He got into office on the basis of serving in Vietnam and was thrown out for his performance as a senator.
Cleland wore the uniform, he was in Vietnam, and he has shown courage by going on to lead a productive life. But he didn't "give his limbs for his country," or leave them "on the battlefield." There was no bravery involved in dropping a grenade on himself with no enemy troops in sight. That could have happened in the Texas National Guard – which Cleland denigrates while demanding his own sanctification.
Facts are stubborn things. Now Drudge is reporting that the alleged affair began in Spring 2001. But earlier today he posted (now noticeably absent) an e-mail from Craig Crawford at CQ saying that this had come up in 2000 when Gore was considering Kerry for Veep.
Something not add up here?
While the world turns about Drudge, let's not lose sight of the AWOL story, after all that's what Rove and Co. want. And things continue to get interesting. See this from CalPundit, who's really driving this story now:
According to a story in a Memphis newspaper, and reported by CalPundit,:
"Recalls Memphian Mintz, now 63: “I remember that I heard someone was coming to drill with us from Texas. And it was implied that it was somebody with political influence. I was a young bachelor then. I was looking for somebody to prowl around with.” But, says Mintz, that “somebody” -- better known to the world now as the president of the United States -- never showed up at Dannelly in 1972. Nor in 1973, nor at any time that Mintz, a FedEx pilot now and an Eastern Airlines pilot then, when he was a reserve first lieutenant at Dannelly, can remember.
“And I was looking for him,” repeated Mintz, who said that he assumed that Bush “changed his mind and went somewhere else” to do his substitute drill.
“There’s no way we wouldn’t have noticed a strange rooster in the henhouse, especially since we were looking for him,” insists Mintz, who has pored over documents relating to the matter now making their way around the Internet.
....Though some accounts reckon the total personnel component of the 187th as consisting of several hundred, the actual flying squadron – that to which Bush was reassigned – number only “25 to 30 pilots,” Mintz said. “There’s no doubt. I would have heard of him, seen him, whatever.”
Another member of the 187th, Paul Bishop, says the same thing: "I never saw hide nor hair of Mr. Bush."
So if Bush wasn't at Dannelly Air Base, where was he? And what was he getting paid for?
Chutzpah? You decide.
I need to get something off my chest about this Judiciary Committee memo scandal. As I understand it, Republicans think the focus should be on the content of the Democratic memos at issue, not on the fact that Republicans hacked into the server and stole them. Their argument is that it shows that the Democrats were influenced by liberal interest groups in how they dealt with Bush's judiciary nominees.
Well, look at this article about the issue and count the number of Republican interest groups quoted:
...Several conservative activists have criticized Hatch, saying he should lead an investigation into the contents of the Democratic memos rather than focusing on what many of them characterize as legitimate activities by GOP staffers. The memos, they say, demonstrate the influence liberal interest groups have over Democratic strategy on judicial nominations and may have crossed an ethical or legal line...
"There seems to be a pattern here: capitulation to Democratic demands," said Kay Daly, president of the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary, representing 75 conservative groups. Hatch has bent over backward to accommodate Democrats on the committee without getting anything in return, she suggested. "To be seen as capitulating repeatedly is not something conservatives can stomach," she said, and their reaction is "getting dangerously close to thermonuclear."
"He has a congenital need to be loved by the opposition," said Paul M. Weyrich, chairman of the Free Congress Foundation. "The best thing you can say is that he tries to please all sides and ends up pleasing none."
Conservative activists say Hatch's support for an investigation of Republicans distresses party loyalists just as the 2004 election season gets underway. "This is the sort of thing that demoralizes the Republican base around the country, and it's very unfortunate," said Gary Bauer, founder of American Values, a conservative public policy group...
Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), third-ranking member of the Senate GOP leadership, said the real issue was Democratic "collusion" with liberal groups to influence the confirmation process.
Oh, and let's not forget that the Federalist Society essentially picks Bush's nominees.
I am "shocked, shocked to find" that interest groups are playing a role in judicial nominations...
If we're going to be digging up uncorroborated stories about politicians' sex lives, how about this one about W?
I know nothing about the veracity or details of the Drudge story, but does anyone else remember what happened in the summer of 2002? Bush was getting clobbered by the corporate scandals and questions about his insider trading while at Harken were being raised, and then Coleen Rowley, FBI whistleblower testifies before Congress that the FBI ignored warnings about 9/11.
So what does Bush do that very day? He announces that he supports the creation of a department of homeland security. It succeeds in changing the story, and taking the focus off of Bush.
Deja vu?
Could this be why someone had a vested interest in changing the subject today to Kerry, and ran to the ol' faithful: intern sex:
Military Dentist Doesn't Recall Bush
Alabama Guard Dentist Said to Have Examined Bush Says He Doesn't Recall Treating Him
The Associated Press
OK, my first reaction to this is the White House decided "Well, Bush is getting hammered on the National Guard story so let's change the subject" and put out this false report. Drudge is reporting that:
A frantic behind-the-scenes drama is unfolding around Sen. John Kerry and his quest to lockup the Democratic nomination for president, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.
Intrigue surrounds a woman who recently fled the country, reportedly at the prodding of Kerry, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
A serious investigation of the woman and the nature of her relationship with Sen. John Kerry has been underway at TIME magazine, ABC NEWS, the WASHINGTON POST, THE HILL and the ASSOCIATED PRESS, where the woman in question once worked.
A close friend of the woman first approached a reporter late last year claiming fantastic stories -- stories that now threaten to turn the race for the presidency on its head!
In an off-the-record conversation with a dozen reporters earlier this week, General Wesley Clark plainly stated: "Kerry will implode over an intern issue." [Three reporters in attendance confirm Clark made the startling comments.]
The Kerry commotion is why Howard Dean has turned increasingly aggressive against Kerry in recent days, and is the key reason why Dean reversed his decision not to drop out of the race after Wisconsin, top campaign sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.
Now what are the odds that both Clinton and Kerry are both done in by the same issue -- infidelity involving an intern? This sounds to me like someone is opening up their playbook to the only way they know how to win. But let's see what happens...
I've been pointed to this article, which raises another angle to this whole Bush AWOL story.
Apparently, certain sections of his miltary records have been blacked out that relate to arrests or convictions. Given the fact that Guard duty was highly competitive at the time Bush was admitted and drug or alcohol violations could have been a basis for denying entry to the Guard, these sections could turn out to be important. This story is not dead by a longshot.
For those of you who haven't read it yet, I highly recommend Ron Suskind's "The Price of Loyalty." Suskind, through Paul O'Neill, paints a frightening portrait of a White House devoid of any policy discussion and of decisions made solely on political terms. It also shows a White House run by Cheney.
Now Suskind is starting to release documents that O'Neill collected during his time at Treasury. Some of the most interesting, however, are the national security documents. Like this one, which is a memo from Rumsfeld in January 2001, eight months before 9/11. While there is much discussion about missile defense, look and see how often Rumsfeld mentions the threat of terrorism.
I was very disappointed to read this article in the Boston Globe this morning, and I hope it's not true.
The Globe is reporting that "advisors" to Kerry have said that "the Massachusetts senator is skeptical about Edwards's strength as a running mate, saying he appears to lack the clout with Southern voters that he often brags about being able to deliver."
Well, that very well may be true. But wouldn't Edwards at least help to make those states more competitive and force the Bush campaign to divert resources there? I firmly believe that Edwards' strength as a retail political and campaigner would be a great strength to the Kerry campaign. Also, think about those trial lawyers who've already given Edwards $2000, who presumably would give $2000 to a Kerry campaign too, to help us compete with Bush?
The article goes on to say that "Kerry is also said to be unconvinced that Edwards is experienced enough to step in as a wartime president should something happen to him. National security credentials are the most important assets that the Democratic presidential front-runner would use to choose a running mate, these aides said."
Now, the concern about his national security inexperience may be legitimate, as it's probably the main reason that Edwards hasn't caught on with more Democrats after 9/11. But the balancing of Kerry with the national security experience and Edwards' connection with real voters would be a potent balance. Also, Edwards has more national security experience after five years in the Senate (I believe he's on the Intelligence Committee) than Bush did after 5 years as governor.
Please, John K., reconsider! I know I'm not the only Democrat who likes Kerry, but is truly excited by Edwards and his potential. I've heard Edwards described as "Clinton without the scandals." How can you not like that? A Kerry-Edwards ticket would really motivate Democrats.
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
This really speaks for itself, but I'll just ask: What's up with the "quack, quack?" There's a stunning degree of lawlessness to Scalia's behavior, a growing trend among conservatives in DC. That's why it's dangerous to have one party control all three branches of government.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia strongly indicated he will ignore calls to recuse himself from a court case involving his friend and hunting partner, Vice President Dick Cheney.
Scalia told a gathering at Amherst College on Tuesday night there was nothing improper about his accompanying Cheney to Louisiana last month to hunt ducks. The trip came three weeks after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Bush administration's appeal in a case involving private meetings of Cheney's energy task force.
"It did not involve a lawsuit against Dick Cheney as a private individual," Scalia said in response to a question from the audience of about 600 people. "This was a government issue. It's acceptable practice to socialize with executive branch officials when there are not personal claims against them. That's all I'm going to say for now. Quack, quack."
Remember how Bush said in 2000, and still says now, that he doesn't make decisions based on polls, and only on what is the right thing to do?
Well, here's Exhibit 1,001 on why that's absolute crap. The military has announced that it will RUN OUT OF MONEY BY OCTOBER 1, and will no longer be able to pay for our war against terror. The reason is that the White House will not ask for funding until December 2004 or January 2005, conveniently after the Presidential Election.
Why, one might ask, would a president who clearly plans to run on the war on terror (that may be all he runs on, in fact) let this happen? After all, didn't President Bush announce in September 2003 that he was requesting $87 billion of funding for the war(s) for 2004? (These funds expire with the end of the fiscal year, which is September 30, 2004).
Aha, but do you recall what happened to Bush's poll numbers after he announced this funding request? Kerplunk! He dropped ten points in the month after the announcement. So, apparently not wanting to take another dive in the polls, since a similar dive would push Bush into the 40s and below during his reelection campaign, the White House has decided to put off the announcement until December, at the expense of the men and women of our military and of homeland security. (Oh, and of course, whatever Bush were to request would add to the $500 billion deficit...)
Thank goodness that this administration doesn't look at polls.
For those of you following the Bush AWOL story and think that the records put out by the White House yesterday clear up this issue, I highly recommend reading Richard Cohen's column yesterday in the Washington Post. (Apparently the Post has now made registration required to view op/ed columns, so no link is available) Cohen frankly describes his service and, while the White House now maintains that Bush's pay records prove his service, Cohen writes:
"For two years or so, I played a perfectly legal form of hooky. To show you what a mess the Guard was at the time, I even got paid for all the meetings I missed."
Furthermore, Bush's records show that he was serving in Texas during the same period that his two commanders wrote that they couldn't evaluate Bush because "he had not been observed" at the Houston base during that time period. (Interestingly, the records apparently show that Bush was on the base the date that evaluation was written.) Could there have been some administrative hanky-panky done to cover this up?
I'm not a fan of his, but occasionally Dick Morris can make some good points. In this column, Morris makes the interesting argument that, unlike Clinton in 1996, Bush's State of Union Speech this year was a complete disaster because it didn't 1) help his approval rating or 2) help him in his match-up with Kerry. By contrast, Morris cites the bump that Clinton got in 1996 that pushed him ahead of Dole to stay. Morris' conclusion is this:
Bush’s failure to convert his last State of the Union speech of his first term into points on the board must rank as one of the great failures of recent American politics.
Maybe a bit overstated, but the point is well taken...
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
How come we never saw this Al Gore in 2000? Man, with that passion, he would have won. (Click on Gore's name after you pull the link up to hear Gore's comments at the Tennessee Democratic Presidential Primary Celebration on Sunday.)
For those of you who expect the Iraq Intelligence Committee to get to the bottom of these intelligence issues involving the White House or expect it to be "independent," don't hold your breath. Bush's choice to be co-chair of the committee, Judge Lawrence Silberman, is even worse than his initial choice of Henry Kissinger to head the 9/11 Commission, if that's possible.
Silberman is Ken Starr with a partisan edge.
Silberman, a senior judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, has been described as "the most partisan and political federal judge in the country." His record is pretty damn incredible:
* As a member of Reagan's 1980 presidential campaign, he, along with Bob McFarlane and others, met in October 1980 with a supposed Iranian government emissary who offered to delay the release of hostages in Iran until after the election. Silberman does not deny the meeting took place, only that the offer was rejected. But that's just an appetizer of what's to come...
* Silberman is then appointed to the DC Circuit by Reagan, where he, along with David Sentelle (famous for dumping Robert Fiske for Ken Starr), represent the two judges who overturn Oliver North's conviction on appeal. (Sentelle named his daughter "Reagan" after the Judge who put him on the bench.) Lawrence Walsh, Iran-Contra IC, described Silberman as "aggresively hostile" during oral arguments.
*Then, in 1991, Silberman, a sitting federal judge, worked to attack Anita Hill and to help in Clarence Thomas' confirmation battle. David Brock, in his excellent and essential book, Blinded by the Right, describes in great detail the slanderous gossip and rumor that Silberman passed on to him in an effort to discredit Hill. Brock claims that Silberman also made up accusations of a conspiracy against Thomas by fellow DC Circuit Judge Patricia Wald, whom Silberman is said to have "hated with a passion." Wald is also on the Iraq Intel Commission. I'm sure she'll carry a lot of weight with Silberman.
* Oh, and Silberman and his wife read passages of Brock's "The Real Anita Hill" and commented on them.
* Brock claims that Silberman advised him to write the infamous Troopergate article about Clinton because it might "topple" Clinton. Neither Silberman or associates have ever denied Brock's claims. Oh, but it gets better.
* Silberman's wife, Ricky, founded a group that submitted an amicus brief in the Paula Jones case and Ricky approached Ken Starr about assisting the Paula Jones plaintiffs. Despite this connection, Silberman later sat on the panel that heard Clinton's executive privilege appeal concerning Secret Service testimony about Monica Lewinsky. Not only did Silberman rule against Clinton, but he issued a "scathing" separate opinion that accused Janet Reno of acting not on behalf the U.S. government, but in the personal interest of Linton. Silberman then astonishingly questioned whether Clinton, by having aides attack Starr, was "declaring war on the United States."
So, again Bush has stacked the deck.
Well, I'll give him credit. It's not exactly like Tucker Carlson eating his shoe after Hillary sold 1 million copies of her book, but it still counts for something. Bill O'Reilly, as some of you may recall, told viewers on Good Morning America back in March 2003: "And I said on my program, if -- if -- the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again."
Well, the heat has been on for a while and Bill finally, to his credit, owned up to it. Now, he didn't say he wouldn't "trust" the Bush Administration again, only that he was "skeptical" of the Bush Administration.
That's a start, even for a blow-hard.
I finally got around to watching Bush on Meet the Press last night. (Thank god for TIVO.) And my impressions were similar to those written in the press. Despite the criticism of most Democrats (and I fully expected to agree) I thought Russert did a pretty good job -- Bush was giving ridiculously long and non-responsive speeches in response to some questions and Russert clearly was trying to step in with a follow up and Bush repeatedly cut him off, either holding up an index finger or saying "Can I finish?" Russert backed off, more than he did with Dean or others, and I think that probably had to do with the environment more than anything. Being in the Oval Office is a lot different than in a set in D.C. I fault Russert for that, but don't blame him.
Bush's problem in these settings is that he is clearly trying to remember all of the set responses he's worked on in practice sessions and is trying to get them out, without any sense of an articulate message or point. He rambles without any clear direction.
But I think the most striking thing to me was how this is a man who does not like to admit he's wrong. He's changed his justification for war in Iraq and simply will not admit he was wrong in his statements before the war. He will not admit that he's backtracked on opposing nation building, when he's clearly done so. I'm reminded of the quote by Howard Dean, I believe, that when the Bush Administration develops a theory based on facts, and the facts turn out not to be true, the Administration keeps the theory and discards the facts. I thought Bush's most telling quote was this:
I'll tell you, though, I'm not going to change, see? I'm not trying to accommodate ? I won't change my philosophy or my point of view.
This confirmed for me the sort of bullish arrogance about Bush that prevents him from reaccessing things he's done or decided. The tax cut, for example. He said in 1999 that he would a tax cut of X size, and two years later, regardless of the economic conditions, by gum he's going to have a tax cut of X size. I think this attitude also contributes to his utter lack of intellectual curiousity. Ultimately, I think it could be damaging to him in the public's eye, particularly in relation to the economy. Bush appears to taken to heart the comments that people admire him because he sticks to his beliefs and follows them. So now he's decided to stick to them no matter what.
There were also some great, hapless, hopeless moments too, as only Bush Presidents can do. They don't show up well in the transcript, because it's all in the verbal hestitation and use of placekeeping words. One of my favorites was when Bush was searching for words to describe al-Hakim and eventually settles on saying that he's "a Shiia fellow." Or when Russert asks Bush if the war in Iraq was "a war or choice or a war of necessity,"and Bush clearly has no idea what to say (surprisingly, because this is a question he certainly should have been ready for), so he decides to fall back on the ol' technique of editorializing on the question and then asking the questioner to explain the question while he thinks of his response:
I think that's an interesting question. Please elaborate on that a little bit. A war of choice or a war of necessity? It's a war of necessity.
But the best, and maybe most telling, moment was when Bush is talking about how his administration is dealing with entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security, and then says:
We?re dealing with some entitlement programs right now in the Congress. The highway bill. It's going to be an interesting test of fiscal discipline on both sides of the aisle. The Senate's is about 370, as I understand, $370 billion; the House is at less than that but over $300 billion. And as you know, the budget I propose is about $256 billion.
So the highway bill is an entitlement program, huh? When do I get my share?
Monday, February 09, 2004
For those of you who are following the Bush AWOL story, you've probably heard about the infamous torn document that the Bush Campaign has relied upon to defend itself.
Well, the torn document has been located -- untorn. See it here. But it's not all the Bush Campaign have said it is. This story will be around for a little while longer, I suspect ...
The ways things are going for him, now I wonder when Bush's questionable Harken Energy trades will get renewed scrutiny...
Hello. We've been away for a while, I know. But there's been a lot going on. New jobs, new states, new homes. But now the 2004 Election is well under way and WaxWorks will now return. Thanks for bearing with us and coming back for more!
I've much to say about the 2004 election and the primary campaign soon. But I'll start things off with this article that a friend alerted me to. Apparently, the Bush Administration is predicting that the economy will gain 2.6 million jobs this year. Now, mind you, the Bush Administration predicted that we would gain 1.7 total jobs last year, only to be about as right as it was about WMD. We lost 53,000 jobs last year. So, is it just me, or is this prediction so ridiculously optimistic that the Bush Administration will deeply regret it when it shows up in a Kerry ad in October?
