.
. .

Home
Who is Ed Philpot?
Support The Site
Media Appearances
Make POP Your Homepage
Search
Archives
Send Comments


The POP Book List


Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward


After Tet: The Bloodiest Year In Viet Nam by Ronald H. Spector


The Threatening Storm by Kenneth Pollack


Theodore Rex by Edmund Morris


John Adams by David McCullough


Truman by David McCullough


First You Have To Row A Little Boat by Richard Bode


Website Picks

NY Times
Talking Points Memo
Donkey Rising
Salon
The Hamster
Media Notes
Washington Monthly
Slate
Doonesbury
InstaPundit
The Note
&c.
Tapped
WSJ.com OpinionJournal
War Casualties
The Washington Note

NH Websites

PoliticsNH
Democrat Think Dynamic Group
Mark Fernald - NH Progressive Network


2004 Archives

Week of 12.28.03
Week of 1.4.04
Week of 1.11.04
Week of 1.18.04
Week of 1.25.04
Week of 2.1.04
Week of 2.8.04
Week of 2.15.04
Week of 2.22.04
Week of 2.29.04
Week of 3.7.04
Week of 3.14.04
Week of 3.21.04
Week of 3.28.04
Week of 4.11.04
Week of 4.18.04
Week of 4.25.04
Week of 5.2.04
Week of 5.9.04
Week of 5.16.04
Week of 5.20.04
Week of 5.30.04
Week of 6.13.04
Week of 6.20.04
Week of 6.27.04
Week of 7.04.04
Week of 7.11.04
Week of 7.18.04
Week of 8.1.04
Week of 8.8.04
Week of 8.15.04
Week of 8.22.04
Week of 8.29.04
Week of 9.5.04
Week of 9.12.04
Week of 9.19.04
Week of 9.26.04


Click here for full archives

. . .



October 7, 2004, 8:30 P.M.

Both presidential campaigns have recently been accused of manipulating statistics, to put it mildly. Here are some statistics that, although true, dont support the recommended course of action

Physicians:
a. The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
b. Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
c. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171. (Statistics courtesy of U.S.Dept. of Health & Human Services)

Guns:
a. The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
b. The number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) is 1,500.
c. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.

Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!

Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do". FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR

Just a little trial lawyer humor. . .

October 7, 2004, 7:50 P.M.

As my thoughts about the Cheney/Edwards debate begin to sugar off, the strongest impression that remains with me is of the audacity with which Dick Cheney lies, distorts facts and deftly relies on innuendo to create misimpressions about major issues. Let's start with "I never met you before tonight." Clearly not true. There are documents photographed and videotaped contradictions to this statement. The question then, is why would Cheney say something so outrageous and so easy to disprove?

The answer lies in his factcheck.com response. Cheney knows that people who already like him and support the President care not even going to check his facts. Like the rest of the administration, Cheney believes that if you keep telling the same lie long enough, people, for the most part, will eventually accept is as fact. It is only a little ironic that by screwing up the URL (Cheney actually meant to send people to factcheck.org), Cheney sent millions of people to George Soros' website (factcheck.com). A quick factcheck.org search reveals that Edwards was correct in all of the material aspects of his Halliburton statements.

Cheney blatantly misstated the postions of John Kerry and John Edwards on several key issues, but that was to be expected. I didn't expect Cheney to continue his same old lines about connections between Iraq and al Qaeda and about connections between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 terror attacks. Continuing to press, either directly or indirectly, on these clearly disproven theories, opens the administration further to attacks on its credibility, on its justification for the invasion of Iraq and indeed, the advisability of its whole "stay the course" campaign strategy. What's more, this whole attempt at establishing links and justifications to support the invasion, which clearly and simply don't exist, suggests that Cheney and Bush need to visit realitycheck.org, rather than factcheck.org.

Aside from being wrong, Cheney was nasty. The ultimate slap, of course, occurred at the end of the debate when Cheney thanked the audience and the moderator, and ignored Senator Edwards, and began his closing remarks. And this after Edwards was so nice about Cheney's family.

The family comment was, from my view, the best thing that happened for Cheney in the debate. Cheney clearly does not support the administration's position on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Cheney hugged the party line in his initial answer and used his rebuttal time to simply thank Edwards for his kind comments. Enough said.

In contrast, Edwards looked good. I was a little disappointed at how he handled the tort reform issue, but I understand that it is a topic unto itself, and that it requires more than a few seconds to analyze. I still would have preferred a direct definitive statement regarding the actual reasons why insurance premiums are so high, and about the fact that malpractice awards are not actually the cause of dramatic increases in premiums. He did an okay job on the access to the courts/protection against big insurance companies part of it, but he did not do enough to undermine this particular old saw. I have written several article on the topic and I know how difficult it is to get the truth out, but this should have been a topic on which Edwards could clearly shine.

Edwards did a good job on the flip flop topic, pointing out that the current administration hasn't been all that consistent on a lot of topics. I don't like this issue at all. There has to be room in politics and government, as in life, for changes to occur. For example, decisions made post-9/11 are made in a completely different environment from those made pre-9/11 in a lot of ways. There also has to be room for changing one's mind. I have often said that the hallmark of a great mind is its ability to change. I don't like that the BC04 folks leave no room for change, at least in their rhetoric (clearly not in their practice). Iraq is truly screwed up and people, our people and others, are being seriously injured and killed at an alarming rate. Rethinking, retooling and even changing our approach to the problem should be seen as a sign of strength, or at least of an intelligent life form.

Cheney had to strain his already thin credibility in his defense of administration policy in Iraq. Edwards held his feet to the fire on this issue and even got in a few body blows with the Halliburton stuff. Cheney just can't defend against that, and it should become much more of an issue as the campaign goes on.

The Kerry/Edwards Senate record discussion was also well-handled, especially when Cheney's own record is brought under the microscope. But again, Cheney couldn't stick to the facts; he had to push the envelope and exaggerate. Perhaps because when you look at the Kerry/Edwards record, it's pretty consistent, even if they have been absent frequently during the campaign.

Score this one in the win column for the good guys, and get used to John Edwards, because if he can handle the likes of Dick Cheney the way he did, the future looks bright.

October 4, 2004, 3:35 P.M.

[Ed. note: This is a revision of an earlier post, and will appear in the Laconia Daily Sun this week.]

I arrived home in time last Thursday to watch the Presidential debate, but I missed the opening 5 minutes or so. I'm told that President Bush, in an aggressive opening move, greeted Senator Kerry on his half of the stage. If that's the case, that was the only bold, offensive move made by the President in the debate.

Kerry appeared decisive and intent on putting the flip flop nonsense to rest. The President, on the other hand, continued to resort to his standard responses and cliche descriptions of Kerry's ability to lead. In the end, Bush looked to be all hat and no cattle.

If the sighing and pacing of the Bush/Gore debate was damaging to Gore, the distant or disturbed looks and grimaces from the President should be fatal. The President clearly looked displeased with the fact that he was actually being challenged. After all, this President consistently surrounds himself with people who agree with him, and he admits to getting his news and information from among the same circle of friends. Under these circumstances, Bush must have found Kerry's straightforward attacks on the President's policies disturbing. So disturbing, in fact, that the President had to lapse into his ineffective "mixed message" theme as a last resort. All form, no substance.

Senator Kerry discussed real plans and strategies for dealing with Iraq and other terrorist nations, and for cleaning up the loose nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union (by the way, did you notice how infrequently the President said the word "nuclear"?). When asked what the most significant threat to the U.S. was, Kerry jumped on the answer, "nuclear proliferation." The President sort of agreed, but said that the most significant threat was WMDs in the hands of terrorists. This reveals a serious misunderstanding of the threat posed by nations and not just terrorist organizations that possess the capability to produce and deliver nuclear weapons, like North Korea, and nations that are close to being able to do so, like Iran.

President Bush looked adrift, erratic and without any real plan for dealing with Iraq or Osama bin Laden. When pressed on these issues, he looked irritable and defensive. His campaign and his supporters must have him convinced that everyone who expresses disagreement with him is sending mixed messages to "the enemy" and therefore no matter what Senator Kerry says, the President interprets it as a win for himself. The problem is that just about everyone is questioning what is currently happening in Iraq, except the President. He appears out of touch with reality and unwilling to adopt a strategy to address the problems in Iraq, other than "stay the course." Senator Kerry correctly pointed out that there is benefit to learning from your mistakes and correcting the problems that confront us on the ground. That's real strength, rather than sticking with a failed, dangerous and increasingly costly strategy because you don't want to appear wrong or weak or worse, because you don't know what else to do. It looks like the President is more about perception than reality. Kerry wins in this category hands down.

I wonder if, during his debate preparation, anyone actually dared criticize the President. From his demeanor on stage, it certainly did not look that way. He also didn't look prepared to deal with being called on misquoting or mischaracterizing comments by Senator Kerry because every time he was called on something, he had no comeback, almost as if he knew he had not been accurate and just got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. My observation of the Bush debate strategy was that it was about politics and the President hoped to stay on the political offensive, wave the flag and move on to St. Louis. That strategy did not work because when pressed the President paused, mumbled and often had trouble filling his allotted time.

I loved hearing Senator Kerry point out that the President's tax cuts benefit people like him and the President, undercutting the President's carefully cultivated aw-shucks routine. Again, no comeback because of the substance and truth of the comment.

The President also told some flat out lies. For example, the al Qaeda-Khan network has been brought to justice. Khan, you will recall, is a Pakistani who was spreading nuclear (there's that word again) technology to all comers. The White House actually backed a deal in which Khan was pardoned after simply apologizing for his proliferation activities. Not exactly "brought to justice." The President also repeated the claim he had made in his September 23, 2004 news conference with Prime Minister Allawi of Iraq that 100,000 Iraqi police and National Guard troops had been trained. Apparently the Pentagon does not agree. As reported by the Reuters agency, the number of Iraqi trainees is actually closer to 22,700 and they have only received enough training to make them "minimally effective at their tasks." These lies and mischacterizations are catching up with the President and even his most ardent media supporters are being forced to face the reality that Bush lost the debate and that his fragile lead in the polls gone.

Expect a barrage of negative ads and more negative spin from the Bush campaign. They are on the ropes and they will get mean. The Edwards/Cheney debate should be a good one, but don't expect Dick Cheney to have much nice to say to or about John Edwards. I expect the dogs to be off the chain at the Bush/Cheney camp from here on out.

October 4, 2004, 3:35 P.M.

Here is a great debate analysis from Steve Clemons. Note that POP was out front on the "all hat, no cattle" description of the President's message.

Also look to Josh Marshall's post of 10.2.04 for his analysis of the misinformation put out by the President on the occasions about that number of Iraqi police and National Guard trainees. Surprise, the President grossly overstated the number of troops/police/guardsmen actually trained on at least two occasions: September 23, 2004 at the news conference with Prime Minister Allawi; and in the debate with Senator Kerry on September 30, 2004. Josh provides this October 1, 2004, 9:55 A.M.

Dianne and I made it home in time to watch the debate last night, but missed the opening 5 minutes or so. I'm told that President Bush, in an aggressive opening move, greeted Senator Kerry on his half of the stage. If that's the case, that was the only bold, offensive move made by the President in the debate.

Kerry appeared decisive and intent on putting the flip flop nonsense to rest. The President, on the other hand, continued to resort to his standard responses and cliche descriptions of Kerry's ability to lead. In the end, Bush looked to be all hat and no cattle.

If the sighing and pacing of the Bush/Gore debate were damaging to Gore, the distant or disturbed looks and grimaces from the President should be fatal. The President clearly looked displeased with the fact that he was actually being challenged. After all, this President consistently surrounds himself with people who agree with him, and he admits to getting his news and information from among the same circle of friends. Under these circumstances, Bush must have found Kerry's straightforward attacks on the President's policies disturbing. So disturbing, in fact, that the President had to lapse into his ineffective "mixed message" theme as a last resort. All form, no substance.

Senator Kerry discussed real plans and strategies for dealing with Iraq and other terrorist nations, and for cleaning up the loose nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union (by the way, did you notice how infrequently the President said the word "nuclear"?). When asked what the most significant threat to the U.S. was, Kerry jumped on the answer, "nuclear proliferation." The President sort of agreed, but said that the most significant threat was WMDs in the hands of terrorists. This reveals a serious misunderstanding of the threat posed by nations and not just terrorist organizations that possess the capability to produce and deliver nuclear weapons, like North Korea, and nations that are close to being able to do so, like Iran.

President Bush looked adrift, erratic and without any real plan for dealing with Iraq or Osama bin Laden. When pressed on these issues, he looked irritable and defensive. His campaign and his supporters must have him convinced that everyone who expresses disagreement with him is sending mixed messages to "the enemy" and therefore no matter what Senator Kerry says, the President interprets it as a win for himself. The problem is that just about everyone is questioning what is currently happening in Iraq, except the President. He appears out of touch with reality and unwilling to adopt a strategy to address the problems in Iraq, other than "stay the course." Senator Kerry correctly pointed out that there is benefit to learning from your mistakes and correcting the problems that confront us on the grounds. That's real strength, rather than sticking with a failed, dangerous and increasingly costly strategy because you don't want to appear wrong or weak or worse, because you don't know what else to do. It looks like the President is more about perception than reality. Kerry wins in this category hands down.

I wonder if, during his debate preparation, anyone actually dared criticize the President. From his demeanor on stage, it certainly did not look that way. He also didn't look prepared to deal with being called on misquoting or mischaracterizing comments by Senator Kerry because every time he was called on something, he had no comeback, almost as if he knew he had not been accurate and just got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. My observation of the Bush debate strategy was that it was about politics and the President hoped to stay on the political offensive, wave the flag and move on to St. Louis. That strategy did not work cause when pressed the President paused, mumbled and often had trouble filling his allotted time.

I loved hearing Senator Kerry point out that the President's tax cuts benefitted people like him and the President, undercutting the President's carefully cultivated aw-shucks routine. Again, no comeback because of the substance and truth of the comment.

The President also told some flat out lies. For example, the al Qaeda-Khan network has been brought to justice. Khan, you will recall, is a Pakistani who was spreading nuclear (there's that word again) technology to all comers. The White House actually backed a deal in which Khan was pardoned after simply apologizing for his proliferation activities. Not exactly "brought to justice"

All in all, a good debate for Senator Kerry. What is now most important is that he not lose the post-debate spin in the press.

September 29, 2004, 1:45 P.M.

During my Tuesday radio appearance on WEMJ with Alan Harrison and Bill McLean we discussed the upcoming presidential debate. Of course we all have our own ideas about what the candidates need to do to win the debate, we talked about their relative strengths and weaknesses and we talked a little about substantive issues that favor our respective candidates. Bill McLean then commented, as Paul Krugman had in his column that morning that the interesting question was, what would the press say?

In the Bush-Gore debate, Gore clearly won on substantive issues. The press, however, focused in on Gore's body language, the infamous sigh, and the claim that he looked menacing. The press is already being fed tidbits of what the Republicans want them to focus on: Will Kerry sweat? Will he be properly deferential? Will he flip flop?

By feeding these suggestions to the press the Republicans are intending to influence the press coverage. They have been effective at this in the past and will certainly step up their efforts. This only works with the mainstream and corporate press. The real coverage and analysis will be on the web. Hopefully that is where most of those elusive undecided voters will go for their news and reviews.

September 28, 2004, 9:55 A.M.

Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell has recently issued two decisions critics claim will unfairly limit the ability of some residents to vote in upcoming elections. On decision requires that all voter registration cards be printed on thick, 80-pound stock paper. The other requires that county boards of election strictly interpret rules regarding provisional ballots which are the ones cast by voters who move before an election but are still registered in Ohio.

Ohio is a battleground state in the upcoming election and is important to both parties. This is evidenced by the voter registration push by both parties recently. The republican effort has lead to a 25% increase in registrations. The democrats on the other hand have increased registration by 250%. Who is the insistence in 80 weight paper going to benefit?

Many Ohio registrations have been sent in on newsprint because of voter registration drives in the papers. County registrars are required to send out the proper cards. This must be done before the October 14 registration deadline. It seems that the republicans are afraid of the popular vote, as well they should be. Their response, however is to cheat and to deny citizens their basic right to vote.

September 27, 2004, 6:00 P.M.

Bouncing Bush, Benson and Boyce I am pleased to be supporting Beth Arsenault in her bid to unseat Robert Boyce as our District 4 representative in the New Hampshire Senate. After entering the race late two years ago, Beth was able to put up some very impressive numbers against a well-established campaign. This time around, Beth has had the opportunity to get her message out to the voters of District 4.

Unlike her opponent, Beth has some positive, forward-looking ideas to address problems facing us in the legislature, and she is poised to actually represent the city and towns of District 4. Rob Boyce has been nothing but a negative voice in his two terms as Senator in Concord, and while it might be easy to tell what he is against (like affordable health care, workers rights and education funding, to name a few), but not as easy to tell what he is for. Rob Boyce represents his own agenda, not his constituents'.

Beth Arsenault has an understanding of the need for legislation that protects our valuable and fragile environment. On a state level, our lakes are under assault from increasing numbers of powerboats and personal watercraft and the resultant effects of MTBE on our fish and wildlife and on our water supplies. New Hampshire tourism depends on the pristine nature of its natural resources. Rob Boyce has stood lock step with the Benson administration in slashing budgets and critical funding for environmental protection. The Bush/Benson administrations and their supporters like Mr. Boyce have attempted to absolve oil companies and producers of MTBE from liability for polluting our waters. They have also worked to weaken the hard fought federal regulations designed to prevent midwestern coal-burning factories and utilities from pouring millions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere, which fall on us as acid rain.

Rob Boyce supported SB110, legislation passed by the New Hampshire Legislature, that boosts insurance company profits at the expense of individuals and small businesses across the state. Mr. Boyce's belief is that those who use healthcare should be ones who pay the lion's share of its costs, instead of spreading the health care costs across the entire population. Beth points out the "this narrow definition of an insured population defies the purpose of insurance, which has always been to spread the risk as broadly as possible, realizing that any one of us might sat some point incur catastrophic costs that exceed our ability to pay." What SB110 does is "insure the continued profitability of insurance companies by allowing them to cherry pick their customers, and to set rates based on risk factors such as how old and sick workers are." Beth argues, correctly, that the net effect of SB110 will be to put healthcare costs further out of reach for small businesses and individuals while maintaining obscene levels of profitability for insurance companies and their executives, like Anthem's CEO who received a $42.5 million merit award on top of his $1.4 million salary and $2.3 million bonus last year. Rob Boyce, Craig Benson and George Bush believe that if insurance companies and large corporations are left to their own devices, they will in turn raise up the level of the rest of us, through their own largesse. The fallacy here is that this type of legislation is designed to "let market forces work." The opposite is true. SB110 is protectionist legislation, pure and simple. Anthem saw increases in revenue in the first 6 months of 2004 that were up 11 percent from $8,075,000,000 to $9,002,000,000. At the same time, net income rose 34%, from $369,000,000 during the first half of 2003 to $533,500,000 for the same period in 2004. Have you seen proportional decreases in your premiums?

The single biggest failure of our legislature is the failure to find a solution to funding the state's obligation to educate our children. Rob Boyce has been consistent in his observation of what can't be done. Boyce has offered no solution, has offered no suggestion and has voiced no plan to deal with the education funding crisis. His rhetoric and record suggest that he has no intention to work on behalf of his district to find a solution. For this alone he should be turned out of office. With every state cutback and unfunded federal mandate, local taxpayers are forced to shoulder an increasingly disproportionate burden to support their schools. Boyce's lack of a policy and his lack of leadership will serve only to further neglect and avoid to state's responsibility to provide an adequate education for all of its students. A child in Claremont is entitled to the same advantages as a child in Bow.

Beth Arsenault has served for six years on the Laconia School Board. It was my pleasure to serve on the board with her. She will take an understanding of the needs of schools and a perspective as a parent with her to Concord. She is a New Hampshire native and an experienced and responsive public servant with a vision and a plan for where we can go and for what we can do to protect and preserve the unique character of our state.


Send Tips or Comments to Philpot on Politics


[Home]
Copyright 2004 Edward Philpot

Counter
. . . . .