The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Spanky]

The Governator and the Business Community

Two days after the special election, the California Chamber of Commerce held its post-election powwow in the former Four Seasons hotel in Newport Beach.

The talk of the two-day affair was the keynote speech from campaign strategist Mike Murphy, who told the room full of business leaders that they were to blame for the governor's defeat.

Numerous sources in attendance said Murphy chided the business community for not matching the spending by labor unions during the election. And because of the governor's defeat, Murphy warned the room that they should prepare for some uncomfortable moments in the year ahead.

"He said the governor is now basically in reelect mode, and that we should prepare for him to sign some things we're not going to like," said one business donor who heard the speech and requested anonymity.

Many in the room, which included executives from high tech firms, energy companies and developers, bristled at Murphy laying the blame at their feet.

They say the governor adopted a piecemeal agenda for the election that embraced a number of measures the business community essentially didn't care about. "Why would we give a sh-t about teacher tenure, or even public employee unions?" said one attendee. "We didn't even know what the governor was going to be pushing until the State of the State."

While Murphy's message did not go over well with some business leaders, some of whom blamed Murphy for the governor's defeat, the chamber is bracing for a new set of post-election political realities. They expect the governor to embrace a political agenda in 2006 that will include curbs on greenhouse gas emissions, an increase in the state's minimum wage (which he vetoed last year), and a host of new fees on everything from water use to state roads.

User fees may wind up as a key funding source for the massive new infrastructure bond the governor is expected to endorse next year. There has also been talk of using the roughly $1.3 billion in transportation money, set aside in Proposition 42, as a guaranteed funding stream for the new bond.

And business leaders privately acknowledge that a discussion of tax increases may be on the table.

After a disastrous campaign season in 2004, and a major setback in the governor's special election, the California business community and the Chamber of Commerce is bracing for the governor to move to the left, and they may be moving along with him, albeit grudgingly.

Republicans say that the specter of the 2006 elections will keep business groups closely aligned with the governor. "The two scariest words in the chamber's vocabulary are 'Governor Angelides'," said GOP strategist Bill
Whalen.

In the meantime, the chamber is looking to tweak their image as a knee-jerk, anti-tax organization. "There's an assumption that we're anti tax," said Dominic DiMare, the chamber's vice president of government relations. "We want to make sure there are sufficient safeguards and accountability for the investments we make."

Ben Austin, spokesman for Rob Reiner, says the universal preschool initiative headed for the ballot was hashed out with members of labor and the business community. Though the measure would implement a new income tax on the wealthiest Californians, the measure has the backing of the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce as well as chambers in Oakland and San Francisco.

And while the state chamber is not supporting the measure, Austin says they did have a role in crafting it. "There is language in our initiative that the state chamber suggested. As we were draftng this, they gave us suggestions we took seriously and incorporated into the initiative."

Austin said he did not want to talk about specific provisions suggested by the state chamber, since they are not backing the initiative. But he did say the LA Chamber was pivotal in determining how the new preschool programs
should be funded.

"The LA Chamber was very interested in funding stream not being a split roll," he said, referring to a hike in the commercial property tax. "We accommodated that."

While it is far from peaceful between the chamber and labor groups, business leaders are beginning to think about changing their political approach. Internally, there is an ongoing discussion about the community's willingness to fund negative advertising, and to run candidates who may not necessarily be talking primarily about business issues.

Meanwhile, the state chamber's legislative political organization, JobsPAC, has hired Democrat Darry Sragow to help guide their 2006 electoral strategy, and Sragow says part of his pitch will be to convince the chamber, and other business groups to support Democratic candidates next November.

Sragow says the business community has to simultaneously be more cutthroat and less partisan. "You don't get very much in the halls of power without being able to strike fear in the hearts of people who are going against you.
People who are successful in politics aren't just liked or loved --they are also feared," he said.

"The business community, writ large, whether it's the chamber or chamber plus [others] is going to have a tough time until they become respected and feared."

Sragow said he in his work for JobsPAC, he will only work to elect Democratic candidates. "I will certainly never work for a Republican. That's not even remotely possible."

Some rifts still remain in the business community from the 2004 election cycle. Some former members of JobsPAC, including Ed Voice, Southern California Edison and the California Association of Realtors, split from the
organization, mostly over the race in the 53rd Assembly District. JobsPAC supported Republican Greg Hill, while the other groups opted to back Democrat Mike Gordon. But leaders from the organizations that left JobsPAC say there may be some room for cooperation during the next election cycle.

But Sragow was adamant that include supporting some Democrats, not just in the primaries, but in the fall. The chamber says they will be supporting some business-friendly Democrats next November. And he says he is pushing the group to focus on state Senate races.

"When you're dealing with Senate candidates, typically they have some experience under their belts. Most have served at least a term in the Assembly," he said. "They're not better human beings, they're just more experienced. The argument I am making is if Jobs PAC and the business community chooses to play in contested primaries, in the Senate, at least they know what they're getting."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
It's the "Bush lied" that's the lie.

Since the White House won't turn over much of the intelligence it received, how can you be so sure they are representing it fairly?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Bush truly believed that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and he used whatever tools he had to convince the American public of that.

Did you look into his heart or something?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Millions of Iraqis want us out.

They have been deceived by a Democratic PR campaign and the complicit mainstream media.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
1. Waterboarding, like snowboarding, is easier than skiing after the first couple of lessons.

Torture is funny!

eta: quadfecta!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

In this post from Crooked Timber (links in original), Henry responds to something in the Economist, but he might as well be responding to Spanky.

The Economist’s Lexington starts an article (behind paywall) on whether Bush lied with a piece of self-justificatory hackishness.

• The Democrats risk painting themselves as either opportunists (who turn against a war when it goes badly) or buffoons (too dim to question faulty intelligence when it mattered). They also risk exacerbating their biggest weakness—their reputation for being soft on terrorism and feeble on national security. So who is getting the best of the argument? Mr Bush starts with one big advantage: the charge that he knew all along that Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction seems to be a farrago of nonsense. Nobody has yet produced any solid evidence for this. Sure, Mr Bush made mistakes, but they seem to have been honest ones made for defensible reasons. He genuinely believed that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD—as did most of the world’s security services. And he was not alone in thinking that, after September 11th, America should never again err on the side of complacency. More than 100 Democrats in Congress voted to authorise the war. But being right and being seen to be right are different things. Mr Bush may not have consciously lied, but, egged on by Mr Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, he made dreadful miscalculations.

The issue, as the Economist’s journalists know bloody well, isn’t whether the Bush administration believed at one point that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It’s whether or not the Bush administration mendaciously manipulated intelligence to make the public case for their beliefs. The critics mentioned in the piece aren’t making “the charge that [Bush] knew all along that Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction.” I’m not aware of anyone apart from a few crackpots who are. They’re making the case that the Republican administration deliberately suppressed information that didn’t support its case, and presented highly dubious information as providing a slam-dunk case for imminent war. In other words, the administration stitched up a regime that turned out not actually to have weapons of mass destruction, let alone an active nuclear programme, through spin, lies and use of ‘evidence’ that they knew at the time to be dubious. I’d like to see Lexington explain exactly how the claims of al-Qaeda links, the aluminium tubes presentation, the yellowcake claims and so on were “honest [mistakes] made for defensible reasons.” But of course he does no such thing – instead he attacks his very own, custom designed straw man in an attempt to disassociate the heap of political trouble that Bush is now in from the fact that the Bush administration undoubtedly lied in the run-up to the war. Shoddy, shoddy stuff.

eta: more here

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Doesn't rhyme as well.

"Bush was negligent! People ... the war was a improper allocation of blood and treasure!"

Bush was negligent!
People, it's evident!

. . . Naaah.

Happy Thanksgiving to ALL.

S_A_M

P.S. In the spirit of the season, I'll leave out my usual stuff about arrogance, blinders, incompetence, etc. Those are also really hard to rhyme.

Peace.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In this post from Crooked Timber (links in original), Henry responds to something in the Economist, but he might as well be responding to Spanky.



eta: more here

Nice! But point of order, if I may. This part here:

The critics mentioned in the piece aren’t making “the charge that [Bush] knew all along that Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction.” I’m not aware of anyone apart from a few crackpots who are.

Are you now claiming that you never claimed Bush lied? I am really close to never posting on this board again from stuff posted earlier. If you now take the position you never claimed he lied, I won't challenge. I will only post on PB in my Penske voice here after, unless you admit you are full of shit by midnight PST.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Torture is funny!

eta: quadfecta!

Penske recognized he was a net negative to this board and left. Your reason for staying is........?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In this post from Crooked Timber (links in original), Henry responds to something in the Economist, but he might as well be responding to Spanky.



eta: more here

"The critics mentioned in the piece aren’t making “the charge that [Bush] knew all along that Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction.” I’m not aware of anyone apart from a few crackpots who are."

This is such a preposterous lie. That is exactly what all the critics are saying. Almost no one I have read, or I have heard complaining has acknowledged Bush was not lying when he said there were WMDs. When people are saying Bush lied that are saying he knew there were no weapons of mass destruction. It was totally duplicitous to say Bush lied about the existence of the weapons, I guess I shouldn't expect to the same people to be honest about what they were saying. Once it became apparant that no matter how many time they repeated Bush lied it was still obvious it was B.S. on its face, they then try and claim they didn't mean what they meant.

This is really pathetic.

[Spanky]

I should point out that I am pretty sure that at one time Ty did admit to me that he did not think Bush lied. But he is the only one the board that has admitted it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I should point out that I am pretty sure that at one time Ty did admit to me that he did not think Bush lied. But he is the only one the board that has admitted it.

Suppose I'm selling a house, and it has water in the basement. I don't really know about the water down there, because I don't go down there, and when other people go down there I make it clear I don't want to hear what they saw. If I don't make some sort of disclosure about the water in the basement, I'm misleading the buyer. Perhaps I didn't lie, in the sense that I put myself in a position where I didn't have to say anything that was literally untrue. But if you're the buyer, you don't really care about the lying, per se. That's not the question. The question is, were you misled?

[soup sandwich]

I'm curious as to why no one ever talks about Saddam's violation of UN resolution (I forget the number...1441?), which allowed the use of force, anymore. To me, that was the biggest reason to go in (I'm a Dem who supported the invasion) and I was disgusted when all the other countries that approved the resolution didn't have the stones to back it up.

All of the WMD, mobile anthrax labs, and yellow cake stuff was just gravy to me, we went in because he fragrantly violated the UN resolution and someone had to enforce it.

Regarding whether Bush lied or not, I think he was ignorant of information that went against his case. Whether he was willfully ignorant is something that will become more clear years from now. Certainly he seemed to surround himself primarily with advocates of going to war instead of getting both sides of the story.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Suppose I'm selling a house, and it has water in the basement. I don't really know about the water down there, because I don't go down there, and when other people go down there I make it clear I don't want to hear what they saw. If I don't make some sort of disclosure about the water in the basement, I'm misleading the buyer. Perhaps I didn't lie, in the sense that I put myself in a position where I didn't have to say anything that was literally untrue. But if you're the buyer, you don't really care about the lying, per se. That's not the question. The question is, were you misled?

The problem with this entire debate is that we haven't had nearly enough analogies.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The issue, as the Economist’s journalists know bloody well, isn’t whether the Bush administration believed at one point that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It’s whether or not the Bush administration mendaciously manipulated intelligence to make the public case for their beliefs.

Damn, Ty. Since the run-up to the war and the beginning of the war and the war and the bloody insurgency following the war, it seems like every week you come up with some new "no, THAT"S not what we've been saying, we've always been saying _______!" The invasion was doomed, it went too fast, it's a quagmire, there would never be a vote or a constitution, the vote meant bad things, the constitution was flawed, the groups could never work together . . .

It's Eurasia this week, right?