by Shlomi Simhi
The set of debates is over, the polls show a closer race than ever, but it just might be that the presidential election will be decided by an event that hasn’t occurred yet. As October moves to its end, the possibility of an “October Surprise,” an event that would change the outcome of November 2nd elections, is diminishing. But it ain’t over until October is over.
So, what if there were a terrorist attack? Can political scientists predict the consequences it might have? Why do people have a common view that such an attack would serve President Bush? And how much do terrorists really care about who sits in the oval office?
In the past few months, American intelligence agencies have continued to collect fresh information reaffirming earlier government warnings that terrorist groups are intent on launching an attack aimed at “affecting the democratic process.” The lack of experience with pre-election terror in the United States leads most people who think of the potential consequences to learn from history. Almost all of them go back to the same place—Spain.
Four train bombings in Madrid on March 11 killed nearly 200 people. The incumbent conservative government supported the war on Iraq and had slight edge according to some polls. Sound familiar?
Three days later and in the wake of the attack, Spain's voters rejected Jose Maria Aznar's ruling Popular Party in favor of Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero's Socialists. Al Qaida claimed responsibility for the attack. Immediately following the elections, administration officials and right-wing media pundits in the Unites States denounced the Spanish population for learning the “wrong lesson” from the terrorist attacks and for “appeasing” terrorism.
Professor Robert Jervis, a widely respected international affairs scholar from Columbia University, doesn’t agree with this comparison. “In the Madrid case it’s not clear if it really turned the elections,” he said. “First of all, the government initially tried to blame ETA, Basque Armed Group, and it made it look incompetent. Second, some polls showed that it was more of a tie, than a right-wing lead.”
Professor Merrill Shanks, a political scientist at UC Berkeley, also sees a distinction between the United States and Spain: “The circumstances were very special, because there you had an unpopular war in the first place,” he said. Professor Brigitte Nacos, an expert on Mass Media and Terrorism at Columbia University, said that even if there was a change in the outcome of the elections in Spain, it shouldn’t be attributed to the terrorism. “It was an indirect effect, and the terrorists had no way to anticipate that the Spanish government would react they way it did,” she said.
Most political scientists agree that an attack works in favor of the incumbent president. “Anything that works on politics of fear, works in favor of the president”, said Professor Jervis. “Also, there is some truth in the argument that the crazier the world gets, the more it plays to the theme of the President’s campaign.”
Another factor that might play a role is the magnitude of the attack. “The bigger the attack is,” said Professor Henry Brady, UC Berkeley Professor of Political Science and Public Policy, “the greater the rally around the flag effect will be.”
As the election date gets closer, Senator Kerry’s prospects of gaining advantage from such an event are diminishing. “In the case of an attack immediately before the elections, it would help Bush because people will be angry and we will see them rally around the President,” said Professor Avery Goldstein, a political scientist who specializes in International Relations and Security Studies. “On the other hand, if the attack is several weeks before, then it might help Kerry, because we will have time to have a discussion about the fact that the administration hasn’t kept the United States as safe as the President promised.”
Dr. Michael McDonald, Assistant Professor of Government and Politics at George Mason University and currently a Visiting Fellow at Brookings Institution, explained why the timing might be critical for Kerry’s prospects. “The only way it can help him is if someone is able to prove Bush’s incompetence in dealing with the threats. Since we are so close to the elections, I can’t see how such investigative reporting can be published before the elections.”
Dr. McDonald said that an ‘October Surprise’ doesn’t necessarily have to be a terrorist attack. “It can also be the capture of Osama Bin Laden, or anything else that we can’t even think of.” The term, which is used this year to describe a large scope of potential surprises, comes from the 1980 campaign and the maneuvering around the release of the American hostages in Iran. It refers to an event engineered or manipulated by one of the campaigns – usually the incumbent president.
In a briefing for reporters last month about the pre-election threat, senior counterterrorism officials said that while intelligence repeatedly indicates that al-Qaida operatives oppose President Bush, no evidence has been found that they hope a successful attack might boost the candidacy of Senator Kerry. The anti-Bush sentiments, the officials said, are part of a broader hatred of the United States and Western democracies as a whole. "It's really not for our consumption," one official said of the motive behind the attack. "It's for their supporters.”
“You do terrorists attacks when you can, so it is hard believe they can do fine tuning and time it just before the elections,” said Professor Jervis. In Professor Brady’s opinion, the terrorists don’t care about changing the outcome of elections; they just want to create havoc. “Kerry and Bush are the same for the terrorists,” Brady said.
The argument that the terrorist are doing it for their supporters seems to be a “sensible analysis’’ said Professor Goldstein. “Whoever the president is, he will continue the war against terror. Neither candidate will withdraw from Iraq after such an attack. After all,” Goldstein said, “if we can’t figure out how such an attack will influence on the elections, they surely can not…”
by Ali Berzon, Tomio Geron, Marjorie McAfee, Felicia Mello, Claire Miller, Aliza Nadi, Emilia Pablo, Shlomi Simhi, Sandhya Somashekhar and Timothy Wheeler
A satiric resume of President George W. Bush has been making appearances in the blogosphere and the email accounts of just about every US voter with a friend fond of forward-spam. Entertaining as it is, the resume begged to be fact checked, and students in Susan Rasky’s J200- Reporting the News class took on the task.
Here’s the first of what they found (more to come):
In my first year of office, I set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in U.S. history (tough to beat my dad’s, but I did).
First of all, the wording of this question makes it false to begin with: It states that in his first year of office, Bush set the record for vacation days of any president – implying that it is comparing his first year against the four or eight year terms of other presidencies.
A CBS News analysis from 1999 found that President Reagan spent 335 days on vacation throughout his eight-year term. Clearly, Bush did not spend 335 days out of a single year on vacation, so we can already determine that this is not a true statement.
A more commonly repeated statement, and perhaps more accurate, is Michael Moore’s charge in Fahrenheit 9/11 that Bush spent 42% of his first eight months on vacation. This assertion is backed up by a Washington Post article from August 6, 2001 by Mike Allen stating that including a vacation he was on when the article was published, Bush spent all or part of 54 days through August 2001 at his ranch in Crawford, plus another 38 full or partial days at Camp David, plus four days at his parents’ estate in Kennebunkport, Maine, for a total of 42% of his presidency through August, 2001. These statistics were, in the article, undisputed by Scott McClellan, Bush’s spokesperson. Also indicating the veracity of the implication that Bush’s vacations were unprecedented: At an August 3rd press briefing, according to the Whitehouse archive of briefing transcripts, Whitehouse Press Secretary Ari Fleisher was asked by a reporter, “Ari, the American people sent him here to the White House. He's going to set a modern record for not being here,” Fleisher did not dispute the idea that Bush might be “setting a modern record” for time away from Washington. It is, however, necessary to consider a few other factors. Simply stating that Bush was on vacation for that time is misleading. Many of those days were weekends, so under the way many people conceive of vacation time as time away from a regular workweek, it is questionable whether or not those days would count at all. Also, the Camp David “vacations” included working meetings with foreign leaders, which would still be considered working time.
Also important to consider… in examining White House press briefing transcripts from August 2001, it is clear that Bush’s spokespeople emphasized that Bush was working part-time during his Crawford vacations. On August 3rd, Press Secretary Ari Fleisher said that while on a month-long vacation Bush would receive security briefings every day, would do “a little policy,” and would be traveling around two days out of the week. Perhaps anticipating public opinion that Bush was “loafing,” Fleisher repeatedly called it a “working vacation” and said it would include “parts work and parts vacation.” On August 22, 2001, for example, at a briefing out of Crawford, Fleisher said that Bush had spoken with President Fox of Mexico in the morning to discuss the economic situation in Argentina and immigration policies, and would be meeting in a few days with defense experts about military transformation and strategic reviews.
It is, however, also worth nothing that there were only five press briefings in the entire month of August 2001, while Bush was on vacation, significantly fewer than previous months, perhaps indicating that there was not doing a lot worth reporting while he was on his “working” vacation. (Alexandra Berzon)
After taking the entire month of August off for a vacation, I presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history.
According to multiple newspaper articles and press briefings from the time period, Bush was on vacation for 28 days in August, 2001 - from August 4 through the end of the month.
This has been confirmed, again in multiple newspaper articles, as the longest vacation in 32 years, when Nixon took a 30-day vacation. The White House has not disputed these facts.
In terms of the “worst security failure in U.S. history” – this is a very difficult question to confirm as it depends on how you define “security failure.” Do you quantify failure by the level of the attack, by how many people were killed, or by how preventable the attack should have been? The September 11th Commission Report is perhaps the most credible source in terms of how great the September 11th security failure actually was.
According to CNN, the Commission cited the following failures:
--Neither Bush nor his predecessor Bill Clinton understood the gravity of the threats posed by terrorists because the leaders could not imagine such attacks.
--The CIA was limited in its effort to try to capture al Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants in Afghanistan by the agency's use of proxies.
--Terrorism was not the top national security concern and missed opportunities to thwart the attack indicate the government's inability to adapt to new challenges.
--The failure of the CIA and FBI to communicate with each other -- sometimes because of "legal misunderstandings" -- led to missed "operational opportunities" to hinder or break the terror plot.
--The CIA did not put 9/11 hijacker Khalid Almihdhar on a "watch list" or notify the FBI when he had a U.S. visa in January 2000 or when he met with a key figure in the USS Cole bombing. And the CIA failed to develop plans to track Almihdhar, or hijacker Nawaf Alhazmi when he obtained a U.S. visa and flew to Los Angeles. Both men were on American Airlines Flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon.
The FBI failed to recognize the significance of Almihdhar and Alhazmi's arrival in the United States or the significance of al Qaeda member Zacarias Moussaoui's training and beliefs after his arrest in Minnesota in August 2001. It is impossible to compare these failures with previous security failures in U.S. history, such as Pearl Harbor, to make a quantifiable declaration of which is the most serious. For example, 2,400 people died in Pearl Harbor, less than the 2,800 death toll of September 11th. Judged on those terms, September 11th was worse. However, was Pearl Harbor more or less preventable? Which had more of an impact in terms of future policies and generations? It is impossible to know objectively if these are even relevant questions to ask in determining the more serious security failure, much less find the answers to them. (Alexandra Berzon)
I set the record for the most campaign fundraising trips by any president.
Bush has raised $263,695,189 through August 31, 2004, according to the Federal Elections Commission, which monitors federal campaign giving. Through the same time period in 1996, for example, according to the FEC, Clinton had raised $41,739,746.
The non-profit consumer rights and governmental watchdog organization Public Citizen has counted 60 fundraising events at which Bush appeared between June 17, 2003 and April 5, 2004. However, it is not clear whether this is a complete list, and it does not include activity since April. Also, there does not appear to be a comparable list for previous presidencies. Therefore, what can be concluded is that Bush has raised an unprecedented amount of money, and one may therefore be able to theorize from that that he may have made more campaign fundraising appearances. However, other conclusions could also be drawn, such as the influence of internet fundraising, the changes in the campaign finance laws, etc. Therefore, the statement cannot be verified. (Alexandra Berzon)
In my first two years in office over two million Americans lost their jobs.
According to the Democratic Policy Committee, which tracks Bush’s record, 2.7 million private sector jobs were lost between 2001 and 2003. This has been offset by increases in jobs in the public sector, but the report concludes that the total net job losses were still above two million during this period. Charts from the Bureau of Labor Statistics confirm that job losses significantly outpaced job gains between 2001 and 2003.
However, it is worth pointing out that the wording of this phrase is still problematic. Taken literally, the number of Americans who lost their jobs was far more than 2 million. Between 1993 and 2003, for example, the number of gross job losses was consistently above seven million per quarter, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This, of course, is offset by job gains, which normally outpace job losses (but did not during the first two years of Bush’s administration). (Alexandra Berzon)
I cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in U.S. history.
The federal government occasionally acts to extend the normal 26 week state unemployment benefits for 13 additional weeks when there is a recession or declining job market that makes it difficult for the unemployed to find new jobs. Bush signed an extension in May 2001, as well as in January 2003 and May 2003. The May extension was set to expire at the end of December 2003, and Congress left for a recess without acting on an extension. Democrats have repeatedly tried to pass an extension of the benefits, and, by a narrow margin, have not gotten the votes they need.
By all accounts, Bush has done nothing to encourage Republicans in the Congress to pass the extension.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that two million unemployed workers ran out of benefits between January, 2004 and June, 2004, and states that this is the most for any sixth month period since at least 1973, when data was first collected, even if the number is adjusted to reflect the growth in the labor force. The Center, a liberal non-profit economic policy organization, reports that this analysis was conducted using data from the Labor Department. The wording in the resume statement is again misleading--Bush did not cut the benefits--he just allowed an extension to expire without being extended. Also, it was not him but the Republican-led Congress that made this decision, although it is true that he did not use his influence as president to pressure the Republicans into passing the extension. However, although somewhat misleading, the larger point of the statement is generally verifiable. (Alexandra Berzon)
I spent the U.S. surplus and bankrupted the U.S. Treasury.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the government’s total budget surplus was $69 billion in fiscal year 1998, and rose to $236 billion by FY 2000. But by fiscal year 2001 the surplus had fallen to $127 billion, and by FY 2002 the books were in the red.
By 2003, the total budget deficit reached $375 billion. (Prior to 1998, budget deficits were more common; 1998 was the first year there was an actual surplus since 1969, according to CBO).
As for bankrupting the Treasury: According to the Treasury Department itself, the country has been consistently in debt since the 1830s. The amount of debt has risen during times of war and recession, and has been rising steadily since the 1970s. Under President Bush, the debt has increased from roughly $5,700 billion to $6,100 billion, according to the Office of Management and Budget. (Felicia Mello)
I shattered the record for the biggest annual deficit in history.
The total budget deficit for fiscal year 2003 was $375 billion, the largest since the CBO started keeping records in 1962. But as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, this deficit was far outpaced by those of the early 1980s and early 1990s. In 1983, when Ronald Reagan was president, the budget deficit was 6 percent of GDP, the largest on record, compared with only 1.5 percent in 2002 and 3.5 percent in 2003. (Felicia Mello)
I set an economic record for the most personal bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.
The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts reported 1,661,996 total bankruptcy filings in the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003 (Chapters 7, 11, 12, and 13 combined). This was the greatest amount of filings in any 12-month period on record. Of those bankruptcies, 1,625,813 were personal bankruptcies, also a record high. Because some married couples file jointly, this figure may represent close to 2 million people in bankruptcy. Bankruptcy filings have risen 98% since 1994 (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts). (FM)
I set an all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the stock market.
Well, this really depends on what you measure. Most analysts agree that the worst single day in stock market history was Black Monday—October 19, 1987—when the Dow Jones lost a quarter of its value in just a few hours, followed closely by October 28, 1929, also known as Black Tuesday. In percentage terms, April 14, 2000 ranks as the ninth biggest single-day drop. It is the only day during Bush’s presidency to make the Top-10 list, according to Dow Jones.
In terms of index points, however, the largest net loss was on September 17, 2001—six days after the September 11 attacks--when the Dow fell 685 points in one day. The sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-biggest net losses also occurred under Bush’s watch. But eight of the top-10 one-day rises in the Dow also occurred during his presidency (Dow Jones). The figures may just be a sign that the stock market is larger now, or generally more volatile, than it was in earlier years.
Between 2000 and 2002, the Dow only lost 17 percent of its value. But the NASDAQ, on the other hand, lost 78 percent of its value in the same time period. Since NASDAQ was only established in 1971, one could argue that was the largest drop in its history. (Felicia Mello)
I am the first president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.
True, with some caveats. The federal death penalty was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1972 but restored in 1988 (Federal Bureau of Prisons). Timothy McVeigh, who masterminded the Oklahoma City bombing, was executed on June 11, 2001 and was the first person to be executed since the restoration of the death penalty. Since then, two other federal prisoners, Juan Raul Garza and Louis Jones, have also been executed (Federal Bureau of Prisons).
The Attorney General, John Ashcroft, can instruct prosecutors to seek the death penalty. If a defendant is convicted, sentenced to death, and exhausts his or her appeals, President Bush is the only person with the power to grant clemency (Death Penalty Information Center). Both Bush and Ashcroft are strong supporters of the death penalty—Texas executed 152 people under Bush’s watch, and Ashcroft’s Justice Department has pursued far more death penalty cases than under his predecessor, Janet Reno (Death Penalty Information Center). (Felicia Mello)
I refused to allow inspectors access to U.S. prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.
The author doesn’t clarify what kind of inspectors Bush didn’t allow, but under the Geneva Conventions, the International Committee of the Red Cross is responsible for visiting prisoners of war. From the ICRC: "Prisoners of war (POWs) and civilian internees (CI) are protected by the Geneva Conventions, which also give the ICRC the right to visit them. The ICRC has been mandated by the international community, under the Geneva Conventions, to ensure that international humanitarian law is applied fully. Among the ICRC's tasks are visits to prisoners, both military and civilian." If the author is referring to ICRC inspectors, this is false – according to the ICRC, it has received access to U.S. prisoners of war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay.
The author also doesn’t clarify which prisoners of war – those in Iraq or Guantanamo Bay. In Guantanamo Bay, where the United States detains suspected al Qaeda members captured in the war on terror, it’s true that the administration does not abide by the Geneva Conventions. This is not, however, “by default” because it doesn’t allow inspectors (it does.) Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions defines prisoners of war as fighters who are part of a nation’s armed forces or organized militia and who wear identifying uniforms and carry arms openly. The Bush administration says al Qaeda members don’t meet these qualifications. It labels them unlawful or enemy combatants, thereby maintaining that they don’t have to be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. In a White House press briefing on January 28, 2002, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said, “As for the people who are the detainees who are being held in Cuba, the determination has been made that they are not and will not be considered POWs. … they are unlawful combatants,” and the president has referred to them many times as enemy combatants.
In Iraq, the Bush administration says it is abiding by the Geneva Conventions for Iraqi prisoners of war detained there. However, not all soldiers are following the conventions’ rules. Article 3 says prisoners must not be subjected to physical or mental torture or coercion. However, at Abu Ghraib and other prisons in Iraq U.S. soldiers abused prisoners, and several have been sentenced. Major General Antonio M. Taguba conducted an internal Army investigation in February 2004 and concluded that the abuse was taking place, and military courts have found the same thing. (Claire Miller)
I am the first president in U.S. history to refuse United Nations election inspectors access during the 2002 U.S. elections.
This is false (putting aside the fact that as written it’s literally true, since Bush was the only president during the 2002 U.S. elections.) According to the United Nations Electoral Assistance Division, within the Department of Political Affairs, the office of the president of the member state (the United States in this case) "must send an official written request for assistance to the United Nations Focal Point for Electoral Assistance Activities (e.g. the Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs) at least 3 months before the scheduled election to allow for meaningful involvement," which the White House did not do. The U.N. lists each member state that asked for and received electoral assistance between 1992 (when the electoral assistance division was established) and 2004, and the United States is not listed as having requested it. (Claire Miller)
I am the all-time U.S. (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.
This is false, because corporations are not allowed to make campaign donations to candidates running for federal office or state office in Texas. The Federal Election Commission says: “The [Federal Election Campaign] Act prohibits corporations and labor organizations from using their treasury funds to make contributions or expenditures in connection with federal elections.” Texas also bans corporate contributions. Some campaign finance watchers calculate corporate donations by calculating the amount of money corporations’ political action committees and individual employees of a corporation donate to a candidate, but neither of these are actually corporate campaign donations to Bush.
It’s impossible to determine corporate campaign donations worldwide. (Claire Miller)
The biggest lifetime contributor to my campaign, and also one of my best friends, presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation.)
This is false, according to FEC information compiled on opensecrets.org, the website of the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-profit, non-partisan research organization founded by Ralph Nader that tracks campaign money. (The numbers can be verified on www.fec.gov.) Independently, Kenneth Lay contributed the maximum amount he could to Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign ($2,000), but thousands of other people also donated the maximum. So far, Lay has not contributed to Bush’s 2004 campaign, so other individual donors have out-donated him. Along with many others, in 2000 Lay was also a Bush Pioneer – someone who raised over $100,000 in contributions of $1,000 or less – according to the Bush campaign.
Enron has donated $736,800 to Bush’s campaigns – $312,500 to his 1994 and 1998 gubernatorial campaigns, $113,800 to his 2000 presidential campaign, $10,500 to his 2000 recount fund, and $300,000 to his 2001 inaugural fund, also according to Open Secrets. (These donations are a compilation of soft money, money from Enron’s PAC, and individual employees’ donations, including Lay’s.) These contributions make Enron one of the largest corporate donors (though not the largest) to Bush’s presidential campaigns – so the statement is false. Recent data shows that the credit card company MBNA has out-donated Enron.
Enron WAS the biggest corporate donor to both of Bush’s gubernatorial campaigns, according to Texans for Public Justice, a non-profit Texas-based group that describes itself as non-partisan and “a vocal advocate for citizen rights, open government, and corporate accountability in Texas.” Its numbers match with other reports; official Texas numbers are only available from 2000 on. Lay himself was not the largest individual donor to Bush’s Texas campaigns – he donated $100,000 while someone named Dennis R. Berman gave $175,000. (Claire Miller)
I spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in U.S. history.
It’s hard to say, definitively. A portion of this information can be found by reviewing Bush’s financial disbursement filings, available through the FEC, and tallying the amount of money paid to companies that run polls and focus groups. Then, the same thing would have to be done with past presidents, and the numbers compared. According to a “Washington Monthly” article, the RNC disbursement filings at the FEC for the year 2001 revealed that the Bush administration spent $346,000 on principal pollsters and, including independent polling firms, about $1 million overall. The reporter said this was about double what Clinton generally spent per year, but there is no way of knowing in either case whether that is the total amount spent on such services. (Claire Miller)
The poorest multimillionaire, Condoleezza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.
True, at least until Chevron renamed the vessel Altair Voyager, after a star. On May 5, 2001 Chevron spokesman Fred Gorell confirmed that the company had renamed the tanker.
Rice, a Chevron Corp. director since 1991, resigned from the company's board, effective Jan. 15, 2001 to join the new Bush Administration as the President’s National Security Advisor. (Shlomi Simhi)
I am the first president in US history to have all 50 states of the Union simultaneously struggle against bankruptcy.
By late November 2001, the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) reported that 44 states (including the District of Columbia) were reporting that revenues were coming in under projection, while 22 reported that expenditures were over budget. As a result, 36 states were in the process of, or were considering, cutting expenditures planned for fiscal year 2002.
As the U.S. economy turned down in late 2000, state and local budgets came under increasing pressure. After averaging almost $22 billion (annual rate) over the first half of 2001, aggregate budget surpluses of state and local governments fell to $1.9 billion by the third quarter of 2001. As the growth of tax receipts slowed dramatically, many states, most of which operate under some sort of balanced-budget requirement, were forced to trim planned outlays, raise taxes and/or redirect money from "rainy day" funds. This marked a reversal of the tax reduction trend that was in place from 1995 to 2001.
The Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research determined in July 2003 that a trough in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in November 2001. The trough marked the end of the recession that began in March 2001 and the beginning of an expansion. The recession lasted 8 months, which is slightly less than average for recessions since World War II. (Shlomi Simhi)
I presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud in any market in any country in the history of the world.
In the eyes of many people in this world, “the history of the world” is a meaningless phrase. The fall of the value of investors' equity per share in Enron during 2001 was from $85 to 30 cents. This was an unprecedented and disastrous event in the American financial world and Enron became one of the largest corporate failures in history. Was it the largest fraud ever? No one can say for sure. Can you really compare the depth and disruption of previous stock market frauds in history, in relative terms, to what happened with Enron?
Almost 300 years ago, the English had Enron of their own. In 1720 stock in The South Sea Company (SSC) in England had risen to 890 pounds, where it peaked. Since the Spanish never intended to give the English free trade in the ports of Spanish America, The whole scheme of paying off government debt through trade in South America was doomed to fail. In early 1721 the company was wound up and shareholders were paid a dividend of a little over 33 pounds. The directors of the company were found guilty of fraud as they sought to raise the stock through fictitious reports. (Shlomi Simhi)
I am the first president in US history to order a US attack AND military occupation of a sovereign nation, and I did so against the will of the United Nations and the vast majority of the international community.
False. The Dominican Republic proclaimed its national independence on February 27, 1844. In 1916, under President Woodrow Wilson, the United States Army occupied the country. The Army remained until 1922, when President Warren G. Harding agreed to end American military occupation and hold national elections to establish a new government.
In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson again sent troops to the Dominican Republic. He removed the troops in 1966.
In December 1898, the United States purchased the Philippines from Spain at the Treaty of Paris for the sum of $20 million, after the United States defeated Spain in the Spanish-American War. The United States government made plans to make the Philippines an American colony. However, the Filipinos, fighting for their independence from Spain since 1896, had already declared their independence on June 12. On August 14, President Teddy Roosevelt send 11,000 ground troops to occupy the Philippines.
Also, in 1983, under Ronald W. Reagan Presidency, United States Armed Forces occupied the island nation of Grenada. (Shlomi Simhi)
I have created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States, called the “Bureau of Homeland Security”
Not quite true. Though not the classic bureaucracy, the Department of Defense is the nation’s largest employer, with 2.3 million military (Active, Reserve and Guard) and almost 700,000 civilians (Office of Management and Budget, The White House Website).
On March 1, 2003, approximately 180,000 personnel from 22 different organizations around the government became part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – It was certainly the biggest federal bureaucracy since the 1947 creation of the Defense Department, but it’s not the largest government bureaucracy.
The DHS is currently the second largest government agency. For comparison, The Department of Justice, that is comprised of 39 separate component organizations, has about 113,000 workers, The Department of Health and Human Services has 66,000 workers; the State Department has 30,000 employees and the Department of the Education has only 5,000. (Shlomi Simhi)
I set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in history.
True. Overall annual spending under Bush went from $1.789 trillion in fiscal 2000 to $2.011 trillion in 2002, according to congressional budget officials. With the 2003 budget, Bush asked Congress for $2.1 trillion. The White House projects that spending will rise to $2.2 trillion in the 2004 fiscal year. Bush projected the government would run $106 billion in the red, thus returning to deficit-spending for the first time since 1997.
The Treasury Department announced on October 14, 2004, that Bush has set the record for annual deficit, bringing it to $413 billion. (Marjorie McAfee)
I am the first president in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.
True. On Thursday, May 3, 2001, the United Nations' 53-member Economic and Social Commission voted against a continued US presence at the UN Human Rights Commission for the first time since the Commission was established in 1947. UN diplomats told reporters the US had failed to lobby sufficiently to shore up support for its election. They also pointed to European irritation with the Bush administration on issues ranging from Bush's proposed missile defense system and the American reluctance to pay its UN dues to US failure to back the Kyoto agreement on global warming, an international criminal court and the nuclear test ban treaty. Some mentioned being fed up with "heavy handed" lobbying by former US Ambassador to the UN Richard Holbrooke.
However, the US regained its seat on the commission one year later. (Marjorie McAfee)
I am the first president in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Elections Monitoring Board.
False. In July 2004, Congress voted against a bill that would invite the U.N. to monitor the 2004 presidential elections, as a way to ensure fairness and avoid the debacles of the 2000 presidential election which many Democrats accused Republicans of swaying their way. (Marjorie McAfee)
I removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight, than any presidential administration in U.S. history.
A matter of opinion. While it’s true that President Bush has enjoyed having his party in control of the House (and some might argue the Supreme Court, too) for much of his first term in office, he is not the first president in that situation. The Democrats controlled the Senate during Bill Clinton’s first two years in the White House, for example. Regardless, to accuse President Bush of “removing” checks and balances by having Republicans hold many elected positions of power is a stretch.
What this accusation may be referring to is the controversial USA Patriot Act the President put into place after 9/11. Supporters of the Patriot Act say it is meant to preserve our freedom and safety. Opponents, like the ACLU, say it invades privacy and breaks constitutional rights, like freedom of speech; this argument may have devolved into this accusation that the President removed checks and balances. (Marjorie McAfee)
I rendered the entire United Nations viewpoints irrelevant.
Subjectively worded, but true. Bush went against the U.N. which voted against war in Iraq by declaring war there anyway. In the fall of 2003, Bush said that he would refuse to compromise with France and other members of the Security Council who pleaded with the president to cede control over Iraq to the United Nations. Indeed, the U.S. currently maintains control of Iraq, and thus continues to disregard the wishes of the United Nations.
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said the war in Iraq was not in conformity with the U.N. charter. He "raised questions about the legitimacy" of the action by the United States and Britain to go to war without specific authority from the Security Council. (Marjorie McAfee)
I withdrew the United States from the World Court of Law
True. On June 23, 2004, The United States announced it was dropping its effort to gain immunity for its troops from prosecution by the International Criminal Court. The U.S.’s efforts to gain immunity were broadly opposed by the U.N. Security Council.
This move was a departure from the previous administration. On December 31, 2000, President Clinton signed a treaty joining America to the International Criminal Court. Clinton noted that Senator Trent Lott and other Republican senators opposed this move because they feared U.S. soldiers sent to other countries could be brought before the court for political reasons. Clinton shared that same concern, but ultimately felt the treaty was constructed in a way that would prevent such a situation. (Marjorie McAfee)
Whether or not you believe "values voters" are going to make a big difference in this election (and the Bush campaign is betting huge that they will), religion has consistently bubbled to the surface of issues in this election.
Looking beyond the ubiquitous use of religious phrases in presidential speechifying ("May God continue to bless America"), religious disputes appeared in everything from the prospect of Catholic priests denying pro-choice politicians communion to using lists of churchgoers as political mailing lists.
So it should come as no surprise that even a murky category of religious voters is sharply divided on where its votes will go. John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter, who writes the most consistently insightful column on culture and religion, has done some informal polling of the Vatican and picks Kerry to win a hypothetical Holy See vote 60-40.
Allen breaks down two categories of Catholics: Blue Catholics are those who support strong international cooperation in global affairs, and those who prioritize a "culture of life" and oppose abortion, same-sex marriage and stem cell research are Red Catholics. Which to me sounds a lot like the breakdown of non-religious voting groups....
You knew it was coming. It was all but inevitable.
Wonkette has just posted a Presidential Debate Drinking Game.
Political debates have long since sacrificed a lively exchange of ideas for rote recitation of platitudes, leaving astute viewers to read between the lines for what is implied or else drift off, eyes glazed, into slumberland.
So while we at the PRP are analyzing the deeper meanings of the debate with assorted experts and political junkies, we exhort all of you out there in the ether to experience it in that age-old American way: by drinking your way beyond the point of caring.
Among the many gems of the Wonkette post:
In a presidential contest that has increasingly centered on who is manlier, George W. Bush and John Kerry will finally appear head-to-head in the first presidential debate. And, after months of rhetorical wrangling and attacks by just-distanced-enough surrogates, it is time for the candidates themselves to “bring it on.”
It is Round One (at least for much of the country) in the bout for the presidency, with Bush hoping for the KO and Kerry looking to prove himself a scrappy (and electable) challenger.
“George Bush is a fighter, he's a good fighter,” legendary boxing promoter Don King told CNN at the Republican convention. “His fighting in politics is like the fighting in the ring. They don't give in and they don't give up and they don't quit.”
Alas, I only see Jim Lehrer getting in the way of the mano-a-mano duel.
The pre-match expectations game has been in full force -- with Republicans hailing Kerry as a masterful debater and Democrats ensuring that word gets out that Bush has won every debate he has ever entered. The truth, as usual, seems to lie somewhere in between.
Since the GOP convention, Kerry has been vigorously trying to fight off the newest political label: being a “girlie man.” He does photo-ops with guns. He interviews with Field and Stream magazine. And every so often some low-level Kerry campaign flak happens to mention that Mr. Bush, not Mr. Kerry, was once a cheerleader.
Simply put: girlie men don’t win elections when terrorism is the central campaign issue.
And so in a successful showing, Kerry must hammer away that there is nothing noble (or manly) about being both resolute and wrong. He must embrace his role as the challenger, as the candidate of change. Yes, Kerry voted to authorize force in Iraq, but no, he is not satisfied with how Bush has (mis)handled the conflict. Change, in the form of a new administration, is necessary to right this wrong. And when Bush begins to wobble, Kerry ought to jab him with the “real” costs of the war, in terms of homeland security, education, health care and the economy.
Bush, meanwhile, will rely on his strategy of keeping it simple, stupid. And it is best not to misunderestimate this plainspoken quasi-Texan. His stump speech on Iraq is riveting: “Do I forget the lessons of September the 11th and hope for the best when it comes to a madman, or take action to defend the country? Given the choice, I will defend this country every time.” And if Bush can frame the argument like that, he will blow Kerry and his pathetic “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it” shtick out of the water.
And yet the match these two pols face is far tougher than that of a mere prize-fighter. Because they must not only tear their opponent down, but be likable while doing it. No ear-biting shenanigans, please. That does not play well with the swing voters in Ohio. So while the match may not be fought cleanly, the winning candidate must at least appear to have tried to take the high road.
So kick back, grab some popcorn and tune in to fight night. It’s sure to be the bout of the year.
Dick Cheney only has one thing on his mind, according to this morning’s New York Times: death, death and more death. While trucking through the swing states with his wife, Cheney avoids the issues of jobs, the economy and the environment. He sticks with the War on Terror. In California, where our votes are sewn up, we can only imagine what that sounds like.
Maybe something like:
“Our country is at a crossroads today. As we speak, terrorist cells are organizing to bomb major cities. It’s the truth, it’s unavoidable, and it could be happening on your block, or in your home, or in your bathroom, or even under that chair in the first row.
"Osama bin Saddam is planning on using massive nuclear weapons to kill thousands, millions, of innocent Americans, and most of you have only one option: stay home in a bomb-proof basement. Make that bathtub in the southeast corner your personal nest. Bring provisions such as food, water and radioactive-repellent clothing that can last for four to six months.
"My good friend Tom Ridge says those particularly targeted by Al Qaeda-Taliban-insurgents are black men between the ages of 18 and 84 residing in Florida, Michigan, and Illinois. They should not leave their homes in October or November, under any conditions.
"Terrorists and those who harbor them have enough personal-sized nuclear weapons to take out each Arab-American twice over. All Arab-Americans should simply lock the door, not leave home, and avoid using the mail for bill-paying, sending letters, or casting absentee ballots until 2005.
"Coastal states -- including Florida -- and central states -- including Minnesota -- are vulnerable to a hailstorm of atomic pain raining on them in the next few months.
"Registered Democrat? The terrorist networks have your name on a list. And they will use that list. Especially if that list is from Ohio.”
Both candidates have made the War on Terror the central issue of their campaigns. Fear is the chosen method for getting people to the polls. It’s a sad day for democracy when talking about annihilation is the only way to convince voters to vote.
Union Square was the center of protests at the Republican National Convention in New York. I was there on August 31, watching assorted liberals, lefties and angry New Yorkers mount bicycles to disrupt car traffic or hand chalk to anyone feeling the need of self-expression.
A short man carrying, it seemed, most of his possessions in two plastic grocery sacks walked up the steps toward the other homeless people who were shoved to the square's border
All of these protestors, many claiming to care deeply about the economy and what it was doing to the common person, brushed past the little man. They wouldn’t look him in the eye; afraid he’d ask them for a quarter or something.
He didn’t ask. He listened to a friend who talked at top-speed about what Bush says and what Kerry says. He started walking away, but the friend followed, nettling him some more about Bush and Kerry.
The man stopped, his shoulders rounding as if he carried the election itself in his two sacks. He turned back to the crowds, and yelled, “We get tired.”
When it comes to the War on Terror, and watching faces on television explain that the current security alert level means we’re all doomed, or listening to politicians sensationalize our fear of painful death, I can only say one thing: I get tired.
The Bush and Kerry campaigns this week agreed on the rules of engagement for three presidential debates and one vice-presidential debate planned before the November election. In the negotiated memorandum of understanding,[7.2 MB PDF download] the candidates agree to fork over their notepaper for inspection before each debate to make sure nobody’s bringing cheat sheets.
They’re not allowed to bring props, either. This hopefully includes wetsuits and flight suits as well as charts and diagrams.
The agreement also designates that the Oct. 8 presidential debate in St. Louis will be done “town hall” style.
“Town hall” evokes an idyllic democratic process, where engaged citizens pack into the biggest room in town to ask the questions they need answered before they choose which candidate gets their votes. If rustic television’s Andy Griffith ever needed to run for reelection as sheriff of Mayberry, this is where he’d give frank answers to tough questions.
But the rules governing the St. Louis debate add layers between candidates and the participating audience. Questioners must submit their written questions to the moderator, recite them as written and then just listen without asking any follow up questions.
It would be nice to hear a little back and forth. It’s unlikely any question will be wholly unanticipated, but a discussion with an informed voter could take the debate in unpredictable directions.
But both candidates have been increasingly wary of risking the unexpected of late.
Much has been written about the vetted crowds at the “Ask President Bush” events, and Kerry chose an invitation-only audience of NYU students as the venue to deliver a scathing attack on Bush’s Iraq policy on Monday.
And both candidates have become even more reluctant to submit themselves to questioning from the press.