Altercation

• Feb. 13, 2004 | 12:14 PM ET

What to do about Drudge?  A clear demarcation has emerged over how to handle Drudge’s Kerry intern story.  It is all over the Internet and dominating the blogosphere with Wonkette in the lead, in every imaginable way.  The only major media to carry it were those with a right-wing ideological axe to grind, (Fox, Limbaugh, etc,) those with no journalistic standards of which to speak (Fox, Limbaugh, etc) and the unhappy nexus between the two that seems to drive everybody else.  Apparently Imus raised it with Kerry this morning, which I guess was on MSNBC, and Kerry dismissed it, which means it will be all over the rest of the media in a minute.

If that turns out to be true, the difference between big media ethics/standards and the no-standards bloggosphere/internet/right-wing conspiracy is exactly a day.  If the story is true, it’s a clear manifestation of my prevailing feeling about Kerry, which is that he’d make the best president but is quite risky as the candidate.  Anyway, let’s see.

Nice production values on this Ralph Don't Run thing and thanks to Jeralyn for bringing it our attention.

New Nation column, on Al Gore, the media, and his terrific speech at the Social Research/New School Fear conference here.

Hey look, Bob Novak is so unpatriotic that he blew the cover of a CIA agent even though “two officials told investigators they warned Novak that by naming Plame he might potentially jeopardize her ability to engage in covert work, stymie ongoing intelligence operations, and jeopardize sensitive overseas sources.”  And this guy calls himself a conservative?  Maybe it’s time we redefined the term to mean “draft-dodger, nation-builder, budget-buster, CIA-hater."

Today’s Book on Bush rant.  Hey look, James Pinkerton and Washington Post Book World editors, according to um, The Washington Post,

“A majority of Americans believe President Bush either lied or deliberately exaggerated evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction in order to justify war, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll,” and “barely half -- 52 percent -- now believe Bush is 'honest and trustworthy.'"

I guess that means the question of why the guy is so beloved by and “so far ahead” is not really that germane to the current situation, much less to a review of a book that does not purport to analyze his popularity, but rather focuses on the effects of his policies.  Read all about it here.

Name: Stupid
Hometown: Chicago
Eric, it's Stupid to quote Ray Davies.  Because it sure is a mixed-up, muddled-up shook-up world when it takes Utah (Utah!!!) to call Dubya on his uber-unfunded mandate, otherwise known as the "Leave No Child Behind" law.  The administration begged them not to do it, because it knows what a powder keg this could turn into.  Shockingly, their pleas went unheard: the staunchly Republican Utah house voted 64-8 to forbid any state money to be spent on the Leave No Child Behind mandates.  

In effect, they have called Dubya's bluff, saying,  "OK, if you're so supportive of kids?  Let's see if this money you gave us is enough to do all of this."  It won't come close.  But then what happens?  Will Dubya be asked why his budget put Iraq and tax breaks for the wealthy ahead of --his own-- agenda for kids?  Will he be asked why child illiteracy is less a priority than going to Mars?  Will he be challenged with the 1994 GOP battle cries against unfunded mandates?  Will Carole Simpson get to ask, "What about that, son of the education president?" during a debate?  If I were Kerry I'd leap on this and say you're carrying the great bipartisan battle flag: that if Dubya is going to keep one of his promises, we'll force him to keep it to our kids.

Speaking of Kerry, I found this reassuring: a former summer intern to senator Dick Durbin wrote to Newsweek describing a morning commute when Senator Kerry, who was obviously busy and weighed down with reading material, walked over to chat with him for a few minutes and then thanked him for his service.  The writer said this contrasted with the indifference that most of the senators treated the clerks.  I know that's a trifling story, but I like hearing that my probable candidate is also a good bloke.

Name: S. Hodge
Hometown: Austin, TX
So far only the Los Angeles Times has reported that Stephen Burke, who will probably be running Disney (including ABC and ABC news) if the Comcast takeover goes through, is a Bush "Ranger."  Where is the SCLM on this one?

• Feb. 12, 2004 | 2:36 PM ET

Mickey Kaus can’t make up his mind if young John Kerry should have enlisted to fight a war he opposed or gone to jail on behalf of his convictions. All well-known reporters and bloggers who take a position on this are invited to employ this space to

1. explain what acts of comparable physical and moral courage they have displayed that are in some way analogous either to serving in combat or going to prison in support of their principles, and
2. explain what comparable physical and moral courage President Bush has displayed that are in some way analogous either to serving in combat or going to prison in support of his principles.

I sure as hell have never faced any decision as difficult as that one, I am happy to report, and therefore I’m a bit hesitant to judge those who have, much less those whose decisions led them to risk their own lives to do what they believed to be the right thing.

Speaking of Kerry, he’s been getting, surprise, surprise, a raw deal from the media, according to Spinsanity. 

(You may or may not know what has been e-mailed to me about a zillion times this morning, that Drudge is reporting that the Kerry campaign is about to implode over an intern sex story.  I don’t ipso facto believe anything I read on Drudge, so I’m not going to make a big deal about its hypothetical implications.  But readers should know that lots of people are.  It’s a wildfire story and if it does pan out, then everything is once again up in the air.)

"Are you at this moment, Mr. President, under the influence of any medication?"

"That's interesting, Mr. President, now can you answer the question that I asked?"

Those two questions, generously offered up by the distinguished Mr. Charles Pierce, did not make it into my “Think Again” column in which I pose a limited-by-space series of questions that Tim Russert should have asked President Bush if he hadn’t decided to be such a pussycat. Others of Pierce’s did, though, so check it out. The main page is here.

Deserter Update: Slate’s “Today’s Papers,” points out that "The Post ... emphasizes that the White House 'backed off' from the president's promise to open his various military records.  During Sunday's interview, NBC's Tim Russert had asked, 'Would you authorize the release of everything to settle this?'  Bush replied, 'Yes, absolutely.'  Yesterday, spokesman Scott McClellan, shall we say, clarified, 'No, I think the question was payroll records, payroll records that would show you served.'  USAT points out that portions of some of the president's recently released documents—that contain responses to questions about arrests or convictions—have been blacked out."

The articles referenced in the above paragraph are this and this.

There is also this report about Bush leaving for Alabama without permission.  This is an important lesson in how journalism works.  This little tidbit has been known since 2000.  It was in Walter Robinson’s original Boston Globe report and I mentioned it in Newsday two weeks ago. But now that the Democrats are interested in it—in a way they were not four years or even four weeks ago—it’s news.  If only Gore had understood the need to get tough with these guys, none of this would be happening.

Creeping Police State update:  John Ashcroft wants the medical records from your abortion.  Give them to him, or the terrorists win.

You mean because he actually served in Vietnam?  From Media Whores, Republican strategist, Sherri Annis (Mrs. Howard Kurtz) says John McCain is “not a real Republican.”

CHRIS MATTHEWS:  It‘s not credible he picks the commission, is it?

SHERI ANNIS, REPUBLICAN MEDIA STRATEGIST:  Well, it‘s credible because he basically wants to say. "I‘m going to be able to talk about this no matter what.  I'm going to—I'm taking charge here." He doesn't want to say, "I‘m leaving this to someone else."  He wants to show he‘s leading this.

MATTHEWS:  Leading what?  The cover up?

ANNIS:  He will describe it obviously as not a cover up.  If McCain gives him a lot of cover.  That‘s his—I think McCain is actually most of his cover.  Even though he‘s Republican.

MATTHEWS:  But isn‘t the usual way to pick a bipartisan commission is to let the other party pick their share of the commission?  That‘s how it becomes bipartisan.

ANNIS:  That‘s how—But with McCain there, it‘s seemingly bipartisan.

MATTHEWS:  But he's a Republican.

ANNIS:  But he's not a real Republican.

A lot of people say they still can’t find us, and some can’t get us even if they can find us, but anyway, MSNBC.COM explains what the deal with the redesign is here.

My friends at CAP have a wonderful parody of a recent misguided argument about the SCLM in “The Note” here.

And while we’ve not linked to wonkette.com yet, we cannot resist printing this description of Mark and the ABC News team: 

“You know what The Note reminds us of?  It's like a personal ad from a guy who says how every other typical American male is interested in your looks, but he's not.  He cares about your personality, your sense of humor, your intelligence. . . But please send a picture.  No fatties.”

The rest is here.

These Harvard punks know something about marketing, me thinks.

Quote of the Day:  “If I could read a book, I'd definitely read one of yours."
-Soon-to-be-author Paris Hilton on being introduced to Jackie Collins

Correspondents Corner:

Name: Charley Jones
Hometown: Edgewood, New Mexico
Hey Eric,
The Navy guy, Nick Pisano, was on the mark as far as Guard and reservists credit for time served is concerned.  I was an enlisted member of the Air National Guardsman for over 35 (Yes, that's thirty-five) years.  I was in from the mid 50's through the 80's, and a full-time employee for over 30 years.  Guardsmen (Weekenders) earned 63 points per year for satisfactory service.  48 for 24 days of UTA's (Unit Training Assemblies) and 15 for 15 days of active duty for training. Thus 63 points per year. The records released dipicting Dubya had, "Honorably fulfilled his commitment", does the exact opposite.  It proves, unless they can come up with some other records, that he DID NOT fullill his obligation.  And, I've seen claims that he never even acquired the required number of flying hour to become certified F-102 pilot.  200 hours short was what I read.

Now for Mister Pisano:  I take offence to his statement saying, "Most of these guys back in the 70's, especially the Guard types, got away without meeting their obligation and still got Honorable Discharges."  Not true.  Most who did not fulfill their commitment were transferred to the regular Air Force.  Those few who were able to get out were normally discharged under "Less than honorable conditions."  Maybe Mister Pisano was referring to the Navy Reserve and not the National Guard, unless of course there was a Navy National Guard which, to my knowledge, never existed.

My unit, along with four other Fighter Squadrons who were activated in January of 1968 for the Pueblo incident, were sent to Vietnam in mid 1968, and served with honor and distinction for a full 12 month tour of duty.

If President Bush served his time, all he has to do is release the REAL records to prove it.  Guys in my unit who served only 9 days of a required 39 days would have been AWOL, and would have been transferred to the United States Air Force post haste.

Name: William Strachan
Hometown: Enfield, CT
I served in the National Guard from 1970-1979.  During that period there were a number of individuals in my unit that were physically at drills only once or twice in their six year enlistments.  My infantry company had 3 infantry platoons but only two actually contained visible bodies.  The third was on paper only.

None of the missing personnel were ever sent for active duty per their enlistment contracts.  Many were even paid due to a sympathetic company clerk.  These missing persons were kept on the roster so as to maintain division strength.  This was to keep the full-time Guard personnel in their jobs.  Should the Division go below strength for a certain length of time, it might have threatened to have the Division de-activated and, therefore, full-time jobs would be eliminated.  Never mind being an embarrassment to politicos in my home state - Massachusetts.

As a platoon sgt., I never knew how many or who would show up for training on a given weekend.  Most of the time I could only field 2 squads of 11 out of a paper platoon of 48. During the period Bush allegedly served in Alabama, 1972-1973, the Vietnam conflict was winding down.  During this period the Army was not accepting National Guard or Reserve personnel for involuntary active duty for missing drills.  With that kind of heat off of personnel, people felt no threat or consequence for missing mandatory drills.  Not surprising that a slacker like Bush went unnoticed.

DOD paper can be a wonderful thing in the right hands.  With such political pull in Texas, why is it any surprise that Bush may have escaped scrutiny?

Name: Paul
Hometown: Frankfort
Dear Eric,
Mr. Rowlette gave you some good advice on where to go to obtain a DD Form 214.  You should know, however, that there are 2 different versions of this form.  There's the 'short form' DD Form 214 which lists the things Mr. Rowlette wrote about and there's the 'long form' DD Form 214 which (at bottom) gives the exact reason for the person's discharge and even if they received an Honorable Discharge.  If the separation was not voluntary, this additional section will list the reason.  Example:  'involuntarily separated for failure to perform duties' or something like that.  I doubt you'll be able to get your hands on Bush's long form DD Form 214, but God I pray that you are able to (heh, heh).

Name: Arik Elman
Hometown: Jerusalem
Eric,
Of course not every critic of Sharon is an anti-Semite. (BTW, do YOU know what is "Sharon's politics" nowadays?  I don't.)  Some are just plain stupid.  Some don't really know what they are talking about.

I mean, do you really want me to address, let's say, the most common of those "save-Israel-from-itself" arguments - that there's such thing as "Palestinian nation?"  Or "borders of 1967?"  Should we discuss the difference between Jewish rights to the Temple Mount and the Tel-Aviv?  After all, everybody knows that the only valid argument that is there is the racist argument of demographics, but if that is the only concern, why can't transfer be considered as an alternative and viable solution, just as it was in the 1920s between Turks and Greeks, or later between Hindus and Muslims?

The true watershed on the issue of Israel goes not between those who think that Israel can rule millions of disgruntled Goyim indefinitely and those who cleverly point out an impending demographic doom.  This is a false conflict.  The true watershed goes between those who ascertain the basic, principal right of Jews to the Land, regardless of past and future borders, and those who deny it or try to supplant in with an "equal" right of "indigenous" "Palestinian" "people," thereby denying the basic premise of Israel's right to exist. 

It means a lot if Israel has to deal with a small part of the 300-million Arab nation spread on a huge territory from the Atlantic to India, or Israel is a colonial enterprise on the native land of others.  This is the true distinction, and each time you, Siegman, Tom Friedman, whatever, repeat "Palestinian land" and "Palestinian people," without pausing to think, you negate the "Jewish land" and the national rights of "Jewish people."  And that is anti-zionism, and as Martin Luther King said, anti-zionist is basically an anti-semite.

• Feb. 11, 2004 | 1:20 PM ET

So it’s Kerry in just about any scenario one can credibly imagine.  For the record, I’ll say it again.  While I think Kerry would probably make the best president of the bunch, and maybe even the most talented president since Kennedy, I’m far from convinced he’s the most electable.  Deep down I think that’s probably Edwards;  southerner, working-class hero, and personal/campaign skills from another planet.  Kerry is sure more electable than Dean and a more skilled candidate than Clark, but I worry that primary voters may be fooling themselves if they are choosing him as a strategic decision.

The words “Massachusetts liberal”—which are quite accurate, by the way-- when combined with a patrician upbringing, a somewhat stiff manner and a Bush war chest that will likely approach a half-billion dollars scares the heck out of me. But as I also keep saying, it just don’t matter what I think.  The process has (just about) spoken.  Now is (almost) the time for all good men and women to rally to the cause of their country; and for the Kerry people to figure out, in as tough-minded a manner as possible, how they are going to counteract all that money attached to so few principles about using it.

How long can William Safire keep up this charade?  How long with the Times allow him to mislead his readers?  Safire, you will recall, termed it to be an “undisputed fact” that Mohammed Atta met with the chief of Iraqi intelligence in Prague.  This was a lie.  There is no evidence the meeting took place and the entire story rests on the testimony of a single individual with a serious drinking problem.

Today Safire continues to cloud the issue with bogus claims of a “smoking gun.”  Well, yes, but it’s a smoking gun pointed directly at his (and the administration’s) head.  Opponents of this misguided adventure pointed out that while no cooperation was evident between Iraq and freelance terrorist groups, Bush’s invasion was likely to cause it.  The CIA warned the president about this directly.  So now it’s happened.  Congratulations.  More U.S. soldiers killed, more terrorism, more instability in the region.  We told you so, dammit.

Don’t miss Jane Mayer’s tough-minded New Yorker piece on Haliburton.  Here's the part that got the Washington Post’s Peter Carlson excited:

The United States had concluded that Iraq, Libya and Iran supported terrorism and had imposed strict sanctions on them," Mayer writes. "Yet during Cheney's tenure at Halliburton the company did business in all three countries. In the case of Iraq, Halliburton legally evaded U.S. sanctions by conducting its oil-service business through foreign subsidiaries that had once been owned by Dresser.  With Iran and Libya, Halliburton used its own subsidiaries. The use of foreign subsidiaries may have helped the company avoid paying U.S. taxes." …
During the 2000 campaign, Cheney told ABC News that "I had a firm policy that we wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even arrangements that were supposedly legal." But, Mayer writes, "under Cheney's watch, two foreign subsidiaries of Dresser sold millions of dollars worth of oil services and parts to Saddam's regime." Halliburton ended its dealings with Iraq in February 2000, according to Mayer.

Guard duty update: Brother Boehlert is on the case, so I don’t have to be.

How are Neocons like Mormons? They are always converting the dead.  Despite a somewhat misleading intro, Edward Rothstein does not really try to compare Albert Camus with Norman Podhoretz here, which is a good thing for all concerned.  He bears exactly the same relationship to Camus that Andy and Hitchens bear to Orwell and, I bear to say, Ingrid Bergman as “Ilsa” or Rita Hayworth as “Gilda.”  That is… in our dreams.

The Post characterizes the WH's preferred message as "Bush is for traditional marriage, not against gay people,”  For the record, I am for “traditional slavery,” but not against black people.

It was fifty years ago today… that Irving and Michael taught the band (of democratic socialists) to play (the game of keeping the flame of hope and dignity alive in an America where Joe McCarthy ran rampant).  What an achievement for so tiny and underfunded a journal to have lived not only so long, but so virbrantly.  Check them out here.

It was forty years ago today… I went to the hokiest thing the other night: a celebration, hosted by “Cousin” Bruce Morrow at the Hard Rock, of the Beatles first appearance on Ed Sullivan. Took the kid though, and it’s as close as she’ll get. The band, “Liverpool,” actually sounded wonderful and did not try to look the part, which lent the evening some dignity.  Billy J. Kramer sang, but Gary U.S. Bonds was a no-show.  Little Steven spoke, but did not play, at least before I left.  I was introduced to Michael Moore, who seemed, emphasis on seemed, to be quite a nice guy.  He was polite to fans and generous with his time.  And my (Nation cruise) buddy Frank McCourt really likes him, which counts for something.  Anyway, the Beatles, huh? Pretty great, any old way you choose it.

Today’s Book on Bush item is an interview with Mark Green done by BN.com.  It’s here.

Correspondence corner:

Name: Sean Rowlette
Hometown: Puyallup, WA
Eric,
As a Viet Nam era veteran, USAF 1968-1972, I have some knowledge as to what it takes to request a copy of a veteran's DD Form 214.  This is the form that is created at discharge time. Mine shows the bases at which I served, my educational and training accomplishments, along with my rank in a chronological order.  Start to finish, soup to nuts. These records can be obtained by following instructions found @ http://usgovinfo.about.com/bldd214.htm. "If you are not the veteran or next of kin, you must complete the Standard Form 180 (SF 180).  You can obtain this form from Fax-on-Demand, or download it, then mail or fax it to the appropriate address on the form." SF180 can be found at the website noted above, as well as this useful link. Good hunting!

Name: Nick Pisano
Hometown: Destin, FL
Hey Eric,
I'm a retired mustang Navy Commander.  I used to operate with the reservists back in the 1970's.  I see the White House is trying to use records to clear Bushy boy, but here is the hitch: check the "nine days" credit--we used to give the reservists a day of credit for every four hours drilled (e.g. a weekend represented four "days"--a really good deal).  Thus nine reserve "days" is two weekends and a morning of drill time. 

My memory is a little fuzzy but I seem to recall that reservists that missed three "days" of drill had 90 days to make them up or be called up to involutary active duty.  I went out on many reserve-roundup assignments to track guys down and send them to sea.  (I was Navy after all.) 

So beware of some shenanigans in the White House "records" release.  Nine full days would be 4 full weekends and one day--still not enough to meet the commitment.  (There are twelve full reserve weekends in every year plus two weeks active duty for training).  That being said, most of these guys back in the '70's, esp. the National Guard-types, got away without meeting their obligations and still got Honorable Discharges.  I guess this wouldn't be an issue if Bush hadn't put on that pilot suit and try to wrap himself in the military....regardless of what the White House puts out he's still a hypocrite.

UPDATE:  Hey people, it was a joke.  Henry Siegman, the former executive director of the American Jewish Congress is not an "anti-Semite." 

In case any of my other jokes have been missed in recent times, I too, am not an "anti-Semite."  Niether is George Soros or Paul Krugman.  The Financial Times of London is not really "Communist," and Paul O'Neill, the former CEO of Alcoa and member of three Republican administrations is not an "Anarchist."  (I didn't say that, but I might have.) 

The idea is that people tend to call those who disagree with them names.  Opponents of Ariel Sharon's policies are often called "anti-Semites" by people who try to smear them rather than address their arguments.  I was making fun of this practice.  Sorry for the confusion.

• Feb. 10, 2004 | 11:58 AM ET

“The best things in life are free”
The next time you read from someone like Mickey Kaus or Jake Tapper about what a captive of “special interests” John Kerry is, remember this:  Bush has so far raised 28 times the amount of PAC money that Kerry has.  Of course, next thing you will hear is that it does not matter who has raised more—or even 28 times as much- because this fundraising stuff itself is not important but rather is a “perfectly legitimate synecdoche for this type of Kerry behavior,” as Mickey might say. 

I say, "Oh cut the crap, please, will you?” (No link on the “twenty-eight times" figure because it appears in a forthcoming story that Mike Tomasky and I co-authored for The American Prospect.)

In the meantime The Note, a website which does not think Bernie Goldberg’s worldview is entirely ridiculous, reports, “President Bush is leading the pack, with his campaign collecting $130 million last year -- roughly the same tally as all the Democratic contenders combined.  The Bush team has at least $100 million in its coffers and should raise another $50 million by the time the Republicans meet in New York this September. “

Then again, Mickey was talking about something really important, like whether or not Kerry had a botox shot, nothing like this headline, "Bush Supports Shift of Jobs Overseas."  What are a few million jobs compared to the totally hypothetical  possibility that a guy might have had a botox shot?

To say nothing of misleading the country to war.  Looky here:  “Like it or not, Maj. Scott Ritter had it right all along.” Noam Chomsky? Michael Moore? Joseph Stalin? Not exactly.  David M. Hackworth.

And speaking of which, if you had to pick someone to head a nonpartisan committee to get to the bottom of all this, who would be your choice for just about the worst person in the whole world? Here’s mine.

Israel is ensuring the impossibility of peace by any number of means, should the Palestinians ever decide they are ready to make it.  Its leaders see the apartheid model of South Africa's defunct regime as a goal to be emulated, rather than a nightmare to be avoided, and they are even willing to soak their taxpayers and bankrupt their treasury to pay for it.

Take a look at this piece by Henry Siegman, the anti-Semitic former executive director of the American Jewish Congress.  Add it to the piece above and ask yourself, who are Israel’s genuine friends?  Those who would like to see it remain an (internal) democracy or those who would see its democratic character destroyed in pursuit of endless war for conquered territory?

Another reason to read The Note every day: 

“ABC News' Kate Snow reports that John Kerry, in an airport avail, added the word 'radical' to his use of 'extreme' when describing the policies of the Bush Administration. We wonder if the Massachusetts Senator is reading the new anti-Bush book entitled, 'The Book on Bush: How George W. (Mis)leads America' by the Nation's Eric Alterman and Kerry's New York campaign co-chairman (and former mayoral candidate) Mark Green." 

And by the way, if the book made its way to the Kerry campaign, which I suppose it did, based on ABC’s reporting, nobody told me about it. (And everybody’s campaign is welcome to buy them. They’re for sale, you know.)

But thanks to readers (I’m assuming) for sending the Amazon # for The Book from 2390 to 95 yesterday. And thanks for the kind words.

Speaking of kind words, I could make a whole series of this, but here is one more question for Mr. Pinkerton and his editors.  He writes, “Yet even the authors are forced to concede (kinda, sorta) that Bushonomics has done O.K.: 'In the short term, President Bush's stimulative policies . . . should produce the illusion of adequate growth for his 2004 election.'"

Good god, bro. You take a partial quote--with ellipses--about the “illusion of growth” out of a fifty page chapter on the economy and pretend to readers that the book constitutes an apology for Bushonomics?  And the editors allow this?  Doesn’t an alarm bell go off in anybody’s head when they read a sentence like the above? 

Coupled with Pinkerton’s failure to identify himself as an ex-employee of the subject’s daddy, and his blatant misrepresentation of the state of Bush’s popularity, (“Today, most polls still show that a majority of Americans want Bush to continue on as their pilot.”), and which, by the way, has nothing to do with the topic of the book, an examination of his policies, not his relative popularity, I wonder just what was going on in the heads of everybody involved.  Goodness knows, I’ve been the subject of hatchet jobs before, but this one is so obvious, it’s kind of insulting.

(Irrelevant aside: Pinkerton is a fellow of the New America Foundation, with which I was briefly and rather unhappily associated.  In a Washington Post profile of the foundation, I offered up a critical on-the-record quotation on its habit of misrepresenting itself to liberal funders in order to turn their money over to conservatives like, um, Pinkerton, though he wasn’t there.  Ironic, huh?  And what’s with running the review eight days before the pub date, when it’s not even in the stores yet?  Think Howie had a hand in this?)

There will be an additional Alter-appearance this Thursday at the Broadway Presbyterian Church, on the corner of Broadway and 114th. The host is something called “Broadway Democrats.” The advertised title of the forum is "The Changing Media and the Effect on Politics.” There will be another speaker and I will be signing books.

Correspondence Corner:

Name: Don Kaye
Hometown: Brooklyn, NY
Eric,
Did you see this?
John Ashcroft is trying to obtain medical records of women who had so-called "partial birth" abortions.

Name: Rob Schneider
Hometown: Lexington, MA
OK, I'm not going to argue with you about the woeful Grammys, but I want to note that here in Boston we have the only 24-hour folk music radio station in the country, WUMB-FM, and they play cuts from "The Wind" often. They don't play Outtkast, Beyonce, Prince or Justin Timberlake.  They must hear something "Folk" in old Warren, may he rest in peace.

Eric replies: Danny G tells me that at the party for Warren’s Grammy, Jackson Browne played a whole set of nothing but Zevon songs. Touching, huh?

• Feb. 9, 2004 | 12:10 PM ET

Mr. Bush Meets The Press:  I received this document, demonstrating the factual gap between President Bush’s claims on “Meet the Press” and the historical record, at 2:16 pm on Sunday afternoon, which shows you how serious the Center for American Progress is about countering the deceptive claims of the far-right (in this case represented by President Bush) within the confines of the 24 hour news cycle. 

Now do an experiment and see which of the major news accounts ignored the salient facts evidenced in this report.  They all got the e-mail, and so if they ignored its well-documented claims, that means they chose to misinform deliberately —or to allow President Bush to misinform deliberately— their readers and viewers.  They did so, no doubt, either because they were afraid to correct the president or because they took refuge in the rules of “objective journalism” which, after all, is agnostic about the truth or veracity of the official personage quoted.  (Just ask Joe McCarthy.)  My sense is that these rules are among the Bush/Cheney administration’s bestest friends.  Anyway, let me know what you can find.

Time mag looks at Bush's missing year and decides it's an issue that really could hurt...Kerry.  Hay-oh!  (Thanks to Eric B.)  Even so, “Kerry's war record seems to be working for him.”  How weird, huh?

And hey, Brother Boehlert wants to know, “Did Bush drop out of the National Guard to avoid drug testing?” Just asking, Bub, since Tim wouldn’t.

My new best friend Larry David and I are more than a little concerned the theft of yet another election, this time via easily manipulated voter machines. I promised him an unbelievably long Ronnie Dugger article in The Nation, though I have no idea when it will finally appear. In the meantime, there’s this special report from Salon and don’t forget Siva’s excellent Think Again  column on same.

Roll over George Orwell.  Thanks to the talented Nick Confessore for saving us all a lot of trouble with Boy Hitchens.

The Grammys:  I watched the show at breakfast and found nearly a half-hour of watchable stuff, if I recall, Prince, Outtkast, Earth Wind and Fire, White Stripe Jack, and the Zevon tribute.  Lovely of Jordan Zevon to be so generous to occasional Altercator and all-around great guy Danny Goldberg. 

Any institution that can give an award to Justin Timberlake over Warren is not really worth wasting one’s breath over, and the Janet’s boob-heavy coverage of the thing is really almost enough to make one wonder if Falwell and Robertston don’t have a point about us after all.  (And Hello, “The Wind” is not a folk album, people.)  But one thing I noticed is that if you ignore the show and take a look at the categories where the only people who vote are people who are genuinely pay attention, the awards start to make a little sense.  Look here for instance:

• Traditional Folk Album: "Wildwood Flower," June Carter Cash.
• Country Collaboration With Vocals: "How's the World Treating You," James Taylor and Alison Krauss
• Traditional Soul Gospel Album: "Go Tell It on the Mountain," the Blind Boys of Alabama.
• Traditional Blues Album: "Blues Singer," Buddy Guy.
• Jazz Instrumental Album, Individual or Group: "Alegria," Wayne Shorter.
• Jazz Instrumental Solo: "Matrix," Chick Corea.
• Large Jazz Ensemble Album: "Wide Angles," Michael Brecker Quindectet.

All excellent choices, particularly the Wayne Shorter album, which I hope I’ve mentioned in the past, but if not, see?  The Grammys are good for something.

Now onto the really important stuff:  Hey everybody, today is The Book on Bush Day.  The first chapter is up on the website here, along with reviews, complaints, etc.

If you’re wondering “why this book?” given all the other books on Bush out there, the first three Amazon reviewers —all of whom managed to review the book before it was published, do an actually first rate job on this.  Here’s some of the first one, by someone called “Cameron-Vale,” whom I don’t know, but is obviously a tremendously perspicacious individual: 

Of all the books out there taking much needed critical slams at the Bush Administration, THE BOOK ON BUSH by Eric Alterman and Mark J. Green is probably the only one any curious reader really needs to buy….
The book fully yet concisely documents all of the scandals and outrages that have so thoroughly appalled this nation. While quite a few of those other titles are certainly informative in their own right, virtually everything of importance regarding the Bush/Cheney/Rove nightmare is covered here. 
Alterman's previous tome was the superb WHAT LIBERAL MEDIA?, which beautifully and definitively debunked the ludicrous myth of the existence of a liberal-biased media (a myth created and perpetuated by Right Wing ideologues).  In that book, Alterman refused to indulge in the inane name-calling invective that so often mars many similar works, and that same tact is utilized here. The authors present their carefully researched facts in a rational and articulate manner. They back up their anti-Dubya stance with such an avalanche of evidence as to make it impossible for any reasonable person to even attempt to argue with them. THE BOOK ON BUSH is a superbly documented and highly readable source of information that will become increasingly important as a reference work the closer it gets to Election Day.

One last thing I’d add: The book is intended to be somewhat comprehensive on the topic of what Bush’s policies are doing to the country.  It couldn’t be, of course, but it is the closest thing there is.  For that reason, not everybody is going to be interested in reading every chapter.  Hell, I’m not.  So if you want to, say, read the introduction, and then skip all the way to the foreign policy chapters and the conclusion, my feelings at least, won’t be hurt.

Finally, if you want the live version, you can check for Mark’s gazillion solo appearances all around New York City and state (and Chicago) here.

My appearances, with L.A. now added, are as follows:

Portland, 2/16, FIRST UNITARIAN CHURCH, 1011 SW 12th Ave, 7:00
Seattle, 2/17, ELLIOTT BAY BOOK COMPANY 101 S. Main Street, 7:30
San Francisco, 2/18 CLEAN WELL LIGHTED PLACE 601 Van Ness Avenue, 7:00
Sebastopol, CA 2/19 COPPERFIELD'S BOOKS & MUSIC 138 N. Main St. Sebastopol, 7:00
NYC, 2/27, BARNES & NOBLE Upper West Side 2289 Broadway (@82nd St.) 7:30 
Washington, D.C., 3/2. POLITICS & PROSE 5015 Connecticut Avenue Politics and Prose, 7:00
Santa Monica/Los Angeles, 3/14, MIDNIGHT SPECIAL BOOKS, 1450 2nd Street, 2:00 PM

Come see me and say hello. And oh yeah, buy the book.

And if you run into Jim Pinkerton, ask him to explain why, if “55% of Americans polled have some 'doubts and reservations' about President Bush; less than half (44%) say he's 'a leader they can trust,' as Time reports this week, he thinks the book's fatal flaw is that its authors “can't adequately answer the question, 'If Bush is so bad, how come he's so far ahead?’"

Seems to me Pinkerton’s review is “Exhibit A” in the argument as to why newspapers and book reviews might want to consider employing fact-checkers; and not only when asking former employees of the daddies of the individuals in question —particularly those who do not reveal the connection to unsuspecting readers- to review critical studies of the policies of said individuals.

And while we’re on the subject of me, I’ve got a placeholder website at EricAlterman.com in case they ever fire me here.  My friend Steve Johnson, who did WhatLiberalMedia.com and TheBookOnBush.com, did a nice job, didn’t he?

MORE FROM COMMUNITY

Community Section Front

The Week in Political Cartoons Clicked: One day at a time Cosmic Log: Galaxies go into shock Daily Nightly: Read the latest entries Olympic athlete opens brothel to fund training First Read: The day in politics News Hole: The blog of Countdown Daryl Cagle's Political Cartoon Weblog House OKs bill to let judges rewrite mortgages Critics see understaffed, overwhelmed Treasury Community Section Front   Add Community headlines to your news reader: