The New York Times is reporting this morning that political appointees at the Justice Department ordered the lawyers prosecuting the tobacco case to reduce the amount of damages they were seeking (for an anti-smoking public education campaign) by $120 billion. That's right, billion with a "b." As Senator Everett Dirksen (R-IL) famously said, "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money."
The political hack, er, appointee, Robert McCallum, noted that an appellate court decision in another case had forced the government to argue a different -- and much smaller -- measure of damages. The lawyers actually trying the case disagreed, and probably leaked the internal debate and its documentation to the media.
I've neither the time nor inclination to read the other appellate case, review the memos, etc. With that caveat, let me say what I think will happen. The media will cover this story with its typical "he said, she said" vapidity. A small minority of Americans will pay attention long enough to hear the Administration magicians say, "See the $130 billion? Now watch me strike it with my Appeals-Court-Decision-in-Unrelated-Case Magic Wand, and -- ABRACADABRA! -- it's only $10 billion!" Those lucky few Americans will stare at the TV for a second, some vague image of their children and grandchildren becoming addicted to cigarettes flashing through their subconscious, then lower their heads back to their TV dinners. The vast majority of Americans will never know or understand how $120 billion of sanctions for unlawful misconduct got taken out of their pockets and put back into the profits of the tobacco industry.
My point is this: the appellate court decision was a pretext for making the Justice Department lawyers do what the Bush Administrations and its tobacco clients wanted them to do. This demonstrates what is, for me, the essential corruptness of the Administration. It's sad that things like this are happening right in front of our eyes, the media is complicit in it, and the vast majority of Americans will wake up tomorrow in a smaller, meaner country with smaller, meaner people and smaller, meaner ideals.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Sunday, June 12, 2005
Whither the Denocratic Party?
I was in Washington, Deceit last week for the Take Back America conference sponsored by the Campaign for America's Future. I got to hear Howard Dean utter his line about Republicans never working an honest day in their lives, which so infuriated what passes for the Republican intelligentsia.
(By the way, Dean's biggest applause-getter by far was his call for paper printouts for those newfangled direct recording electronic [DRE ] voting machines. In Texas, although both the Democratic and Republican party platforms call for paper trails, Representative Mary Denny, the chair of the House Elections Committee, singlehandedly killed a bipartisan proposal to institute paper trails.)
Anyway, Dean's comment set off discussion in partisan circles on both the left and the right about whether he was the Right Man at the Right Time for the Democratic Party. He may or may not be, but one thing should be certain: his ultimate utility to the party will not be a function of how well or how poorly he shoots his mouth off.
Chris at the Outside Report has a better idea, or at least one that makes more sense to me these days: explore the gap between Bush's current dismal approval rating and the fact that he won the last election and see what's happening with those people (Chris guesses they're 4-10% of the electorate) who voted for Bush but think the country's Going to Hell in a Handbasket.
Chris' hypothesis -- and I tend to agree with him -- is that Bush would STILL beat John Kerry if the election were held today, and that the Democrats nationally have to figure out why that is. Chris seems to suggest that the solution is in new messengers (John Edwards, Harry Reid, etc.) but I think it's really about new messages. The Democrats are wandering in a philosophical desert these days, letting the Republicans define them and reacting to the Rs' initiatives.
(By the way, Dean's biggest applause-getter by far was his call for paper printouts for those newfangled direct recording electronic [DRE ] voting machines. In Texas, although both the Democratic and Republican party platforms call for paper trails, Representative Mary Denny, the chair of the House Elections Committee, singlehandedly killed a bipartisan proposal to institute paper trails.)
Anyway, Dean's comment set off discussion in partisan circles on both the left and the right about whether he was the Right Man at the Right Time for the Democratic Party. He may or may not be, but one thing should be certain: his ultimate utility to the party will not be a function of how well or how poorly he shoots his mouth off.
Chris at the Outside Report has a better idea, or at least one that makes more sense to me these days: explore the gap between Bush's current dismal approval rating and the fact that he won the last election and see what's happening with those people (Chris guesses they're 4-10% of the electorate) who voted for Bush but think the country's Going to Hell in a Handbasket.
Chris' hypothesis -- and I tend to agree with him -- is that Bush would STILL beat John Kerry if the election were held today, and that the Democrats nationally have to figure out why that is. Chris seems to suggest that the solution is in new messengers (John Edwards, Harry Reid, etc.) but I think it's really about new messages. The Democrats are wandering in a philosophical desert these days, letting the Republicans define them and reacting to the Rs' initiatives.
Why this template?
The star in the corner, naturally. I may eventually figure out how to give it a more "Texan" design and color scheme, but for now that star is the extent of it.
What's it all about, Alfie?
And who's this Alfie, anyway?
I got up this morning and decided to start a blog. Why? Because occasionally I have thoughts (even good ones now and then) I'd like to share with the world. I've got some years and experience under my belt and, hopefully, some wisdom gained from all of it. I am in a very exciting period of life where my passion for making Texas better is finding new and creative expression.
I hope some of my posts will be "heavy" -- rich with insight and ideas. But I do not always think or work in that mode, so I expect I'll also be any of the following, on occasion:
I hope that, on balance, I will be worth reading from time to time. I've no interest in being a source of up-to-the-minute commentary like my friends at In the Pink, Texas or PinkDome. I'm to busy reading their stuff to be scooping anything. I would hope to give some context to what's going on in my world, and to be as readable and entertaining as they are.
I got up this morning and decided to start a blog. Why? Because occasionally I have thoughts (even good ones now and then) I'd like to share with the world. I've got some years and experience under my belt and, hopefully, some wisdom gained from all of it. I am in a very exciting period of life where my passion for making Texas better is finding new and creative expression.
I hope some of my posts will be "heavy" -- rich with insight and ideas. But I do not always think or work in that mode, so I expect I'll also be any of the following, on occasion:
- pissed-off
- funny
- ironic
- inane
I hope that, on balance, I will be worth reading from time to time. I've no interest in being a source of up-to-the-minute commentary like my friends at In the Pink, Texas or PinkDome. I'm to busy reading their stuff to be scooping anything. I would hope to give some context to what's going on in my world, and to be as readable and entertaining as they are.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)