My other headline would’ve been, “And in other news, Karl Rove continues to lie through his teeth.”

Apparently, his latest idiotic lie is to rewrite the history of the 2002 vote on the AUMF. His new lie is that Congress, not the White House, pushed for a pre-election vote. If you remember, the vote on this bill happened right before the 2002 midterm elections, putting a lot of (at least imagined) pressure on Democrats to authorize the war.

This is the worst sort of lie, brazenly false and key to understanding the history of 2002 and of this war. The war vote and the election are inextricably tied. In fact, this is a key aspect of the Bush White House. Major policy initiatives have ALWAYS been lined up against federal elections. It’s all they know how to do, win elections. Actually governing is a secondary concern to this administration.

Credit where it’s due, though. At least some former White House staffers are disputing Rove’s lie. This could mark some of the first honest moments for these people. Hopefully, these corrections will make it easier for the press to show Rove’s lie for what it is.

It’s amazing Rove would even consider trying this out. For example, all of this recent “well, I opposed the war, but didn’t say it out loud” stuff going on is really a reaction to the central reality of that vote: No one wanted to go into an election year on the losing side of a war vote that was a) going to pass anyway, and b) enjoyed at least lukewarm support (~45%) among the American voters. Rightly or wrongly (I believe wrongly), Democrats and some Republicans believed that not voting for this bill could cost the Democrats seats in that election.

Of course, we’ve already forgotten how unpopular the war was in 2002. It’s hard for me to forget the size and number of protests at the time, especially since several happened just outside my window.

Let’s not let a liar like Karl Rove rewrite history, please.

(Heidi and I are in Washington D.C. this weekend to celebrate our first anniversary)

Tomorrow, I’ll walk through the National Mall and stand upon the land where history, real history happened, where Martin Luther King spoke of dreams and John F. Kennedy asked us to give to our country, where thousands and thousands marched against war, where real democracy and fierce debates shaped our country and created hallowed ground.

Dissent and debate matter in this country. Every positive change in this country has been marked by both, from the elimination of slavery to the recognizing women’s right to vote. These are marks of a vibrant democracy and a vibrant public and civic life. Without those protests and marches, we would be a different country today.

So, on the way to the Mall tomorrow, I will look toward the White House with great sadness because it’s current inhabitant has not been a steward of this legacy. He does not believe in the debate and the raucous exchange of ideas that have shaped our country for so long.

I’m speaking of the Bush administration’s utter contempt for dissent and disagreement, of loyalty oaths and and fake “town halls” where only loyal Bushies are allowed to attend. I’m speaking of a President who hides from protesters lest he hear dissent.

Of all of his failings, and he has many, this has been the key one. After all, thin skin breeds defensiveness and stubbornness. Those feelings breed rigidity and limited thinking. That creates poor policy and bad judgement. His administration is, in other words, a case study in why dissent is important for the health of the nation.

I wrote nearly a year ago that we should look at the fraud of “bipartisanship”, that “we should reflect upon the past five years and examine our ‘bipartisanship’ moments on the most important issue of our time.” Looking out at Washington D.C. tonight, I ask that we also take a look at the President’s fraudulent patriotism.

Patriotism on the President’s terms have brought us Abu Ghraib. It has brought us horrible lies and more lies. We now may be looking at a resurgent al-Qaeda. Supporting the troops in the Bush administration meant Walter Reed. All because when citizens and officials stood up to question the President or his war plans, they were brushed aside and ignored in the name of patriotism.

Over the last 6 years, those of us that have disagreed with the President’s policies have been called anti-American, defeatists, and traitors. Some, like Sen. Joe Lieberman, vilified even the mere act of questioning the President. The President and his supporters have continually invoked the language of patriotism in defending their long-failed policies. They would like our patriotism to be blind, closing our eyes while biting our tongues, lest we “undermine the President.”

When the President and his supporters speak of patriotism, they are speaking of blind support for them and their failed policies. That’s not America. Real patriotism involves questioning our leaders, following the examples of Martin Luther King and millions of other protesters over the years. We should learn from the patriotism the thousands of brave individuals around the nation who try to line motorcade routes or stand outside Presidential appearances even in the face of aggressive policing by the Administration. Real patriotism isn’t blind or obsequious. Real patriotism can involve dissent, which is the real tradition that binds us all together.

In an editorial, the founder of USA Today offers a mea culpa. Where last year he criticized those who called the Bush presidency the worst ever, this year he confesses that his opinion has changed. From the editorial:

I remember every president since Herbert Hoover, when I was a grade school kid. He was one of the worst. I’ve personally met every president since Dwight Eisenhower. He was one of the best.

A year ago I criticized Hillary Clinton for saying “this (Bush) administration will go down in history as one of the worst.”

“She’s wrong,” I wrote. Then I rated these five presidents, in this order, as the worst: Andrew Jackson, James Buchanan, Ulysses Grant, Hoover and Richard Nixon. “It’s very unlikely Bush can crack that list,” I added.

I was wrong. This is my mea culpa. Not only has Bush cracked that list, but he is planted firmly at the top.

I believe there is an objective case that he is the worst ever (previous posts here and here). Even the presidents on Neuharth’s list accomplished things in their presidencies. Bush has zero major accomplishments under his belt. Every major initiative (Social Security, Mars mission, Iraq, Medicare, NCLB) has either failed, never materialized, or gone horribly wrong. How could anyone be worse than 0?

If you had to rank the Presidents, where would President George W. Bush end up on the list? After looking at his domestic and foreign policy initiatives, there’s a strong case that he is the worst ever. Measured simply against his desired or stated outcomes, based on speeches or public comments, he has been particularly bad at delivering what he promises.

As a rough starting point, I’ve outlined the major policy initiatives of both Bush terms along with a grade from -5 to 5 where 5 is absolute success and -5 indicates he achieved the opposite result of his proposed aim. A score of 0 indicates he didn’t do anything (no cost and no benefit on this policy issue). I specifically am avoiding whether I think the policies constitute good policy or not. I’m also avoiding whether I agree with the policy or not.

I know this list isn’t complete, so I’d love to expand on it. Feel free to leave those ideas in the comments below as well.

Domestic Policy Agenda

Office of Faith-Based Initiatives - Score: 2 - Former insiders have claimed that the office is more a political prop and showpiece than an actual, functioning White House department. He gets points for creating this and not getting sued to oblivion and for inspiring state level departments in Republican states.

Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit - Score: 3 - This passed, though it seemed targeted at helping big pharma as much as senior citizens. Folks are finding the donut hole a rude surprise and many complained about the complexity of the plan. The combined effect has taken the shine off of this plan.

No Child Left Behind - Score: -1 - In terms of achieving it’s actual goals, little has actually changed for public schools. In fact, there’s little positive to report. On top of that, school takeovers and privatization have not yielded improved results. The costs to states has been high, especially since the federal funding has been insufficient or non-existent.

Social Security Reform - Score: -5 - Far from actually reforming anything, the President convinced the majority of Americans that doing nothing was preferable to doing something about Social Security. Further, it provided a rallying point for Democrats and showed the first signs of weakness in the Republican stronghold. All of this doesn’t actually matter for the score, though. It’s a -5 because the policy failed to address any recommendations of the various blue ribbon panels while his other spending agendas have raised the stakes for Social Security in the years to come.

Gay Marriage, Abortion, and Christian fundamentalism - Score: 2 - On gay marriage and abortion, Bush has continued to deliver nominal victories but little actual policy change. The most significant impact of his two terms will be the appointment of Alito and Roberts to the Supreme Court. Their impact on these issues has yet to be seen (I remain unconvinced that either will rule in any way that will eliminate Roe v. Wade), but these appointments will have lasting impacts upon many different issues. He’s passed precious few laws and merely maintained the status quo on both major issues beyond those appointments. DOMA was the law of the land from the Clinton years and gay marriage is still not recognized at the federal level and abortions are still free of federal interference. Large sums of money have been spent on abstinence-only sex ed programs with poor results. I can’t think of a success here, actually.

Foreign Policy

The Global War on Terror (or whatever it’s called now) - Score: -2 - Terrorism incidents are up over the last few years. Iraq is a mess and far from a beacon of stability in the Middle East. Osama bin Laden still runs free. Iran has not shifted from their support of terrorist organizations. Hezbollah and Hamas have won elections largely because the Bush administration doesn’t understand how these organizations become popular. Our foreign policy has helped those organizations become stronger and more popular. The Bush administrations prioritization prior to 9/11 significantly misjudged the world, and their actions since have hardly demonstrated any improved judgement.

North Korea - Score: -4 - Since declaring them to be part of the “Axis of Evil” North Korea has tested a nuclear device and largely ignored diplomatic overtures from Europe. Six party talks have been largely unsuccessful. Far from containing North Korea with strong rhetoric, North Korea has stood defiant. North Korea now could have an impact on negotiations with Iran.

Iran - Score: -4 - Inexplicably ignored until the Iraq invasion imploded, Iran has gained prestige on the world stage because of Bush administration policy. There’s really not a worse outcome for our Iran policy.

Etc.

Overall, he’s done a great job of message control and information management. Beyond that, I find little to be proud of. Have I missed anything? Leave it in the comments.

I’ve been thinking about this a lot, and I believe that I could build an objective case that George Bush is the worst President in American history. I consider Bush a failure not because I disagree with him, but by measuring his accomplishments as a President compared to his public policy goals set out in speeches and other public statements. This includes domestic and foreign policy issues and of course includes everything from faith-based charity to Iraq.

I can’t think of a worse President in American history. I’m curious if anyone else can make a case for another President. If you have nominations for the worst President ever, please nominate them in the comments below.

I have a post underway that lays out the larger case for Bush, but I want to start the conversation first. Let me know what you think.

Donald Rumsfeld made a speech to the American Legion a few days ago that compared those who disagree with the White House policy on the war with the Chamberlains of pre-WWII England. This is a typical tactic used by the White House to change the subject on any debate that shows how bad their policies are. Simply attack the messenger instead of the message.

It's actually a small part of Rumsfeld's speech, about two-thirds of the way down in the transcript. The bullet list of "when will you stop beating your wife" rhetorical questions are actually more appalling than the Chamberlain references, but Olbermann, a fan of getting history right, and not a fan of this administrations handling of the war, completely blasted Rumsfeld in a rare editorial on his news show. You can see the video at Crooks and Liars or simply watch it below.

It's worth watching until the end. The Murrow quote he finishes up with is timeless.

From Atrios

Atrios highlights a great article in Editor and Publisher that covers a recently uncovered letter from Upton Sinclair to a California lawyer talking about the Sacco and Vanzetti case. Unfortunately, the article talks about how the contents of that letter have been used by right wing tool, National Review editor, and syndicated columnist Jonah Goldberg to smear Upton Sinclair.

Before I go any further, I want to suggest that everyone read the article. It’s a fascinating bit of history and a well written story. The politics of Goldberg’s response only motivated the article but aren’t central to it.

Sinclair wrote a book, Boston, that was ultimately sympathetic to Sacco and Vanzetti’s case. Because of that, Goldberg decides to (yet again) bash liberals. He ends with:

Never mind. Clooney’s fans, like Sinclair’s, always order the usual. And always seem to get it.

Quite pithy. And ultimately amusing considering the, uh, paucity of diverse opinions at the National Review. One might say the same of Goldberg’s fans who, like Rush Limbaugh’s fans or Bill O’Reilly’s fans, always order the usual victimhood and liberal bashing and deceit. And, they always seem to get it.

Of course, any article that begins a polemic against some ill-defined group of people with a quote from a movie star, well… that might be a warning flag.

Heidi and I watched the original The Manchurian Candidate tonight. I hadn’t seen it before, but it’s obviously a classic. It was a good film, though a bit over-the-top.

Anyway, when the film started, I was surprised that it was in black and white. The film was released in 1962, nearly 25 years after The Wizard of Oz and Gone with the Wind. They were both released in Technicolor in 1939, which I also got wrong… I thought they were post-WWII films. So, while watching the movie I googled around a bit and found a synopsis of sorts of a PBS show covering the color films of WWII. In the text, they mention that as America entered the war, the government seized all the color film for the war effort.

I was curious about this, so I spent the movie writing a little script to grab a list of color movies between 1930 and 1950 from IMDB. I did some work to remove shorts (the vast majority of color films released during the period) and then broke them down by year. The list still includes random documentaries and films where only a part of the film was in color, but there’s clearly a drop in 1942, the first full year the U.S. is at war.

1930 39
1931 5
1932 5
1933 5
1934 7
1935 6
1936 13
1937 8
1938 13
1939 19
1940 20
1941 21
1942 15
1943 30
1944 31
1945 29
1946 42
1947 55
1948 75
1949 66
1950 90

It’s not as dramatic as I would’ve expected based on the firm language of the PBS page I found. Other histories indicate that color didn’t become popular until the 60’s, further making the Manchurian Candidate an anomaly (to me).

I was able to find one interesting note about film stocks, which says:

Hollywood, like other industries, encountered many wartime problems. The government cut the amount of available film stock by 25 percent and restricted the money that could be spent on sets to $5,000 for each movie. Nevertheless, the war years proved to be highly profitable for the movie industry. Spurred by shortages of gasoline and tires, as well as the appeal of newsreels, the war boosted movie attendance to near-record levels of 90 million a week.

Anyway, I don’t have much to say. Just wanted to pass on those numbers.

Update: of all of the numbers up there, the 1939 number has to stand out. It just looks like a lot of 60-80 minute two-strip Technicolor or mixed black and white/two-strip Technicolor films were released that year.

If anyone has any particular knowledge of this stuff, I’m curious for the history… Here’s a really cool history of Technicolor.

Update 2: Duh. Regarding the 1930 to 1931 drop, the depression was in full swing by 1931.

I got this box set from my mother when I last visited her. I had never heard of this comic book, Maus, and was a little wary of the big swastika and mice in camp uniforms on the cover. I remember thinking that a comic book about the Holocaust just seemed wrong.

Heidi told me that these books were well known and critically acclaimed. After finishing the second volume tonight, I can see why. The books relate the author’s process of writing a comic book about his parents and World War II. The Spiegelmans were Holocaust survivors, Polish Jews who through luck, skill, and shrewdness survived. The depth of the story is incredible, conveying the difficult relationship between the author and his father, telling the father’s story during the Holocaust, and exploring the author’s own emotional struggles with writing this story, his father, his mother’s suicide, and describing the horror’s of the Holocaust itself.

I found a couple of sites that go into the scholarship that has come up around these books. One seems to be an abandoned Geocities page listing a number of papers and studies analyzing the text, along with interviews with the author. The other site is an interesting paper examining how the author and people work through personal traumas. One other site that seemed interesting was this analysis of the books for a class on illustrated books.