John Kerry is fond of pointing out that President Bush has handled North Korea very differently from Iraq, despite designating both countries as members of the "axis of evil". In fact, W's strategy of multilateral talks is about as far as you can get from full military action.

But is there really a contradiction there? We didn't know the full extent of Saddam's nuclear program, while North Korea claims to have nuclear weapons there's good reason to believe their program has advanced considerably in recent years.

from the John Kerry for President website: President Bush has said that he wants a diplomatic resolution of the crisis. If the coming talks are to be more than show, however, the Bush administration must commit itself to negotiate directly with the North Koreans.

from the Republican Party Platform: In concert with America’s allies South Korea and Japan, and supported by China Russia, our nation is leading the international community to speak with one voice to demand the complete, verifiable, and irreversible dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear programs.

links:

BBC country profile: North Korea

CIA World Factbook: North Korea

Have your say! We'll post your feedback after the show.

Posted by leboheme at 03:13 PM

No mention was made of our friends and allies, Pakistan, India, and Israel, having never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Nor of Pakistan being arguably the greatest proliferator of nuclear weapons technology. Neither did anyone think to comment on our own country’s leaders recently restarting our nuclear weapons program.
Are these matters not of far more concern to our national interests than North Korea’s sabre rattling?
-KC

The Bush administration is continuing its policy of ignoring dialogue and negotiations with Iran right now, perhaps a more immanent threat than N. Korea. When Bush recently addressed the UN, he split town right afterwards . Subsequently that week, Charlie Rose interviewed a slew of Foreign Ministers including Iran’s Kamal Kharrazi who clearly stated that Iran was ready and willing to sit down and sign agreements to hedge their development toward nuclear arms.
Now, why is it that Charlie Rose is doing the work that Bush should be doing?
-SP

Why not ask Robert Einhorn and his ilk to answer how it is that he can characterize the US-South Korea relationship as a threat to North Korea? Based on what, communist propaganda? As if the North Koreans have something to worry about from the rest of us other than losing a society that has no respect for human rights and has murdered millions, a la Stalin and Mao.
-AT

Posted by leboheme at 03:00 PM

It seems Kerry rarely misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. His failure to talk up the media consolidation issue is a case in point. The grassroots and bipartisan outcry triggered by Michael Powell’s highhanded FCC initiative should have put this topic near the top of the campaign’s agenda.
-WI

Your show noted that the FCC is bipartisan, which is often presented as the fair and democratic way to go. I am concerned about the culture of politics that this expresses -- why does the news media equate bipartisan with democratic? I think the two parties are able to remain in control in part because they cultivate the image that they represent the spectrum of legitimate ideas of the American people. What we need is a NON-partisan commission.
-GL

how can the first amendment apply to corporations, when "corporations"
didn't exist when the first amendment was written?
-TN

Posted by leboheme at 08:51 AM

We are 8 days and issues into our 30 issues in 30 days. And tomorrow we will be dealing with No Child Left Behind. Originally a slogan used by the Children's Defense Fund the Bush Administration used it as a title for their education reform bill. Two years later how has the reform impacted the nation's school system? And what will children and educators gain from a second Bush term or a Kerry presidency?

Joining us to discuss this topic is Susan Sclafani, Counselor to Secretary Paige at the Department of Education and Robert Borsage Co-Director of the Campaign for America's Future.

Posted by leboheme at 03:22 PM

I do not have children, but when I do they are going to private school. The public education in this country is appalling. I refuse to believe that by doing standardized tests is going to be an accurate gage as to whether or not a child is actually learning. It seems to me that it is to the benefit of politicians to keep Americans stupid, so they won't vote them out of office. No child left behind, what a joke. –N.M.

So we have the perfect storm of bad national standards and bad local control. Two cheers for bipartisanship. –J.G.

Posted by leboheme at 11:50 AM

The Federal Communications Commission is a bipartisan panel, but the chair is always a presidential appointee. Under the Bush administration, Chairman Michael Powell pursued what observers say was an aggressive campaign of media deregulation. Measures the commission passed last year drew a torrent of criticism from consumer advocates as well as some conservative groups because they gave media companies a freer hand to consolidate.

This summer a Federal Court overturned the rules. Observers question whether a Bush appointed-commission will appeal the ruling and most think a Kerry-commission might return to further regulation.

This episode of our 30 Issues series focuses on the likely affects the different candidates' will have on media consolidation if they are elected. An expert on the matter will assess the scenarios. In the meantim, read more about the various viewpoints on this.

And please email us your thoughts. We'll post the feedback after the show.

Here’s Kerry’s comments in a speech at the http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0805.html">UNITY conference in August:

And I will do my part to bring more diversity into the media. Right now people of color make up 32 percent of the nation’s population but only 13 percent of daily newspaper staffs. And people of color represent only a tiny fraction of the number of editors, anchors, and executives at our nation's premier news organizations. Right now only 4.2 percent of radio stations and 1.5 percent of TV stations are owned by minorities. I look around at all the talent in this room and say to the management of these organizations, we can do better.
As president, I will expand opportunities for people of color in the media, by appointing FCC commissioners committed to enforcing equal employment and insuring that small and minority-owned broadcasters are not consolidated into extinction.

--

Here is FCC Chairman Powell said this at a National Press Club Luncheon last January

If we're going to have a healthy debate in this country about public interest in the media, you would have to have it more than the narrow classification of broadcasters, because 87 percent of Americans subscribe to cable or satellite. What's the public interest in a multimedia world of pay television in abundance? That's the question. So in many ways if this debate is to continue I think it has to get more farsighted.

Posted by leboheme at 06:17 PM

This year has been a landmark year in terms for gay marriage. In San Francisco hundreds of gay and lesbian couples were married at City Hall. In Massachusetts the Supreme Court ruled that a ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional. George Bush’s position plays towards his conservative base which has in turn lost the endorsement of Log Cabin Republicans (however the Black Log Cabin Republicans have endorsed Bush). John Kerry has played a politically safe position not endorsing gay marriage, but against the Constitutional Amendment George Bush proposed, and for states rights to approve civil unions (very similar to Dick Cheny's beliefs). And in all of this Governor Jim McGreevy came out of the closet!

So where do we stand as a country, and as individual states on the issue of gay marriage and what does the future hold for us? Joining us to discuss this topic on Monday will be Yale and NYU Law Professor William Eskridge and Director for Governmental Affairs at the Family Research Council Thomas McClusky.

Please email us with your thoughts.

Posted by leboheme at 05:21 PM

If we accept the argument that marriage is a religious institution, then the State should not be sanctioning any marriage. Make all State sanctioned unions civil unions, then a couple who desires to be married may visit the religious leader of their choice. And since civil unions are not religious, any couple can have one.—E.F.

Where was the discussion? Why were there no follow up questions? George Bush being supportive of civil unions? VP Cheney being supportive of his daughter and against having Lynn and her partner’s relationship recognized? His stand that it’s state’s rights is simply a cop-out instead of taking a stand that supports is daughter. Remember, this is the man that didn’t have Lynn stand with him on the stage when he accepted the nomination for the Vice Presidency. –E.C.

Posted by leboheme at 05:00 PM

In Friday's "30 Issues", we look at the rising cost of college education. Stats indicate that since 1990, tuition has gone up about 25% (far ahead of the rate of inflation). The past few years have seen a flurry of articles about the crushing debt some college and grad school students now face upon graduation.

This week the Times' Greg Winter reported that many loan agencies have been exploiting a loophole in the law that enables them to get more tax dollars that could be spent on needy students instead.

from the Kerry-Edwards website: As president, John Kerry will offer a fully refundable College Opportunity Tax credit on up to $4,000 of tuition for every year of college and offer aid to states that keep tuitions down.

from the Bush-Cheney website: More than 10.3 million students will be able to afford college through President Bush's record $73 billion in financial aid assistance - an increase of $25.9 billion, or 55 percent, over 2001. The President's plan will provide a record $12.9 billion investment in Pell Grants, a 47 percent increase over 2001, to help an additional one million students afford college.

Tell us what you think!

Posted by leboheme at 03:44 PM

How much will it cost society if the goal is to insure that everyone has a college education of some sort?

Do we really want a society where bank tellers, secretaries, laborers, garbage collectors, traffic cops, etc., need college degrees in order to secure employment or advance beyond entry level status?

While I do not advocate returning to a society where certain races, classes, sexes, etc., of people were relegated to certain jobs and job categories, it is ridiculous and fiscally irresponsible to "professionalize" even menial jobs in order to justify the cost of a college degree, which is what has happened in many cases.
-MY

Hi Brian, everyone. Isn’t it about time that the nation commits itself to free college education--as it has earlier committed itself to free high school education? Certainly a college education is as important today for helping citizens become contributing members of society as a high school education had been when it became a goal of public policy.
-MT

I completely disagree with your caller who claimed that if everyone has
a college education, it somehow reduces the value of having one. His
assumption is that getting a college degree is solely for the purpose
of getting a job. What about the countless other benefits of going to
college - like, perhaps, getting an education simply because you seek
to expand your mind, your perspective, your social circle, your
understanding of concepts, etc. etc. etc.
-EE

i thought your guest was excellent in framing the "financial drivers"
increasing tuition out of the reach of "average americans". i would have
hoped that this shortfall in making higher education affordable and
accessable would have been more clearly framed as a "security issue" as
other countries like india and china will one day have a "educated
citizenry" at a a lower cost...
-MT

Posted by leboheme at 03:15 PM

Hats off to these brave souls who've risked their lives to bring us the news from Iraq. This week we've had the good fortune to hear from two of them in person

Anne Garrels

Ivan Watson

Posted by leboheme at 03:06 PM

“Energy independence” forms the next installment of the 30 Issues in 30 Days series. Both candidates are talking up the need to give up our dependence on foreign oil. We’ll look at the questions this raises – Is this achievable, what do we need to get there, and will it make a difference?

Jerry Taylor of the libertarian think tank, the Cato institute will discuss this with Tyson Slocum with the consumer group, Public Citizen.

In the meantime, here’s where the candidates stand:

email us your thoughts

From the Bush campaign website:

President Bush has provided substantial funding to increase energy efficiency in Government buildings and American homes and improve fuel economy for automobiles. And last year, President Bush launched a groundbreaking initiative to develop technologies to produce, store, and distribute hydrogen for use in fuel-cell vehicles, electricity generation, and other applications. In his second term, President Bush will build on these important steps to help reduce America's dependence on foreign sources of energy. At the same time, he will continue to make clear to foreign oil producers our mutual interest in maintaining adequate and secure supplies of foreign oil to meet our energy needs and to ensure the continuation of global economic growth.
From the Kerry Campaign website:

John Kerry and John Edwards will put America on the path towards energy independence. They will harness the full force of American optimism and ingenuity to invest in new technologies and alternative fuels, create tax incentives that help automakers produce more fuel efficient cars, and reward the consumers who buy them. We invented and built the cars we drive today - we can invent and build the cars we drive tomorrow, too.
The Kerry-Edwards plan will increase energy conservation and create clean, renewable sources of energy that no terrorist can sabotage and no foreign government can seize. Their plan will also save billions by cutting waste and pork-barrel spending in Washington.

Please email us your thoughts. Read the feedback we've received so far.

Posted by leboheme at 05:11 PM

Why isn't there more emphasis on viable near term solutions like hybrid vehicles?
-FA

Read more emails

Please send us your thoughts

It seems to me that the one area that would have the largest impact on any energy policy, and coincidentally, the one issue that none of the candidates talk about is subsidies. Our current structure (oil, coal) is so heavily subsidized that the market is in essence false. If we eliminated these subsidies (or scaled them down), renewables would be put on a level playing field and that would essentially determine our future energy policy. The market rather than piggybacking and pork barrel politics.
-TM

Government subsidies of new technology are always acceptable when there is an overwhelming public interest. A disappearing resource, such as oil, constitutes an overwhelming public interest. That is why we have a government.
Also, government subsidies are necessary to overcome the overwhelming inertia of the oil industry (inertia perpetuated, supported and motivated by the government in one way or another.)
-sb

Posted by leboheme at 05:00 PM

The week is rolling by quickly and issue three of our thirty is the Patriot Act. Joining us to discuss the pitfalls and virtues of the landmark legistlation are Professor David Cole of Georgetown University's School of Law, and the Heritage Foundation's Dr. James Jacy Carafano.
Professor Cole is the author of Enemy Aliens: Double Standards and Consitutional Freedoms in the War on Terrorism Enemy Aliens: Double Standards and Consitutional Freedoms in the War on Terrorism (New Press 2003) and will explain the Kerry campaigns view of the Patriot Act.

Dr. James Jay Carafano will defend the Patriot Act as it stands and focus on the Bush Administration's agenda.
Please let us know your thoughts, email us your feedback and we will post selected comments tomorrow.

Posted by leboheme at 04:04 PM

How could we as Americans ever question what is done under the umbrella of Patriotism?
-JF

Read more mails

Please keep the emails coming

I object to the focus of The Patriotic Act. The focus is increasing the power of the government's intelligence community. I believe our intelligence community is a necessary evil that must be closely overseen continuously by Congress. (Although I'm against capital punishment, I believe spies should be subject to the firing squad when they are found guilty of betrayal that might have resulted in the death of an "innocent" person. That's what should give teeth to Congressional oversight). U.S. law must choose between The Patriotic Act and the message on The Statue of Liberty. The latter symbolizes "The House I live In."
-F.D.

How could we as Americans ever question what is done under the umbrella of Patriotism?
Giving this law this name is EXACTLY (along with all the other perfectly good reasons) why it needs to be VERY SPECIFIC about when civil liberties may be put aside.
For the record, I am also horribly offended by calling September 11 "Patriot Day", and I am reduced to apoplexy when asked to explain why.
-J.F.

Posted by leboheme at 04:00 PM

Our 30 Issues series turns to Europe today. In the aftermath of the war in Iraq and the frayed relations with Germany and France, how much do both candidates value the alliance? Earlier this summer President Bush proposed a troop withdrawal from German bases. Elsewhere a new poll showed decreasing European support for the US. We'll get two views from The Economist magazine editor Bill Emmott and Newsweek Paris Bureau Chief, Chris Dickey.

Here are the two candidate's stances on Europe from the party platforms:

Email us your feedback. Read the responses we've received so far.

Democrat:
From the party platform

Europe: Throughout the 20th century, America's most trusted and reliable allies were the democracies of Europe; together, the two sides of the Atlantic ensured that democracy and free markets prevailed against all challenges. The Bush Administration has allowed the Atlantic partnership to erode, leaving the United States dangerously isolated from its indispensable allies. The Democratic Party is committed to revitalizing the Atlantic partnership. The international goals that the United States pursues will be easier to attain if Europe and America are working together. We will ensure that NATO remains strong, continuing to consolidate peace in Europe even as the alliance takes on new tasks in Afghanistan and Iraq. We look forward to the evolution of the European Union and to a prosperous and unified Europe that joins the United States in meeting today's security challenges and expanding the global economy.

Republican
From the party platform

Europe:
Republicans applaud President Bush for the visionary agenda he set forth at the
beginning of his Administration: the establishment of a Europe whole, free, and at peace. That agenda is in the finest tradition of America’s historical commitment to the freedom and security of Europe. It builds on the legacy of the courageous and resolute leadership of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, through which the Cold War was won.
We hail the President’s success in achieving unprecedented cooperation with
Europe – at NATO, through the European Union, and with individual nations – in
combating terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, building peace and democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, and advancing the cause of freedom, democracy, and opportunity throughout the broader Middle East and North Africa. In particular, we are grateful for the close friendship and strong partnership with the United Kingdom, upholding the tradition of a special relationship between our two nations. Together and with strong U.S. leadership, America and Europe are decisively confronting the greatest challenges and boldly seizing the historic opportunities of our time.
We believe that the security of the United States is inseparable from the security
of Europe. This enduring truth was reaffirmed by our European allies after the attacks of September 11, 2001, when NATO invoked its Article V self-defense clause for the first time in the history of the Alliance, recognizing that the attack on America was also an attack on the Alliance as a whole. Republicans know that a strong NATO is the foundation of peace in Europe and beyond. We commend NATO’s leadership of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan – a mission that has been led in the past by the United Kingdom, Turkey, Germany, and the Netherlands and is being supported by European partners such as Ireland, Albania, and Croatia. We applaud the establishment of a NATO operation to train Iraqi security forces. We hail those NATO nations and NATO partners that are contributing forces to Iraq, including the Polish-led division for which the Alliance has provided technical support. Republicans remain steadfast supporters of NATO enlargement. We recall that the leadership of a Republican Senate helped Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary return to the Euro-Atlantic Community through membership in the Alliance. We hail the President’s leadership in NATO’s decision to welcome seven new democracies into the Alliance this year – Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Republicans support the continued enlargement of NATO to include other democratic nations willing and able to share the burden of defending and advancing our common interests. Republicans recognize and applaud the fact that especially since September 11, 2001, some of America’s strongest allies and friends have been the democracies of Central and Eastern Europe – many of whom inspired the world during the Cold War by assaulting the Iron Curtain again and again until it finally crashed down forever.
Republicans hail the participation in the multinational coalition in Iraq of NATO
members that joined the Alliance in 1999 and 2004 – Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, and Slovakia – as well as the contributions of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Albania, and Macedonia. Through their dedication to the cause of security and freedom in Iraq, these nations – together with the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark, Portugal, and Norway – are demonstrating their commitment to the values shared by members of the transatlantic community. We also applaud the contribution of forces in Iraq by Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan and support strengthening NATO’s partnerships with these nations and their neighbors in the Caucasus and Central Asia. President Bush is forging a new relationship with Russia based on the central reality that the United States and Russia are no longer strategic adversaries. We hail the President’s visionary leadership in reassessing the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which was a relic of the Cold War and treated Russia as an enemy. The President has strengthened this new relationship by concluding the historic Moscow Treaty on Strategic Reductions, which will reduce the nuclear arsenals of our two nations to their lowest levels in decades. President Bush is rightly refocusing the relationship on emerging and potential common interests and challenges, especially broadening our already extensive cooperation in the War on Terror and promoting beneficial bilateral trade and investment relations. At the same time, Republicans believe that Russia’s uneven commitment to the basic values of democracy remains a matter of great concern. We continue to support the independence and stability of the states of the former Soviet Union in the belief that a prosperous and stable neighborhood will reinforce Russia’s integration into the Euro-Atlantic community. Republicans recognize and hail President Bush’s use of the prestige and influence of the United States to support the efforts of leaders in Ireland and the United Kingdom and the many other people of goodwill who are working to achieve a lasting and peaceful settlement in Northern Ireland. We endorse President Bush’s personal reaffirmation of America’s commitment to the Good Friday Agreement and to its full and complete implementation, as expressed during his visit to Northern Ireland in April 2003. We applaud the President’s appointment of a Special Envoy for Northern Ireland, who is participating in the peace process and supporting efforts of Ireland and the United Kingdom to restore the democratic process in Northern Ireland. We share the President’s commitment that America’s support for this vital work will continue.
Republicans support America’s commitment to Northern Ireland’s economic development, including our nation’s contributions to the International Fund for Ireland and private U.S. investment in the North, with care to ensure fair employment and better opportunities for all. Though the burdens of history weigh heavily upon that land, we cheer its people for taking the lead in building for themselves and for their children a future of peace and understanding.
Our Party continues to support a peaceful settlement for Cyprus and respect by all parties for the wishes of the Cypriot people. A fair and lasting Cyprus settlement will benefit the people of Cyprus, as well as serve the interests of America and our allies, Greece and Turkey.

Posted by leboheme at 09:08 AM

How about a poll in the US as to whether Jacque Chirac would be elected here?
-JC

read more emails

Got a response? Send it our way.

I have lived in Europe several times in the last 25 years, most recently between 1998-2001 (Italy) and was comforted on 9/11 by my Italian friends and colleagues. I returned to Italy for a visit in March 2003, litteraly days before the outbreak of hostilities in Iraq. It was all that people wanted to talk about. I could not believe the change in my friends' attitude to the US from the time I had left in November 2001.
I was dismayed by your repeated requests of your guests to name "concrete" ways in which things might change because of the current administration's stance towards the "old" Europe. What is changing is a relationship and sometimes changes to a relationship are intangible, things like trust and respect. People and nations who have been our friends and allies - some for over 200 years - have been treated so crudely by this administration that there has been irreparable ( I believe) damage done to our relationship. This saddens me deeply on one hand, and frightens me on the other. In this new century, in which many non-Western nations are poised to emerge as power brokers, Europe and the United States, with their shared tradition of western values, are oing to be seriously challenged. Instead of moving forward together, we are likely going to have to negotiate this transition separately.
-PD

Bush used the word crusade after 9/11, how was that viewed in Europe?
-NA

Posted by leboheme at 08:30 AM

Our new series "30 Issues in 30 Days" kicks off on Monday. The first topic, healthcare, is as hard to gain an overview of as a box full of nuts, bolts, screws, planks, and drawers that has been strewn across a room--and a good deal hearder to piece together than those all-pictures no-words Ikea assembly manuals.

Example A, from the John Kerry for President website's healthcare page:

"Adopt Disease Management and Care Coordination Programs to Improve Quality and Lower Costs. Innovative programs targeting patients with chronic conditions have illustrated that both the human and cost consequences of chronic diseases can be alleviated through hands-on medical management. Employers and their insurers must adopt model programs to receive the premium rebate."

Example B, from the Bush-Cheney '04 website's healthcare page:

Promote Affordable Health Care for Children - The President will launch a nationwide, billion dollar Cover the Kids campaign to sign up more children for quality health care coverage. The Cover the Kids campaign will combine the resources of the Federal Government, states, and community organizations, including faith-based organizations, with the goal of covering all SCHIP-eligible children within the next two years.

One great place to get some clarity is the Kaiser Family Foundation's analysis of the Bush and Kerry health plans.

Some questions to consider:

Give the failure of the Clinton proposal in the mid-1990s, who could get Republicans and Democrats to agree on a plan?

Would our current system benefit from more government intervention or a freer market?

How could our system of health insurance be simplified so that the average adult understands it?

What's on your mind when you think about healthcare? Tell us!

Posted by leboheme at 02:28 PM

We should be focusing on educating the American public about learning to take care of themselves. That means healthy diets, vitamins, supplements, and a progressive approach to alternative health care.
-AA

Read more email response

Email us!

I'm having a hard time relating this discussion to my real-life experience. A lot of uninsured people are not low-income as we usually think about it, they're middle-class people who are losing their retiree benefits or who have gone from employee-status to free-lance status and have lost their benefits in the process. How do either "plans" really address these issues?
-NL

In other industries like utilities, customer interactions and billing practices are highly standardized andd regulated. For every doctor's office there is at least one person (usually more) trying to get bills paid and dealing with inept billing companies. While the focus is on building a faster train, no one has considered that the tracks need to be updated as well. There is simply too much waste in the system... and it's a big opportunity to create jobs and improve service!
-LN

I wonder if the idea of high-deductable policies is flawed because such a high percentage of health care costs are generated by a small percentage of very sick people. If high deductable policies must cover those patients, then the money saved on routine healthcare paid out of pocket by the insured wouldn't be enough to seriously reduce costs to the insurer.
-AS

If today’s show said anything to me – I’m in for 30 days of agita. Lambrew and Wilensky have as much grip on our state of national health as the Mets do when it comes to evaluating talent.
-JS

While the Bush plan costs less, of what value is his plan if it does not provide health care for many of those who need it? A typical Bush plan, big talk but no real results.
-JB

Email us!

Posted by leboheme at 01:00 PM

Our first "30 Issues in 30 Days" segment is just getting underway, and already the numbers are being hotly disputed.

On the right, Gail Wilensky says a study by the conservative American Enterprise Institute should dissuade Americans from embracing the more expensive Kerry plan (requires Adobe Acrobat).

On the left, Jeanne Lambrew says 45 million Americans is too great a number to entrust to the Bush plan, which would ensure fewer than the Kerry plan. Read her assessment.

Your diagnosis?

Posted by leboheme at 11:21 AM

Former staff of the Windows on the World restaurant are launching a worker-owned restaurant in Tribeca. They don't have a name yet, but they've opened a competition
for a name. If you're interested in a free meal when it opens, why not come up with your own suggestions? To get you thinking, one caller offered "One World" and an emailer recommended "Metamorphisis". We'll try to forward the entries to the co-op organizers.

Posted by leboheme at 02:30 PM

Look who's against the war in Iraq- Pat Buchanan! Mr. Buchanan came on our show to discuss his new book Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency and he shocked many of listeners with his anti war sentiments. One emailed stating Pat was the wrong man with the right message.

After 35 minutes of criticizing George Bush Buchanan admitted he was voting for the president, although he did giggle quite a bit while saying it! Sometimes you can only stretch so far.

Posted by leboheme at 02:58 PM

Fashion week: is lime green the new pink?
Who is the fairest of them all: Jenna, Barbara, Alexandra, or Vanessa?
"Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country": what exactly did Bush mean when he said that? [Reuters]

But seriously, folks. With all the back and forth over swift boats, surfacing documents, and who did what thirty years ago, we're wondering what actual issues you'd like to hear about before you go to the voting booth. On the phones today and over email, listeners suggested the following:

>non-swing state votes not counting
>interest rates
>Is the "War on Terrorism" a war or a "war"
>technology and copyright (Intellectual property)
>relations with Latin America
>the tax code

what would you like us to discuss? Let us know!

Posted by leboheme at 04:42 PM

The questions over the 60 Minutes investigation on President Bush’s National Guard records seemed to stem from the blogosphere before escalating into a mainstream story. But as one of tomorrow’s guests, Bob Steele, argues, bloggers’ treatment tends to be ideologically driven on either side of the issue. The conservative sites, Powerline and Little Green Footballs were one of the first to question the CBS documents’ authenticity. And Much of the questioning of the questioning has come from the liberal DailyKos and TalkingPointsMemo. Though it helps to know their motivation, does it matter if these questions come from partisan sources as long as there’s truth to them? Hear what Poynter's Bob Steele says tomorrow.
(your thoughts)

Posted by leboheme at 04:20 PM

Author and intelligence expert Thomas Powers captured in our studio on a camera phone.

Posted by leboheme at 03:37 PM

Some months ago, we were pitched a "Lou Dobbs interview" with hip hop bon vivant and sometime activist Russell Simmons. We were intrigued.

A "Lou Dobbs interview" with Russell Simmons? What could that be? Would our guest host, Sarah Crichton, have to interview Simmons in the style of the CNN money guy? Would Dobbs himself show up to ask the questions? Would Simmons refuse to speak on any topics other than the Dow Jones?

We never really found out. Due to scheduling conflicts, the interview began late, and despite Sarah's valiant efforts, it was simply not our best.

But tomorrow (Wednesday) we'll find out. Dobbs himself will be our guest at 11:40 am. He'll talk about his new book, Exporting America: Why Corporate Greed is Shipping American Jobs Overseas.

Coming from a lifelong Republican and fierce capitalist, it should be interesting to hear Dobbs' take on outsourcing. As we recently learned, the phenomenon has even begun to affect American journalists!
[Reuters to Shift Editorial Jobs to India]

Can you tell us what a "Lou Dobbs interview" is?

Posted by leboheme at 03:57 PM

Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania dropped by our booth at Madison Square Garden.

Posted by leboheme at 01:41 PM

Ann Coulter

Posted by leboheme at 03:00 PM

Actor and recent Republican Ron Silver

Posted by leboheme at 02:56 PM

G. Gordon Liddy

Posted by leboheme at 02:54 PM

Charles Gargano

Posted by leboheme at 02:50 PM

Don King will not represent John Kerry in this fighting match

Posted by leboheme at 02:24 PM

A Presidential candidate makes his way to Radio Row

Posted by leboheme at 05:31 PM

Mayor Bloomberg stops by for a brief chat.

Posted by leboheme at 05:17 PM