Amanda and a few others have been kicking this around the blogosphere, so why not?
Most disappointing movies (not sure I can really say "hated" since most movies I see are ones I have applied at least some selective quality towards, being sure to avoid the ones I'm absolutely sure I wouldn't make it through or would hate myself for doing so afterward):
1) Cold Mountain - a very picturesque movie, but just didn't have any jazz. The characters weren't interesting. The story ends sadly.
2) Constantine - a mess, unrealistic effects, a movie that couldn't quite make up its mind whether to be serious or not.
3) The Constant Gardner - a great cast, but didn't live up to expectations. Rachel Weisz's character dies in it.
4) Donnie Darko - ??
5) Leaving Las Vegas - Terribly depressing
6) My Best Friend's Wedding - The beginning of my I Don't Like Julia Roberts stage; just an annoying plot line and disturbing character interaction
7) 15 Minutes - another movie not sure whether it wanted to be serious or not. It wasn't.
8) 3000 Miles to Graceland - couldn't get past the first few minutes.
9) The Clearing - the ending just drops off to nowhere.
Under-rated or over-looked movies:
1. The Brady Bunch Movie - a most humerous takeoff of the old sitcom.
2. Cop Land - Stallone, DeNiro. Bad cop--no donut.
3. Summer School - Mark Harmon, a young Courtney Thorne Smith, in humorous story of slacker gym teacher turned english summer tutor and his equally unambitious students
4. Weekend at Bernies (surprised to see this on the bottom ranked 80's movies)
5. Darkness - suspenseful. And it has Anna Paquin in it.
6. The Village - but like most of his movies, can really only watch it once.
7. Death to Smoochie - Robin Williams and Edward Norton in dark comedy about two children's performers
8. Cheaters - Jena Malone, Jeff Daniels, story of high school honor class that cheats to win state-wide academic competition (based on true story).
9. Trapped - Charlieze Theron, Kevin Bacon; couple has child kidnapped, but they turn the tables on the kidnappers.
10. In the Cut - interesting and erotic movie with Meg Ryan playing against type.
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Used Books
I'm still waiting for my used copy of The Satanic Verses to come in the mail from the Amazon-affiliated book-dealer. Seems like I ordered it weeks ago. That's the thing with getting stuff through the mail. Like with Amazon, your order could come the next day, or you might wait three weeks. And I couldn't find a copy at my neighborhood Borders. Figures. I'll only have time to skim it by the time of my bookclub meeting. And it's a complex book, I hear, to say the least. There's a primer for it that was sent to me by one of my bookclub mates.
Meanwhile, I've picked up reading James O' Donnell's Augustine again. As at least one of it's reviewers noted, this Augustine is not an easy read, at least in terms of how the book is organized. The prose is fine, but if you're looking for a nice chronological story-telling, and an outline of all the characters and issues, this book isn't it. Probably better to read the Peter Brown version. Nonetheless, there are things to like in O'Donnell's version.
Like a lot of recent church scholarship, O'Donnell reveals a more nuanced Augustine and a more complex church portrait than what church apologists have painted. O'Donnell's Augustine maintains the career climbing, publicity seeking that marked his younger, uncoverted days. Only in his ecclesiastical career, his ambition takes the form of church authority and that era's form of self-promotion--letter writing, between the Bishop and the notables of the day, preferably the political and influential, rather than his fellow clergy.
Of the theological and political divide between Augustine's Caecilianists and the opposition Donatists, the latter of whom Augustine was himself once affiliated, and which before Augustine's time was the dominant sect, O' Donnell doesn't draw a nice, neat distinction for the reader, most likely because the distinctions are not easy to grasp for us moderns.
In fact, the strength of O'Donnell's tale is it's illumination of a less unified, theologically sorted out Christian religion than that proposed by both the orthodox Catholics and fundamentalist Protestants today. But for each, Augustine's more global, authoritarian views had a great deal in shaping their tradition's world views.
Meanwhile, I've picked up reading James O' Donnell's Augustine again. As at least one of it's reviewers noted, this Augustine is not an easy read, at least in terms of how the book is organized. The prose is fine, but if you're looking for a nice chronological story-telling, and an outline of all the characters and issues, this book isn't it. Probably better to read the Peter Brown version. Nonetheless, there are things to like in O'Donnell's version.
Like a lot of recent church scholarship, O'Donnell reveals a more nuanced Augustine and a more complex church portrait than what church apologists have painted. O'Donnell's Augustine maintains the career climbing, publicity seeking that marked his younger, uncoverted days. Only in his ecclesiastical career, his ambition takes the form of church authority and that era's form of self-promotion--letter writing, between the Bishop and the notables of the day, preferably the political and influential, rather than his fellow clergy.
Of the theological and political divide between Augustine's Caecilianists and the opposition Donatists, the latter of whom Augustine was himself once affiliated, and which before Augustine's time was the dominant sect, O' Donnell doesn't draw a nice, neat distinction for the reader, most likely because the distinctions are not easy to grasp for us moderns.
In fact, the strength of O'Donnell's tale is it's illumination of a less unified, theologically sorted out Christian religion than that proposed by both the orthodox Catholics and fundamentalist Protestants today. But for each, Augustine's more global, authoritarian views had a great deal in shaping their tradition's world views.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Dude, Where's My Ideology?
I've been trying to be pragmatic about the 2008 Dem field for president. Just win, baby.
But I can't help feeling concerned when I read stuff like this in yesterday's Wash Post Style article on Mark Warner:
"It behooves Democrats, he says, to reframe the debate liberal vs. conservative to 'future vs. past.' "
We've heard this before:
"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence."
Of course, after Iraq and Katrina, I'd welcome some good old fashioned competence for a change. And I think we can reasonably conclude that there's a connection between an anti-government ideology and the actual performance of government. And maybe Warner's right: reframing the debate from "liberal" to "future" is a good way to avoid a negative label while simultaneously recasting the conservative's backward agenda in a way that would make Democrats seem appealing by comparison.
But I hope this doesn't turn into a wholesale refutation of ideology, particularly among the progressive grassroots. Starting at least with the Dukakis campaign, Democrats began a withdrawal of their own from the ideological field of combat with Republicans and not surprisingly, we've been getting our hats handed to us ever since, defensive about our beliefs, and unable to shape the public debate and policymaking process.
Ezra Klein's concerned too:
For my part, I have an article on the Brown/Hackett race (and what it says about the netroots) in the most recent American Prospect. My argument is, basically, that the netroots need to start thinking about who they are ideologically rather than simply flocking to who they prefer pugilistically.
While Democrats should be optimistic about their prospects in 2006 and 2008, it may be tempting to do and say whatever we think it takes to win, without regard for laying out a cohesive narrative about what Democrats value (and the risks inherent in defining ourselves). But since the Republicans will define us anyway, better to do on our own terms.
But I can't help feeling concerned when I read stuff like this in yesterday's Wash Post Style article on Mark Warner:
"It behooves Democrats, he says, to reframe the debate liberal vs. conservative to 'future vs. past.' "
We've heard this before:
"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence."
Of course, after Iraq and Katrina, I'd welcome some good old fashioned competence for a change. And I think we can reasonably conclude that there's a connection between an anti-government ideology and the actual performance of government. And maybe Warner's right: reframing the debate from "liberal" to "future" is a good way to avoid a negative label while simultaneously recasting the conservative's backward agenda in a way that would make Democrats seem appealing by comparison.
But I hope this doesn't turn into a wholesale refutation of ideology, particularly among the progressive grassroots. Starting at least with the Dukakis campaign, Democrats began a withdrawal of their own from the ideological field of combat with Republicans and not surprisingly, we've been getting our hats handed to us ever since, defensive about our beliefs, and unable to shape the public debate and policymaking process.
Ezra Klein's concerned too:
For my part, I have an article on the Brown/Hackett race (and what it says about the netroots) in the most recent American Prospect. My argument is, basically, that the netroots need to start thinking about who they are ideologically rather than simply flocking to who they prefer pugilistically.
While Democrats should be optimistic about their prospects in 2006 and 2008, it may be tempting to do and say whatever we think it takes to win, without regard for laying out a cohesive narrative about what Democrats value (and the risks inherent in defining ourselves). But since the Republicans will define us anyway, better to do on our own terms.
Monday, November 21, 2005
Monday Morning QB
Norv Turner 16
The Danny 13
Everytime Kerry Collins dropped back to pass--and the nearest Washington defensive lineman appeared to be in Fairfax County--I cringed, imagining Randy Moss catching a bomb and scoring. Well, it turned out that Jerry Porter caught the bombs away pass that started the Raiders turn around yesterday. This game exposed just about everything that's been wrong with the Skins this year. Aside from the blitz, a non-existent pass rush, an inconsistent offense, turnovers, and poor pass protection. This was a crucial game for Washington. I've said previously that I thought Washington had a favorable remaining schedule, but not now. They needed to win--at home--yesterday and didn't get it done. Their season's over.
Seahawks 27
49'ers 25
Can someone explain to me why this game was listed as one of the TV games in the Balt-Wash DC area yesterday? Fortunately we got Indy-Cincy on the other station, but c'mon. And how was it that with Ken Dorsey at QB, the Seahawks didn't cover the spread?
Steelers 13
Ravens 16
Pittsburgh didn't have the one guy on their team that can pass-Rothlesburger--on the field yesterday, so you think they'd run the ball all afternoon. But everytime I tuned into this game when Pitt had the ball, I saw XFLer Tommy Maddux trying to pass. Strange game. Were Duce and the Bus hurt? Good game for the Colts as Pitt drops three games behind them for home field. Denver is two back.
Speaking of which,
Jets 0
Broncos 27
Ouch. Herm Edwards is too good a coach to have this kind of season. But their QB position is desperate. Wonder who they'll have next year? At 2-8, they may still be in the Matt Leinert sweepstakes.
Bills 3
Chargers 40
And SD is coming into town next week. Will Marty be the second ex-Skins coach to beat his former team? Skins go for two in a row next week.
Tampa 30
Falcons 27
Falcons have lost two straight and have fallen out of first in the NFC South. Tampa and Carolina on top. Guess the Bucs got healthy against the Redskins last week. Raiders will probably go on to win six straight.
Colts 45
Bengals 37
Very tedious end to this game, with Cincy trying to line up for an onsides kick at the end. The officials spent a basketball game final minute trying to sort things out. And, oh yeah, Colts 10-0.
Dolphins 0
Browns 22
What happened here?
The Danny 13
Everytime Kerry Collins dropped back to pass--and the nearest Washington defensive lineman appeared to be in Fairfax County--I cringed, imagining Randy Moss catching a bomb and scoring. Well, it turned out that Jerry Porter caught the bombs away pass that started the Raiders turn around yesterday. This game exposed just about everything that's been wrong with the Skins this year. Aside from the blitz, a non-existent pass rush, an inconsistent offense, turnovers, and poor pass protection. This was a crucial game for Washington. I've said previously that I thought Washington had a favorable remaining schedule, but not now. They needed to win--at home--yesterday and didn't get it done. Their season's over.
Seahawks 27
49'ers 25
Can someone explain to me why this game was listed as one of the TV games in the Balt-Wash DC area yesterday? Fortunately we got Indy-Cincy on the other station, but c'mon. And how was it that with Ken Dorsey at QB, the Seahawks didn't cover the spread?
Steelers 13
Ravens 16
Pittsburgh didn't have the one guy on their team that can pass-Rothlesburger--on the field yesterday, so you think they'd run the ball all afternoon. But everytime I tuned into this game when Pitt had the ball, I saw XFLer Tommy Maddux trying to pass. Strange game. Were Duce and the Bus hurt? Good game for the Colts as Pitt drops three games behind them for home field. Denver is two back.
Speaking of which,
Jets 0
Broncos 27
Ouch. Herm Edwards is too good a coach to have this kind of season. But their QB position is desperate. Wonder who they'll have next year? At 2-8, they may still be in the Matt Leinert sweepstakes.
Bills 3
Chargers 40
And SD is coming into town next week. Will Marty be the second ex-Skins coach to beat his former team? Skins go for two in a row next week.
Tampa 30
Falcons 27
Falcons have lost two straight and have fallen out of first in the NFC South. Tampa and Carolina on top. Guess the Bucs got healthy against the Redskins last week. Raiders will probably go on to win six straight.
Colts 45
Bengals 37
Very tedious end to this game, with Cincy trying to line up for an onsides kick at the end. The officials spent a basketball game final minute trying to sort things out. And, oh yeah, Colts 10-0.
Dolphins 0
Browns 22
What happened here?
Sunday, November 20, 2005
NYT Special Edition
Here's Frank Rich:
One hideous consequence of the White House's Big Lie - fusing the war of choice in Iraq with the war of necessity that began on 9/11 - is that the public, having rejected one, automatically rejects the other. That's already happening. The percentage of Americans who now regard fighting terrorism as a top national priority is either in the single or low double digits in every poll. Thus the tragic bottom line of the Bush catastrophe: the administration has at once increased the ranks of jihadists by turning Iraq into a new training ground and recruitment magnet while at the same time exhausting America's will and resources to confront that expanded threat.
But if anything, Brooks is even more interesting:
For while the American presence is a catalyst for violence in Iraq, it is not the main catalyst. The main source of violence in Iraq is the sectarian war between the Sunnis and the Shiites.
And, um, gee, why would that be?
In the vacuum of security caused by the botched American occupation, these ethnic tensions have turned into a low-grade civil war.
And, um, maybe the invasion has had something to do with the civil war breaking out, too.
And what about the administration coming clean on what it knows about Iraq, rather than pummeling us with "stay the course" propaganda?
There's one area, though, where I completely sympathize with Jack Murtha. I sympathize with his frustration. On Feb. 23, 1942, Franklin Roosevelt asked Americans to spread out maps before them and he described, step by step, what was going on in World War II, where the U.S. was winning and where it was losing. Why can't today's president do that? Why can't he show that he is aware that his biggest problem is not in Iraq, it's on the home front?
Since the president doesn't give out credible information, it's no wonder Republicans are measuring success by how quickly we can get out;
One hideous consequence of the White House's Big Lie - fusing the war of choice in Iraq with the war of necessity that began on 9/11 - is that the public, having rejected one, automatically rejects the other. That's already happening. The percentage of Americans who now regard fighting terrorism as a top national priority is either in the single or low double digits in every poll. Thus the tragic bottom line of the Bush catastrophe: the administration has at once increased the ranks of jihadists by turning Iraq into a new training ground and recruitment magnet while at the same time exhausting America's will and resources to confront that expanded threat.
But if anything, Brooks is even more interesting:
For while the American presence is a catalyst for violence in Iraq, it is not the main catalyst. The main source of violence in Iraq is the sectarian war between the Sunnis and the Shiites.
And, um, gee, why would that be?
In the vacuum of security caused by the botched American occupation, these ethnic tensions have turned into a low-grade civil war.
And, um, maybe the invasion has had something to do with the civil war breaking out, too.
And what about the administration coming clean on what it knows about Iraq, rather than pummeling us with "stay the course" propaganda?
There's one area, though, where I completely sympathize with Jack Murtha. I sympathize with his frustration. On Feb. 23, 1942, Franklin Roosevelt asked Americans to spread out maps before them and he described, step by step, what was going on in World War II, where the U.S. was winning and where it was losing. Why can't today's president do that? Why can't he show that he is aware that his biggest problem is not in Iraq, it's on the home front?
Since the president doesn't give out credible information, it's no wonder Republicans are measuring success by how quickly we can get out;
Friday, November 18, 2005
Murtha, the War, and Getting Out
Before Thursday I had started to think some very counterintuitive thoughts for a progressive blogger type.
For instance, after initially rallying behind Harry Reid's Senate shut-down and call for phase II of the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation on the use of pre-war intelligence, I'd started to wonder if that was really a good avenue for Democrats to go down. After all, what would such an investigation uncover that wasn't already known? Would the evidence of such an investigation amount to anything more than ambigous conclusions? And perhaps most importantly, would it do anything to improve the course of the conflict and situation in Iraq? Harry Truman's WWII committee on contracts, cost over-runs, and shoddy workmanship in the war effort had just this potential. But I wasn't sure raising anew questions about the intelligence and the use of the intelligence, among other pre-war decisions, was going to amount to much. And politically, was there a danger that such a strategy could in the end prove to be a case of Democratic over-reach, convincing many swing-voters Democrats were just out for blood rather than interested in a constructive solution to the war in Iraq and "war on terrorism" more broadly?
That the Reid Senate maneuver, among other things perhaps, seemed to have energized the White House and encouraged the administration's worst "dissent is unpatriotic" line of attack added to those concerns.
What's more, most Democrats had not really appeared to be offering an alternative course of action in Iraq as I could tell. What could Democrats say to the country about Iraq and what to do there?
The discussion of timetables, or the more radical idea of withdrawal, also hadn't convinced me on either policy or political grounds as being necessarily fruitfull. The "we broke it, we fix it" argument about the invasion and reconstruction of Iraq however over simplified, had a certain merit I couldn't ignore. And most of the Democratic apologies for their Iraq war votes struck me as being too little, too late, lacking a recognition of the propaganda effect that led to the war's approval by fearful Democrats worried about their next elections. Worst of all, the White House counter-charges, that at least some Democrats seemed to regard Iraq as just a much of a threat as the administration, while distorted, also seemed at least partly meritorous even if based only on narrowly construed and taken-out-of-context Democratic party statements.
But John Murtha's public stance yesterday, and the emotional power of his press conference calling for a withdrawal of the troops within, or beginning in at least six months, impressed me, especially given his hawkish background and previous support for the war. That Murtha wasn't Dennis Kucinich, or even John Kerry, made the declaration one of particular import.
And while most Democrats didn't publically jump on the Murtha bandwagon yesterday, it seems pretty clear to me, at least so far, that the Murtha statement was a bombshell, for both the White House just trying to regain its political footing, and for Democrats still trying to protect their national security credentials. While there may not be immediate movement on Murtha's proposition, I suspect it will continue to hang out there in the media stratosphere, serving as a marker of sorts, representing an alternative for the opposition party come election time, and as an item for the media to continually refer back to when discussing the latest war tragedy.
The Murtha call is a line in the sand. The idea of withdrawal has been put on the political map. It's been given credibility.
Now, will it matter?
The administration claims it is holding out for "complete victory" and won't "surrender". But what is victory? Would we know it if we saw it? The capture of Al Zaqari and the dismantling of "Al Qaeda in Iraq", or is the insurgency comprised of much more than this most recent boogey-man, eight of diamonds, deck card of hostile elements the administration once used as its measure of progress in routing the old Baathist regime?
Does victory mean the official establishment of an on-paper Iraqi military/police force? Or would it need to be a more substantive indicator?
And what of our long-term military establishment plans for permanent war bases in Iraq?
These are some of the questions that Murtha's declaration may help to lift back into the public debate on Iraq. And Murta's framework may soon prove the best response.
For instance, after initially rallying behind Harry Reid's Senate shut-down and call for phase II of the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation on the use of pre-war intelligence, I'd started to wonder if that was really a good avenue for Democrats to go down. After all, what would such an investigation uncover that wasn't already known? Would the evidence of such an investigation amount to anything more than ambigous conclusions? And perhaps most importantly, would it do anything to improve the course of the conflict and situation in Iraq? Harry Truman's WWII committee on contracts, cost over-runs, and shoddy workmanship in the war effort had just this potential. But I wasn't sure raising anew questions about the intelligence and the use of the intelligence, among other pre-war decisions, was going to amount to much. And politically, was there a danger that such a strategy could in the end prove to be a case of Democratic over-reach, convincing many swing-voters Democrats were just out for blood rather than interested in a constructive solution to the war in Iraq and "war on terrorism" more broadly?
That the Reid Senate maneuver, among other things perhaps, seemed to have energized the White House and encouraged the administration's worst "dissent is unpatriotic" line of attack added to those concerns.
What's more, most Democrats had not really appeared to be offering an alternative course of action in Iraq as I could tell. What could Democrats say to the country about Iraq and what to do there?
The discussion of timetables, or the more radical idea of withdrawal, also hadn't convinced me on either policy or political grounds as being necessarily fruitfull. The "we broke it, we fix it" argument about the invasion and reconstruction of Iraq however over simplified, had a certain merit I couldn't ignore. And most of the Democratic apologies for their Iraq war votes struck me as being too little, too late, lacking a recognition of the propaganda effect that led to the war's approval by fearful Democrats worried about their next elections. Worst of all, the White House counter-charges, that at least some Democrats seemed to regard Iraq as just a much of a threat as the administration, while distorted, also seemed at least partly meritorous even if based only on narrowly construed and taken-out-of-context Democratic party statements.
But John Murtha's public stance yesterday, and the emotional power of his press conference calling for a withdrawal of the troops within, or beginning in at least six months, impressed me, especially given his hawkish background and previous support for the war. That Murtha wasn't Dennis Kucinich, or even John Kerry, made the declaration one of particular import.
And while most Democrats didn't publically jump on the Murtha bandwagon yesterday, it seems pretty clear to me, at least so far, that the Murtha statement was a bombshell, for both the White House just trying to regain its political footing, and for Democrats still trying to protect their national security credentials. While there may not be immediate movement on Murtha's proposition, I suspect it will continue to hang out there in the media stratosphere, serving as a marker of sorts, representing an alternative for the opposition party come election time, and as an item for the media to continually refer back to when discussing the latest war tragedy.
The Murtha call is a line in the sand. The idea of withdrawal has been put on the political map. It's been given credibility.
Now, will it matter?
The administration claims it is holding out for "complete victory" and won't "surrender". But what is victory? Would we know it if we saw it? The capture of Al Zaqari and the dismantling of "Al Qaeda in Iraq", or is the insurgency comprised of much more than this most recent boogey-man, eight of diamonds, deck card of hostile elements the administration once used as its measure of progress in routing the old Baathist regime?
Does victory mean the official establishment of an on-paper Iraqi military/police force? Or would it need to be a more substantive indicator?
And what of our long-term military establishment plans for permanent war bases in Iraq?
These are some of the questions that Murtha's declaration may help to lift back into the public debate on Iraq. And Murta's framework may soon prove the best response.
5 Deferments
Republicans on hawkish Democratic Congressman John Murtha, Vietnam Veteran
Da White House:
Congressman Murtha is a respected veteran and politician who has a record of supporting a strong America. So it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party. The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists. After seeing his statement, we remain baffled -- nowhere does he explain how retreating from Iraq makes America safer.
Republican House Speaker, Denny Hastert:
I am saddened by the comments made today by Rep. Murtha. It is clear that as Nancy Pelosi's top lieutenant on armed services, Rep. Murtha and Democratic leaders have adopted a policy of cut and run. They would prefer that the United States surrender to the terrorists who would harm innocent Americans. To add insult to injury, this is done while the President is on foreign soil.
Four years ago, America as we knew it changed. The terrorists attacked our people and attacked our nation. Nearly 3,000 Americans lost their lives. Families were destroyed, and our children lost their sense of peace. On that day, we learned that we no longer had a choice. Failure to act -- and act strongly -- left our nation vulnerable to Osama bin Laden and his band of terrorist followers.
But now, Rep. Murtha and other Democrats want us to retreat. They want us to wave the white flag of surrender to the terrorists of the world. It is unfortunate that this is all politics all the time. We need to have a strong consistent policy that will protect our men and women who are fighting to protect us overseas. We must not cower like European nations who are now fighting terrorists on their soil.
Republican House member, Geoff Davis
I think it's important to understand the political climate in which these shameful statements have been made. Ayman Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's deputy, as well as Abu Musab Zarqawi, have made it quite clear in their internal propaganda that they cannot win unless they can drive the Americans out. And they know that they can't do that there, so they've brought the battlefield to the halls of Congress. And, frankly, the liberal leadership have put politics ahead of sound, fiscal and national security policy. And what they have done is cooperated with our enemies and are emboldening our enemies.
Bush and Cheney:
Bush, traveling in South Korea, told reporters he agrees with Vice President Cheney's view that politicians who criticize the administration's handling of prewar intelligence are engaging in "dishonest and reprehensible...I expect there to be criticism," Bush said. "But when Democrats say that I deliberately misled the Congress and the people, that's irresponsible. They looked at the same intelligence I did, and they voted -- many of them voted -- to support the decision I made. . . . So I agree with the vice president."
Murtha:
I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done.
Da White House:
Congressman Murtha is a respected veteran and politician who has a record of supporting a strong America. So it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party. The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists. After seeing his statement, we remain baffled -- nowhere does he explain how retreating from Iraq makes America safer.
Republican House Speaker, Denny Hastert:
I am saddened by the comments made today by Rep. Murtha. It is clear that as Nancy Pelosi's top lieutenant on armed services, Rep. Murtha and Democratic leaders have adopted a policy of cut and run. They would prefer that the United States surrender to the terrorists who would harm innocent Americans. To add insult to injury, this is done while the President is on foreign soil.
Four years ago, America as we knew it changed. The terrorists attacked our people and attacked our nation. Nearly 3,000 Americans lost their lives. Families were destroyed, and our children lost their sense of peace. On that day, we learned that we no longer had a choice. Failure to act -- and act strongly -- left our nation vulnerable to Osama bin Laden and his band of terrorist followers.
But now, Rep. Murtha and other Democrats want us to retreat. They want us to wave the white flag of surrender to the terrorists of the world. It is unfortunate that this is all politics all the time. We need to have a strong consistent policy that will protect our men and women who are fighting to protect us overseas. We must not cower like European nations who are now fighting terrorists on their soil.
Republican House member, Geoff Davis
I think it's important to understand the political climate in which these shameful statements have been made. Ayman Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's deputy, as well as Abu Musab Zarqawi, have made it quite clear in their internal propaganda that they cannot win unless they can drive the Americans out. And they know that they can't do that there, so they've brought the battlefield to the halls of Congress. And, frankly, the liberal leadership have put politics ahead of sound, fiscal and national security policy. And what they have done is cooperated with our enemies and are emboldening our enemies.
Bush and Cheney:
Bush, traveling in South Korea, told reporters he agrees with Vice President Cheney's view that politicians who criticize the administration's handling of prewar intelligence are engaging in "dishonest and reprehensible...I expect there to be criticism," Bush said. "But when Democrats say that I deliberately misled the Congress and the people, that's irresponsible. They looked at the same intelligence I did, and they voted -- many of them voted -- to support the decision I made. . . . So I agree with the vice president."
Murtha:
I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
"Two 'Bridges to Nowhere' Tumble Down in Congress"
Great headline isn't it? It's from the NYT and makes it seem like Congress defunded the infamous Bridges to Nowhere scheme in Alaska.
The story's first two paragraphs seem to confirm that result:
WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 - Congressional Republicans decided Wednesday to take a legislative wrecking ball to two Alaskan bridge projects that had demolished the party's reputation for fiscal austerity.
Straining to show new dedication to lower spending, House and Senate negotiators took the rare step of eliminating a requirement that $442 million be spent to build the two bridges, spans that became cemented in the national consciousness as "bridges to nowhere" because of the remote territory and small populations involved.
Um, but then we get to the third paragraph:
The change will not save the federal government any money. Instead, the $442 million will be turned over to the state with no strings attached, allowing lawmakers and the governor there to parcel it out for transportation projects as they see fit, including the bridges should they so choose.
What? But wait, it gets worse:
The bridges - a mile-long, 200-foot-high bridge connecting Ketchikan to a sparsely populated island and regional airport and a second one linking Anchorage to a port nearly two miles across an inlet - have been aggressively defended by Alaskan lawmakers, who said the projects would promote growth. They complained that their state had been maligned and were able to defeat a move in the Senate to direct the bridge money to hurricane relief.
Senator Ted Stevens, a powerful Republican from Alaska who had threatened to resign had the Senate shifted the money to the Gulf Coast, said Wednesday that he was resigned to the elimination of the requirement that the money go to the bridges.
So, what do we have here? Well, the official Bridges to Nowhere "earmark" was eliminated, but Alaska still gets all the money and can do with it what they wish--including spend it on the infamous bridges if they so desire.
And the money could still go to the Bridges, rather than to the Gulf Coast, which, you know, maybe could actually use the money.
So if you see this headline or something like it today, be sure to read the fine print.
The story's first two paragraphs seem to confirm that result:
WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 - Congressional Republicans decided Wednesday to take a legislative wrecking ball to two Alaskan bridge projects that had demolished the party's reputation for fiscal austerity.
Straining to show new dedication to lower spending, House and Senate negotiators took the rare step of eliminating a requirement that $442 million be spent to build the two bridges, spans that became cemented in the national consciousness as "bridges to nowhere" because of the remote territory and small populations involved.
Um, but then we get to the third paragraph:
The change will not save the federal government any money. Instead, the $442 million will be turned over to the state with no strings attached, allowing lawmakers and the governor there to parcel it out for transportation projects as they see fit, including the bridges should they so choose.
What? But wait, it gets worse:
The bridges - a mile-long, 200-foot-high bridge connecting Ketchikan to a sparsely populated island and regional airport and a second one linking Anchorage to a port nearly two miles across an inlet - have been aggressively defended by Alaskan lawmakers, who said the projects would promote growth. They complained that their state had been maligned and were able to defeat a move in the Senate to direct the bridge money to hurricane relief.
Senator Ted Stevens, a powerful Republican from Alaska who had threatened to resign had the Senate shifted the money to the Gulf Coast, said Wednesday that he was resigned to the elimination of the requirement that the money go to the bridges.
So, what do we have here? Well, the official Bridges to Nowhere "earmark" was eliminated, but Alaska still gets all the money and can do with it what they wish--including spend it on the infamous bridges if they so desire.
And the money could still go to the Bridges, rather than to the Gulf Coast, which, you know, maybe could actually use the money.
So if you see this headline or something like it today, be sure to read the fine print.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Adrian Rogers is Dead
Who's Adrian Rogers?
Glad you asked.
The Rev. Adrian P. Rogers, the three-time president of the Southern Baptist Convention who led a conservative takeover of the powerful denomination that helped usher in a resurgence of conservative Christians on pulpits and in politics, died on Tuesday in Memphis. He was 74.
His death was announced on the Web site of a ministry he founded, Love Worth Finding, www.lwf.org. He had cancer and pneumonia, according to The Baptist Press News.
Mr. Rogers, who used the honorific Dr. because of his many honorary degrees, was a riveting preacher who helped revive the fundamentalist Christian message that the Bible is to be regarded as literally true.
He took over leadership of the Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis in 1972 and built it into one of the nation's earliest megachurches, with a new suburban campus in Cordova, Tenn., and a congregation of 29,000. He retired as pastor in March.
His first election as president of the Southern Baptist Convention, in 1979, was the turning point in the conservatives' battle for dominance over theological liberals and moderates - a battle that had been simmering for more than 15 years.
The Southern Baptist Convention is the nation's largest Protestant denomination, with more than 16 million members, and the second largest religious group in the nation, after the Roman Catholic Church.
"After World War II, some of our seminaries and our institutions took a turn to the left, a turn that the rank and file didn't take," said Richard D. Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the public policy and lobbying arm of the Southern Baptist Convention.
"Dr. Rogers was part of that first generation of people who went to seminary and heard the Bible attacked in the classroom," Dr. Land said, "and resolved that when they got to a position of authority and influence, they would use it to try to bring the seminaries and institutions back into line with what Baptists have always believed about the Bible."
After Mr. Rogers's election, the conservatives never lost the presidency. He was re-elected president in 1986 and 1987, and he appointed committee members to replace the trustees who ran the denomination's six seminaries, national agencies and ministries.
Under the conservatives' control, the convention reversed course and became an opponent of abortion. It took controversial positions in favor of evangelizing Jews, boycotting the Walt Disney Company because of its gay-friendly policies, and asserting that women were mandated by the Bible to "submit" to their husbands. Mr. Rogers helped revise the Baptist confession of faith in 2000, which said that only men could serve as pastors.
"Rogers was the rhetorician of this movement," said Bill J. Leonard, a church historian who is dean of Wake Forest University Divinity School and author of "Baptists in America" (2005, Columbia University Press).
The takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention has been a model for conservatives in other Protestant denominations who are trying to wrest control of church institutions from their liberal-to-moderate wings, Dr. Leonard said.
Mr. Rogers was particularly involved in overhauling the Southern Baptist seminaries and curriculums, said Dr. Leonard, who was pushed out along with other moderates. He said that from 1990 to 1995, about 80 percent of the faculty members in the six seminaries either were forced out or took early retirement as a result of the conservative takeover.
Mr. Rogers, born in West Palm Beach, Fla., was a high school football star who said he heard his call to the ministry one day while lying face down on the field. He graduated from Stetson University in Deland, Fla., in 1954 and from the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary in 1958.
He is survived by his wife, Joyce, of Memphis; two sons, Steve of North Palm Beach, Fla., and David, a missionary in Madrid; two daughters, Gayle Foster, of Snellville, Ga., and Janice Edmiston of Arlington, Tenn.; and nine grandchildren.
In October, Mr. Rogers told The Florida Baptist Witness that out of everything he had accomplished in his life, "I think the part that God allowed me to have in the turning of the Southern Baptist Convention may have the longest-lasting effect and be the most significant."
In the NYT print version, there's a quote from James Dobson, on whose Focus on the Family board Rogers sat:
(Rogers) was "a staunch ally in the battle to defend biblical values in our culture."
Since I run this here blog I get to say what's important about this man and this article on his death. And what I find compelling is the reference by Richard Land that Rogers was among the first seminarians to find the bible "attacked" in the classroom.
I'm not sure how old biblical criticism is--it probably goes back at least to the apostalic era--but I imagine that the post-war era, when the young Rogers would have entered seminary, was a time when bible scholarship (which for fundamentalists is kind of a contradiction in terms) began to be taken more seriously. Certainly the theories of Charles Darwin, and the Scopes trial raised questions about biblical literalness that fundamentalists had long assumed were, um, gospel truth.
Since that time, scholars and theologians have continued to make great strides in uncovering many of the mysteries of how, when and why the books of the bible came to be written.
Richard Friedman, in Who Wrote The Bible, argues that the old testament reflects two strands of historical writing from two branches of the family of Abraham, the people of Israel's patriarch, who were separated when Jacob took his family into Egypt but who came to be reunited after the Israelite exodus experience. His theory supports those scholars who find in the Genesis creation story, seemingly two separate accounts (for more on this, please see Karen Armstrong's In The Beginning). Friedman contends this pattern of parallel bible accounts continues throughout scripture as the two histories of the people were woven together in an effort, after the Babylonian captivity, to create a united people.
Recent scholarship of the new testament has, if anything, been even more revealing. Among the more interesting theories of the origin of the gospel stories of Jesus are that they were written to serve as liturgical readings to supplement the readings of the Jewish Torah that took place in the synagogues (for more on this, please see Liberating the Gospels, by Bishop John Shelby Spong). More specifically, there is evidence to believe that the gospel accounts are ordered, not as strict biography or history, but in a pattern set to correspond to the readings affiliated with the various Jewish festivals. This is a pattern that even some conservative Christian scholars have come to accept, for instance in the book of John, who's text reveals an author seeking to show how Jesus replaced the various symbols and feasts of the Jewish cycle. Furthermore, it now also seems evident that Mark was the first gospel to be written, followed at least decade or more later by the writers of Matthew and Luke, who had Mark at their side as they constructed their accounts, but changed Mark's earlier account for specific purposes.
In any event, all of this is to say that this is some of the background involved in the fundamentalists' dispute with modernity and scholarship within the church itself. These in-depth scriptural studies have not always lent themselves to the demands of evangelism and the reassurance of "faith" required by many members of the church community, who have been taught, and many in the pews who want to believe, that the bible and the preacher shouldn't be questioned, the least of all my uppitty, elitist liberal scholars trying to undermine the gospel.
And this Rogers guy was apparently instrumental in purging the seminaries of this type of scholarship, or at least of those researchers whose findings revealed evidence the church would rather not know, or debate.
The end result is a church leadership that is meaner and more manipulative, and a church body that is more bitter, more narrow-minded, and less able to relate to the practices of an evolving world where reason and serious inquiry interfere with the demands of "faith".
As I've written previously, I think this is obviously a disturbing trend, both for the church and for those outside of it. For those in the church, and supposedly interested in the "truth", it seems worthwhile, even necessary to me, to subject the claims of the bible, or at least the claims of leading fundamentalists to a thorough examination, and to not be afraid to question long-held assumptions, even as the church becomes more defensive and critical of dissidents who aren't as willing any more to blindly follow their leaders.
Glad you asked.
The Rev. Adrian P. Rogers, the three-time president of the Southern Baptist Convention who led a conservative takeover of the powerful denomination that helped usher in a resurgence of conservative Christians on pulpits and in politics, died on Tuesday in Memphis. He was 74.
His death was announced on the Web site of a ministry he founded, Love Worth Finding, www.lwf.org. He had cancer and pneumonia, according to The Baptist Press News.
Mr. Rogers, who used the honorific Dr. because of his many honorary degrees, was a riveting preacher who helped revive the fundamentalist Christian message that the Bible is to be regarded as literally true.
He took over leadership of the Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis in 1972 and built it into one of the nation's earliest megachurches, with a new suburban campus in Cordova, Tenn., and a congregation of 29,000. He retired as pastor in March.
His first election as president of the Southern Baptist Convention, in 1979, was the turning point in the conservatives' battle for dominance over theological liberals and moderates - a battle that had been simmering for more than 15 years.
The Southern Baptist Convention is the nation's largest Protestant denomination, with more than 16 million members, and the second largest religious group in the nation, after the Roman Catholic Church.
"After World War II, some of our seminaries and our institutions took a turn to the left, a turn that the rank and file didn't take," said Richard D. Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the public policy and lobbying arm of the Southern Baptist Convention.
"Dr. Rogers was part of that first generation of people who went to seminary and heard the Bible attacked in the classroom," Dr. Land said, "and resolved that when they got to a position of authority and influence, they would use it to try to bring the seminaries and institutions back into line with what Baptists have always believed about the Bible."
After Mr. Rogers's election, the conservatives never lost the presidency. He was re-elected president in 1986 and 1987, and he appointed committee members to replace the trustees who ran the denomination's six seminaries, national agencies and ministries.
Under the conservatives' control, the convention reversed course and became an opponent of abortion. It took controversial positions in favor of evangelizing Jews, boycotting the Walt Disney Company because of its gay-friendly policies, and asserting that women were mandated by the Bible to "submit" to their husbands. Mr. Rogers helped revise the Baptist confession of faith in 2000, which said that only men could serve as pastors.
"Rogers was the rhetorician of this movement," said Bill J. Leonard, a church historian who is dean of Wake Forest University Divinity School and author of "Baptists in America" (2005, Columbia University Press).
The takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention has been a model for conservatives in other Protestant denominations who are trying to wrest control of church institutions from their liberal-to-moderate wings, Dr. Leonard said.
Mr. Rogers was particularly involved in overhauling the Southern Baptist seminaries and curriculums, said Dr. Leonard, who was pushed out along with other moderates. He said that from 1990 to 1995, about 80 percent of the faculty members in the six seminaries either were forced out or took early retirement as a result of the conservative takeover.
Mr. Rogers, born in West Palm Beach, Fla., was a high school football star who said he heard his call to the ministry one day while lying face down on the field. He graduated from Stetson University in Deland, Fla., in 1954 and from the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary in 1958.
He is survived by his wife, Joyce, of Memphis; two sons, Steve of North Palm Beach, Fla., and David, a missionary in Madrid; two daughters, Gayle Foster, of Snellville, Ga., and Janice Edmiston of Arlington, Tenn.; and nine grandchildren.
In October, Mr. Rogers told The Florida Baptist Witness that out of everything he had accomplished in his life, "I think the part that God allowed me to have in the turning of the Southern Baptist Convention may have the longest-lasting effect and be the most significant."
In the NYT print version, there's a quote from James Dobson, on whose Focus on the Family board Rogers sat:
(Rogers) was "a staunch ally in the battle to defend biblical values in our culture."
Since I run this here blog I get to say what's important about this man and this article on his death. And what I find compelling is the reference by Richard Land that Rogers was among the first seminarians to find the bible "attacked" in the classroom.
I'm not sure how old biblical criticism is--it probably goes back at least to the apostalic era--but I imagine that the post-war era, when the young Rogers would have entered seminary, was a time when bible scholarship (which for fundamentalists is kind of a contradiction in terms) began to be taken more seriously. Certainly the theories of Charles Darwin, and the Scopes trial raised questions about biblical literalness that fundamentalists had long assumed were, um, gospel truth.
Since that time, scholars and theologians have continued to make great strides in uncovering many of the mysteries of how, when and why the books of the bible came to be written.
Richard Friedman, in Who Wrote The Bible, argues that the old testament reflects two strands of historical writing from two branches of the family of Abraham, the people of Israel's patriarch, who were separated when Jacob took his family into Egypt but who came to be reunited after the Israelite exodus experience. His theory supports those scholars who find in the Genesis creation story, seemingly two separate accounts (for more on this, please see Karen Armstrong's In The Beginning). Friedman contends this pattern of parallel bible accounts continues throughout scripture as the two histories of the people were woven together in an effort, after the Babylonian captivity, to create a united people.
Recent scholarship of the new testament has, if anything, been even more revealing. Among the more interesting theories of the origin of the gospel stories of Jesus are that they were written to serve as liturgical readings to supplement the readings of the Jewish Torah that took place in the synagogues (for more on this, please see Liberating the Gospels, by Bishop John Shelby Spong). More specifically, there is evidence to believe that the gospel accounts are ordered, not as strict biography or history, but in a pattern set to correspond to the readings affiliated with the various Jewish festivals. This is a pattern that even some conservative Christian scholars have come to accept, for instance in the book of John, who's text reveals an author seeking to show how Jesus replaced the various symbols and feasts of the Jewish cycle. Furthermore, it now also seems evident that Mark was the first gospel to be written, followed at least decade or more later by the writers of Matthew and Luke, who had Mark at their side as they constructed their accounts, but changed Mark's earlier account for specific purposes.
In any event, all of this is to say that this is some of the background involved in the fundamentalists' dispute with modernity and scholarship within the church itself. These in-depth scriptural studies have not always lent themselves to the demands of evangelism and the reassurance of "faith" required by many members of the church community, who have been taught, and many in the pews who want to believe, that the bible and the preacher shouldn't be questioned, the least of all my uppitty, elitist liberal scholars trying to undermine the gospel.
And this Rogers guy was apparently instrumental in purging the seminaries of this type of scholarship, or at least of those researchers whose findings revealed evidence the church would rather not know, or debate.
The end result is a church leadership that is meaner and more manipulative, and a church body that is more bitter, more narrow-minded, and less able to relate to the practices of an evolving world where reason and serious inquiry interfere with the demands of "faith".
As I've written previously, I think this is obviously a disturbing trend, both for the church and for those outside of it. For those in the church, and supposedly interested in the "truth", it seems worthwhile, even necessary to me, to subject the claims of the bible, or at least the claims of leading fundamentalists to a thorough examination, and to not be afraid to question long-held assumptions, even as the church becomes more defensive and critical of dissidents who aren't as willing any more to blindly follow their leaders.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
"The Inspections Aren't Working"
Remember that line from the pre-Iraq-war days? That was what the administration and its allies pushed on us after they paid lip service to the idea of diplomatically resolving the U.S.'s dispute with Baghdad. The UN WMD inspectors weren't in the country more than a few hours before "the inspections aren't working" became the Republican talking point of the hour.
Thankfully, Matt Yglesias retrieves this important factor in the politics leading to the invasion in March 2003:
That notwithstanding, in order to appease Colin Powell and/or Tony Blair, the administration eventually found itself at the UN, sponsoring resolutions and offering ultimata. Thus, the ready-made preemption/prevention morass got dragged into yet another idea -- coercive diplomacy, where threats of war are intended to produce not war, but compliance with demands.
Unfortunately for Bush, Saddam unexpectedly wound up substantially complying with his demands and inspectors entered the country. It was here that we got the very most egregious dissembling about weapons of mass destruction. Inspectors were on the ground, not finding weapons, debunking certain specific administration claims, and asking the US for the rest of the evidence to substantiate all the big talk.
The hawks chose to portray this situation as proof that inspections "weren't working" because the (obviously incompetent) inspectors were failing to find the WMD facilities that "everyone knew" were there.
The other critical element in this strange debate (I say "strange" in the sense that I don't know why the administration wants to "go here"--they're only digging their grave a little deeper by keeping the pre-war "intelligence" issues alive) is that the war is going badly. If the Mission was in fact Accomplished in May, 2003, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But as Matt says:
There's a lesson or two in here about honesty, but first and foremost it should be a lesson about strategy. The war has not, shall we say, gone swimmingly, which is always a risk when you go to war. Nor did the intelligence -- even the parts of it the administration wasn't spinning, twisting, or otherwise sexing up -- hold up to scrutiny, which is also always a risk in the intel game. The result has been something of a fiasco across the entire spectrum of American power.
"The inspections aren't working." Of the misdirections, deceptions, half-truths, exaggerations, and propoganda we were subjected to in the aftermath of 9-11, the administration's running roughshod over the inspections process--and by extension, the UN and its disarmament team led by Hans Blix, an institution and individual that came to be ridiculed and trashed for their supposingly being duped by Hussein, and for not serving America's interests of the moment, was perhaps the worst of the lot. One can almost defend, by any means necessary, the need to force Iraq to open its operations to weapons inspections, as required by the various UN resolutions worked out in the ending of the first Gulf War. But to sabotage the inspections process itself so America's military machine could launch its Shock and Awe campaign was to assume the same tactics as other infamous nationalist and militant bullies have done, both in the last century, and throughout history.
And now that war has unraveled, the "intelligence" and political failures preceding the war have come into greater scrutiny. Well, better late than never.
If there's any consolation in this for Americans suspicious of its own country's future military ambitions (and some of the most patriotic of America's founders--Jefferson, Madison--worried of the effect of "standing militaries") it is this: the Iraq debacle has made future wars less likely, and the propoganda that fuels them, less believable.
And although the administration is firing on its Democratic critics, it has enough problems fending off opponents that were once its friends--former Colin Powell aide, Lawrence Wilkerson comes to mind--and members of its own party in Congress that want answers.
Update: The Rude Pundit has the "rest of the story" about those Democratic quotes before the war that the President quoted yesterday, here. But in any event, I agree with Josh Marshall that we Democrats shouldn't be embarassed or try to cover up any Democratic collusion in this matter. Let the chips fall where they may, as Josh says.
Let them dig through the transcripts. And if there's collateral damage among today's accusers, so be it. Let the facts get hashed out and the chips fall. There's only one side of this argument running scared from the truth. We know what happened. We were there. We all remember.
Thankfully, Matt Yglesias retrieves this important factor in the politics leading to the invasion in March 2003:
That notwithstanding, in order to appease Colin Powell and/or Tony Blair, the administration eventually found itself at the UN, sponsoring resolutions and offering ultimata. Thus, the ready-made preemption/prevention morass got dragged into yet another idea -- coercive diplomacy, where threats of war are intended to produce not war, but compliance with demands.
Unfortunately for Bush, Saddam unexpectedly wound up substantially complying with his demands and inspectors entered the country. It was here that we got the very most egregious dissembling about weapons of mass destruction. Inspectors were on the ground, not finding weapons, debunking certain specific administration claims, and asking the US for the rest of the evidence to substantiate all the big talk.
The hawks chose to portray this situation as proof that inspections "weren't working" because the (obviously incompetent) inspectors were failing to find the WMD facilities that "everyone knew" were there.
The other critical element in this strange debate (I say "strange" in the sense that I don't know why the administration wants to "go here"--they're only digging their grave a little deeper by keeping the pre-war "intelligence" issues alive) is that the war is going badly. If the Mission was in fact Accomplished in May, 2003, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But as Matt says:
There's a lesson or two in here about honesty, but first and foremost it should be a lesson about strategy. The war has not, shall we say, gone swimmingly, which is always a risk when you go to war. Nor did the intelligence -- even the parts of it the administration wasn't spinning, twisting, or otherwise sexing up -- hold up to scrutiny, which is also always a risk in the intel game. The result has been something of a fiasco across the entire spectrum of American power.
"The inspections aren't working." Of the misdirections, deceptions, half-truths, exaggerations, and propoganda we were subjected to in the aftermath of 9-11, the administration's running roughshod over the inspections process--and by extension, the UN and its disarmament team led by Hans Blix, an institution and individual that came to be ridiculed and trashed for their supposingly being duped by Hussein, and for not serving America's interests of the moment, was perhaps the worst of the lot. One can almost defend, by any means necessary, the need to force Iraq to open its operations to weapons inspections, as required by the various UN resolutions worked out in the ending of the first Gulf War. But to sabotage the inspections process itself so America's military machine could launch its Shock and Awe campaign was to assume the same tactics as other infamous nationalist and militant bullies have done, both in the last century, and throughout history.
And now that war has unraveled, the "intelligence" and political failures preceding the war have come into greater scrutiny. Well, better late than never.
If there's any consolation in this for Americans suspicious of its own country's future military ambitions (and some of the most patriotic of America's founders--Jefferson, Madison--worried of the effect of "standing militaries") it is this: the Iraq debacle has made future wars less likely, and the propoganda that fuels them, less believable.
And although the administration is firing on its Democratic critics, it has enough problems fending off opponents that were once its friends--former Colin Powell aide, Lawrence Wilkerson comes to mind--and members of its own party in Congress that want answers.
Update: The Rude Pundit has the "rest of the story" about those Democratic quotes before the war that the President quoted yesterday, here. But in any event, I agree with Josh Marshall that we Democrats shouldn't be embarassed or try to cover up any Democratic collusion in this matter. Let the chips fall where they may, as Josh says.
Let them dig through the transcripts. And if there's collateral damage among today's accusers, so be it. Let the facts get hashed out and the chips fall. There's only one side of this argument running scared from the truth. We know what happened. We were there. We all remember.
Monday, November 14, 2005
Monday Morning Quarterback
Redskins 35
Tampa Bay 36
Yes, yes, an excruciating, agonizing defeat. But I'm having a hard time being angry at the team or apocalyptic about its season prospects (playoffs!!!?? playoffs!!!?!?!). The killer was their not being able to get a first down when they had the ball at their own 20 with 3:46 left to go. Should they have run three straight times? As hard as it is to say right now with perfect hindsight, I think the answer is yes. They had been running well all day. They needed to run the clock down and avoid a mistake through the air. It was a sane strategy. They just didn't get it done. And their defense now has holes, largely because of injuries. They need Cornelius Griffin and Sean Taylor back, and Carlos Rogers healthy again. Next up: Oakland Raiders.
Vikings 24
Giants 21
Only consolation for Redskins loss was this strange Giants debacle at home against the Vikings, who didn't score a single offensive touchdown, yet sneaked out of New Jersey a winner against a team that hung 36 on us two weeks ago.
Ravens 3
Jaguars 30
I hope Ray Lewis and Ed Reed come back soon. I'm only a fair-weather Ravens fan, but this is getting ugly.
Jets 3
Panthers 30
The Jets aren't getting any respect on the field or in the New York Times sports section. The first two pages are dedicated to the Giants (who, admittedly, are now 6-3 and presumably playoff bound) while the Jets get relegated to the third and fourth pages. But its worse than that. The Giants got at least four different articles to the Jets measly two. Of course, if the Jets would win, that might help their case.
Mike Shanahan 31
Al Davis 17
I don't like it that the Raiders lost at home to the Broncos to drop to 3-6. That might make them a pretty angry team next week for the Redskins, who might be tempted to take them lightly. They shouldn't.
KC 3
Buffalo 14
What happened to KC's offense? I know Priest Holmes was out, but they still have Larry Johnson and Trent Green.
GB 33
Atlanta 25
Another weird game, or at least weird result. But then, if you have Brett Farve on your team, anything's possible.
Rams 16
Seahawks 31
Seahawks are finally making some noise, after the many years of Mike Holgrem's leadership and Matt Hasselback's QBing. Shaun Alexander having a career year. This team could be hard to beat in the playoffs especially if they have home-field.
Patriots 23
Dolphins 16
Won't the Pats just go away already?
Cowboys
Iggles
This should be a very good game.
Tampa Bay 36
Yes, yes, an excruciating, agonizing defeat. But I'm having a hard time being angry at the team or apocalyptic about its season prospects (playoffs!!!?? playoffs!!!?!?!). The killer was their not being able to get a first down when they had the ball at their own 20 with 3:46 left to go. Should they have run three straight times? As hard as it is to say right now with perfect hindsight, I think the answer is yes. They had been running well all day. They needed to run the clock down and avoid a mistake through the air. It was a sane strategy. They just didn't get it done. And their defense now has holes, largely because of injuries. They need Cornelius Griffin and Sean Taylor back, and Carlos Rogers healthy again. Next up: Oakland Raiders.
Vikings 24
Giants 21
Only consolation for Redskins loss was this strange Giants debacle at home against the Vikings, who didn't score a single offensive touchdown, yet sneaked out of New Jersey a winner against a team that hung 36 on us two weeks ago.
Ravens 3
Jaguars 30
I hope Ray Lewis and Ed Reed come back soon. I'm only a fair-weather Ravens fan, but this is getting ugly.
Jets 3
Panthers 30
The Jets aren't getting any respect on the field or in the New York Times sports section. The first two pages are dedicated to the Giants (who, admittedly, are now 6-3 and presumably playoff bound) while the Jets get relegated to the third and fourth pages. But its worse than that. The Giants got at least four different articles to the Jets measly two. Of course, if the Jets would win, that might help their case.
Mike Shanahan 31
Al Davis 17
I don't like it that the Raiders lost at home to the Broncos to drop to 3-6. That might make them a pretty angry team next week for the Redskins, who might be tempted to take them lightly. They shouldn't.
KC 3
Buffalo 14
What happened to KC's offense? I know Priest Holmes was out, but they still have Larry Johnson and Trent Green.
GB 33
Atlanta 25
Another weird game, or at least weird result. But then, if you have Brett Farve on your team, anything's possible.
Rams 16
Seahawks 31
Seahawks are finally making some noise, after the many years of Mike Holgrem's leadership and Matt Hasselback's QBing. Shaun Alexander having a career year. This team could be hard to beat in the playoffs especially if they have home-field.
Patriots 23
Dolphins 16
Won't the Pats just go away already?
Cowboys
Iggles
This should be a very good game.
Sunday, November 13, 2005
What the President Wants
It shouldn't be surprising that the president flipped out the other day, and went off haranging Democratics and other skeptics of his administration's Iraq policy.
But we should understand what the president, and in particular his "brain", and apparently his soul, Karl Rove, wants to accomplish by doing so.
What they want is to force the debate about the Iraq war off of the political agenda. Although Phase II of the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation of the pre-war intelligence was tasked with analyzing the political uses and manipulation of that intelligence, the president and his allies, understandably, would rather that didn't precede, and in the event that it does, want to hamstring it ahead of time, by asserting that any such investigation is really fruitless at best, and traitorous at worst.
Nevertheless, while the president's new attack strategy will embolden his base, it will likely only inflame congressional Democrats, and attract even greater media scrutiny.
So, Bring It On.
But we should understand what the president, and in particular his "brain", and apparently his soul, Karl Rove, wants to accomplish by doing so.
What they want is to force the debate about the Iraq war off of the political agenda. Although Phase II of the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation of the pre-war intelligence was tasked with analyzing the political uses and manipulation of that intelligence, the president and his allies, understandably, would rather that didn't precede, and in the event that it does, want to hamstring it ahead of time, by asserting that any such investigation is really fruitless at best, and traitorous at worst.
Nevertheless, while the president's new attack strategy will embolden his base, it will likely only inflame congressional Democrats, and attract even greater media scrutiny.
So, Bring It On.
The New Wedge Politics
Howard Fineman of Newsweek wrote a column last week about how Democrats were adopting a wedge strategy, pitting officials in the administration against one another in the aftermath of the Scooter Libby indictments.
Today, Alan Ehrenhalt, the executive editor of Governing magazine, has an NYT op-ed suggesting that the new Republican majority, much like its Democratic predecessor, is standing precariously on some critical fault lines, which last week's elections in California, New Jersey, and Virginia have partially exposed:
ONE thing we used to know for sure about the two political parties was that only one was really a party. That was the Republicans. They were a distinct minority in the country, but they did have a certain cohesion and a more or less consistent view of the world, built on a faith in limited government.
Democrats didn't have anything like that. They were a big, sloppy bundle of contradictions, a coalition of convenience in which Mississippi segregationists and Manhattan socialists pretended to have something in common. The only thing keeping them together was a desire to win elections and head Congressional committees. Sooner or later the sheer absurdity of it had to sink them, and it did.
Now we are entering a political era defined by a similar contradiction, except that the roles are reversed. Democrats are the minority party, but one that, for better or worse, consists of people and interests with a similar political and cultural language. Any differences in strategy and policy choice are essentially at the margins. On the issues that Democrats care about most these days - abortion, the role of religion, the war in Iraq - there aren't that many dissenters. The dissenters have left.
Republicans, meanwhile, have built a sprawling, wobbly tent in which libertarians, Christian moralists and suburban business owners all pretend to have similar goals. But as it was for the Democratic Party of 30 years ago, that tent is too flimsily constructed to stay up forever.
This month's election results don't suggest when its collapse will occur, but they offer a few clues to how it might happen.
Exhibit A is Virginia, where the Democratic governor-elect, Timothy M. Kaine, tore through the fragile Republican constituencies, winning almost every populous suburban county, even the conservative exurbs outside Washington and Richmond, and leaving his Republican opponent stuck with a rump coalition of rural diehards, Christian activists and anti-tax militants that lost by more than 100,000 votes.
Exhibit B is California, where Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, tried to rally the majority that elected him in 2003, only to find that it no longer existed. Virginia was a Republican defeat; California was a humiliation. All four of Mr. Schwarzenegger's favored ballot measures, labeled as a package that would reform California politics, failed by substantial margins, driven to defeat not so much by the governor's tactical ineptitude as by his inability to construct a viable coalition of interests that cared about enacting it as much as the opponents, led by public employees, cared about defeating it.
But perhaps the most striking exhibit is Colorado, which passed Referendum C, a ballot proposition that suspends one of the Republican anti-tax movement's proudest national achievements: the 1992 state constitutional amendment forcing Colorado to return budget surpluses to the voters regardless of the fiscal climate or any perceived need for public investment.
Referendum C is the product of an alliance between the state's Republican governor (long a supporter of the amendment) and the Democratic House speaker. That partnership brought together organized education, Chambers of Commerce, suburban mayors, real estate developers and conventional labor Democrats, all of whom believed that the state couldn't meet its education and transportation needs while systematically emptying its treasury every year.
Left on the other side were a Christian right that didn't particularly care about the issue, some urban blue-collar populists and an anti-tax militia that lacked sufficient strength to be competitive.
Perhaps no one looked sillier in the aftermath of the Colorado vote than Grover Norquist, the head of Americans for Tax Reform, who barnstormed against Referendum C and declared after the vote that Gov. Bill Owens, the referendum's chief supporter, had forfeited his future in national politics. Mr. Owens responded that he didn't want a career in national politics.
Indeed, it is Mr. Norquist's informal political alliance, what he calls the "Leave Us Alone" coalition, that points up the most serious rents in the 21st-century Republican fabric. Over the past decade, the coalition has grown from its original libertarian base to include Christian Right activists whose agenda of moral regulation represents a flat rejection of libertarian values. It is the modern-day equivalent of Bella Abzug, the New York feminist, and James Eastland, the Mississippi segregationist, attending Democratic conventions together in the 1960's. It is too ridiculous to last, and it won't.
The potential for schism in the unwieldy Republican ranks is nothing new; it goes back to the debate between libertarians and Christian moralists that played out in the National Review in the 1950's. In 1980, Ronald Reagan won a presidential election as head of a movement that improbably fused together disciples of Jerry Falwell and disciples of Milton Friedman. But all the factions could agree on the need for a tough stand against Communism, no matter what their differences might be over abortion or federal spending.
The danger to Republicans of life without an evil empire became clear in 1992, the first post-cold-war presidential election. In that contest, the dominant role of social-issue conservatives - especially at the national convention in Houston - led to the defeat of George H. W. Bush and the election of Bill Clinton as president.
Mr. Clinton made his mistakes, but he never failed to understand that the Republican alliance was tenuous and easily sundered, which is why he won two terms and would have won a third. Al Gore, utterly inept at exploiting the same vulnerabilities, still managed to outpoll George W. Bush by more than 500,000 in the popular vote in 2000.
What Republicans desperately needed after Mr. Clinton was an international enemy threatening enough to replace the Soviets, and by a remarkable turn of events, they soon had one. The terrorist attacks of 2001 not only unified the country for a brief time; they also gave the Bush administration a grace period of more than three years in which anti-terrorist rallying cries were sufficiently compelling to paper over factional and ideological differences that the party ultimately would have to confront.
The grace period has ended. The results in Virginia, California and Colorado are the first serious warning to Republicans that they now must deal with political life largely as it existed on Sept. 10, 2001, and for nearly a decade before that. They are a hyper-extended family whose members are starting to realize that they have very little to say to each other. The internecine arguments over the year's Supreme Court nominees and last week's House budget bickering only serve to underscore the discomfort.
None of this means that the Democratic Party will return to majority status any time soon. What it does suggest is that running against Republicans, in much of the country, is no longer the political equivalent of rocket science. It requires candidates who can find the torn places in the tent and then push through them. Bill Clinton knew how to do that; incumbent governor Mark Warner and his successor Tim Kaine learned how to do it in Virginia. John Kerry never quite figured it out and didn't become president.
It remains to be seen whether the next Democratic applicant for the job will grasp the opportunity. But it is there for the taking.
There's much that can be said about this column, but the important thing is the suggestion, or at least implication, that future Democratic prospects will probably have more to do with how well the party can drive wedges in the Republican coalition, and that will depend in large part, on the sectional politics of particular regions, and the specifics and timing of local conditions. In other words, progressives dreaming of a comprehensive, ideological strategy to take back the country, are probably going to have to learn to be content with simply fracturing the Republican base(s). It may not be sexy, but it will probably have to do.
The old Democratic New Deal majority was based primarily on three crucial elements that are largely no longer operative: the solid south; labor unions; and urban political machines.
The solid south is not only gone, it has completely flipped sides. At the national level, labor unions are basically dead, although they may exert some influence at the state and local level from time to time (see California). And the mythical urban machine is defunct, although cities continue to provide a large plurality, if not majority, of the party's votes.
With the old Democratic majority dead and buried, progressives will need to consider new strategies to exploit the current regime's weaknesses and contradictions.
Although I'm not as sanguine as Ehrenhalt that the schism between economic libertarians and moral regulationists is as severe as it should seem on its face, it should be evident that the radical conservative view of government and society is unsustainable. Government can't be starved if it is to be even modestly viable for conservative aims. And the authoritarian ideals of the religious right are inconsistent, even hostile to the most basic values of pluralism, democracy, and popular sovereignty.
Today, Alan Ehrenhalt, the executive editor of Governing magazine, has an NYT op-ed suggesting that the new Republican majority, much like its Democratic predecessor, is standing precariously on some critical fault lines, which last week's elections in California, New Jersey, and Virginia have partially exposed:
ONE thing we used to know for sure about the two political parties was that only one was really a party. That was the Republicans. They were a distinct minority in the country, but they did have a certain cohesion and a more or less consistent view of the world, built on a faith in limited government.
Democrats didn't have anything like that. They were a big, sloppy bundle of contradictions, a coalition of convenience in which Mississippi segregationists and Manhattan socialists pretended to have something in common. The only thing keeping them together was a desire to win elections and head Congressional committees. Sooner or later the sheer absurdity of it had to sink them, and it did.
Now we are entering a political era defined by a similar contradiction, except that the roles are reversed. Democrats are the minority party, but one that, for better or worse, consists of people and interests with a similar political and cultural language. Any differences in strategy and policy choice are essentially at the margins. On the issues that Democrats care about most these days - abortion, the role of religion, the war in Iraq - there aren't that many dissenters. The dissenters have left.
Republicans, meanwhile, have built a sprawling, wobbly tent in which libertarians, Christian moralists and suburban business owners all pretend to have similar goals. But as it was for the Democratic Party of 30 years ago, that tent is too flimsily constructed to stay up forever.
This month's election results don't suggest when its collapse will occur, but they offer a few clues to how it might happen.
Exhibit A is Virginia, where the Democratic governor-elect, Timothy M. Kaine, tore through the fragile Republican constituencies, winning almost every populous suburban county, even the conservative exurbs outside Washington and Richmond, and leaving his Republican opponent stuck with a rump coalition of rural diehards, Christian activists and anti-tax militants that lost by more than 100,000 votes.
Exhibit B is California, where Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, tried to rally the majority that elected him in 2003, only to find that it no longer existed. Virginia was a Republican defeat; California was a humiliation. All four of Mr. Schwarzenegger's favored ballot measures, labeled as a package that would reform California politics, failed by substantial margins, driven to defeat not so much by the governor's tactical ineptitude as by his inability to construct a viable coalition of interests that cared about enacting it as much as the opponents, led by public employees, cared about defeating it.
But perhaps the most striking exhibit is Colorado, which passed Referendum C, a ballot proposition that suspends one of the Republican anti-tax movement's proudest national achievements: the 1992 state constitutional amendment forcing Colorado to return budget surpluses to the voters regardless of the fiscal climate or any perceived need for public investment.
Referendum C is the product of an alliance between the state's Republican governor (long a supporter of the amendment) and the Democratic House speaker. That partnership brought together organized education, Chambers of Commerce, suburban mayors, real estate developers and conventional labor Democrats, all of whom believed that the state couldn't meet its education and transportation needs while systematically emptying its treasury every year.
Left on the other side were a Christian right that didn't particularly care about the issue, some urban blue-collar populists and an anti-tax militia that lacked sufficient strength to be competitive.
Perhaps no one looked sillier in the aftermath of the Colorado vote than Grover Norquist, the head of Americans for Tax Reform, who barnstormed against Referendum C and declared after the vote that Gov. Bill Owens, the referendum's chief supporter, had forfeited his future in national politics. Mr. Owens responded that he didn't want a career in national politics.
Indeed, it is Mr. Norquist's informal political alliance, what he calls the "Leave Us Alone" coalition, that points up the most serious rents in the 21st-century Republican fabric. Over the past decade, the coalition has grown from its original libertarian base to include Christian Right activists whose agenda of moral regulation represents a flat rejection of libertarian values. It is the modern-day equivalent of Bella Abzug, the New York feminist, and James Eastland, the Mississippi segregationist, attending Democratic conventions together in the 1960's. It is too ridiculous to last, and it won't.
The potential for schism in the unwieldy Republican ranks is nothing new; it goes back to the debate between libertarians and Christian moralists that played out in the National Review in the 1950's. In 1980, Ronald Reagan won a presidential election as head of a movement that improbably fused together disciples of Jerry Falwell and disciples of Milton Friedman. But all the factions could agree on the need for a tough stand against Communism, no matter what their differences might be over abortion or federal spending.
The danger to Republicans of life without an evil empire became clear in 1992, the first post-cold-war presidential election. In that contest, the dominant role of social-issue conservatives - especially at the national convention in Houston - led to the defeat of George H. W. Bush and the election of Bill Clinton as president.
Mr. Clinton made his mistakes, but he never failed to understand that the Republican alliance was tenuous and easily sundered, which is why he won two terms and would have won a third. Al Gore, utterly inept at exploiting the same vulnerabilities, still managed to outpoll George W. Bush by more than 500,000 in the popular vote in 2000.
What Republicans desperately needed after Mr. Clinton was an international enemy threatening enough to replace the Soviets, and by a remarkable turn of events, they soon had one. The terrorist attacks of 2001 not only unified the country for a brief time; they also gave the Bush administration a grace period of more than three years in which anti-terrorist rallying cries were sufficiently compelling to paper over factional and ideological differences that the party ultimately would have to confront.
The grace period has ended. The results in Virginia, California and Colorado are the first serious warning to Republicans that they now must deal with political life largely as it existed on Sept. 10, 2001, and for nearly a decade before that. They are a hyper-extended family whose members are starting to realize that they have very little to say to each other. The internecine arguments over the year's Supreme Court nominees and last week's House budget bickering only serve to underscore the discomfort.
None of this means that the Democratic Party will return to majority status any time soon. What it does suggest is that running against Republicans, in much of the country, is no longer the political equivalent of rocket science. It requires candidates who can find the torn places in the tent and then push through them. Bill Clinton knew how to do that; incumbent governor Mark Warner and his successor Tim Kaine learned how to do it in Virginia. John Kerry never quite figured it out and didn't become president.
It remains to be seen whether the next Democratic applicant for the job will grasp the opportunity. But it is there for the taking.
There's much that can be said about this column, but the important thing is the suggestion, or at least implication, that future Democratic prospects will probably have more to do with how well the party can drive wedges in the Republican coalition, and that will depend in large part, on the sectional politics of particular regions, and the specifics and timing of local conditions. In other words, progressives dreaming of a comprehensive, ideological strategy to take back the country, are probably going to have to learn to be content with simply fracturing the Republican base(s). It may not be sexy, but it will probably have to do.
The old Democratic New Deal majority was based primarily on three crucial elements that are largely no longer operative: the solid south; labor unions; and urban political machines.
The solid south is not only gone, it has completely flipped sides. At the national level, labor unions are basically dead, although they may exert some influence at the state and local level from time to time (see California). And the mythical urban machine is defunct, although cities continue to provide a large plurality, if not majority, of the party's votes.
With the old Democratic majority dead and buried, progressives will need to consider new strategies to exploit the current regime's weaknesses and contradictions.
Although I'm not as sanguine as Ehrenhalt that the schism between economic libertarians and moral regulationists is as severe as it should seem on its face, it should be evident that the radical conservative view of government and society is unsustainable. Government can't be starved if it is to be even modestly viable for conservative aims. And the authoritarian ideals of the religious right are inconsistent, even hostile to the most basic values of pluralism, democracy, and popular sovereignty.
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Hard to Say I'm Sorry
There's something that's bothering me about these new-found confessions by Democratic Senators that "if we knew then what we know now, we would never have voted for this war."
The most recent admittance to this club is West Virginia's Rockefeller, who also happens to be the ranking member of the Senate "Intelligence" Committee. But others such as John Kerry and Tom Daschle have also come out of the closet with post-war-debacle statements of regret.
The case these Democrats have been making, if I understand them correctly, is that they got fooled by the bad intelligence, or by the Administration's spin of that intelligence.
But I don't think the "intelligence" was really responsible for us invading Baghdad. It was conducive of the propaganda and hysteria that was circulating at the time. But it wasn't the main element.
The truth is our Senators authorized the war out of fear. Not a fear of Baghdad (after all, lots of countries have WMD and not all of them like us either) but a fear of a public that had been whipped into a frenzy by Fox News, Clear Channel, hate radio, and the neocon "cabal".
On tonight's Hardball, Chris Matthews alluded to this factor when he was challenging Tucker Carlson on the administration's "Iraq was involved in 911" claims. Tucker, I think correctly, pointed out that few officials or leading political figures made any direct connection between Iraq and 911 (links between Al Qaeda and Iraq, yes, but very few direct connections between Iraq and 911). But Matthews responded by citing as an example of the public mood and the state of public misinformation, the country music song written in the lead-up to the war that did make such a link between Iraq and 911 ("we will not forget") or words to that effect. And certainly the Administration's lumping of 911, Iraq, and the Global War on Terrorism together made the connection implicit, if not explicit.
So, while I'm thankful for whatever change of heart Democrats feel free to muster two and a half years after the fact, and am hopeful that the debacle in Iraq will serve to dissuade the country and its most militant members from launching any further like minded endeavors, the fact remains that the country was scared into attacking Iraq, not out of a fear of what that country could do, but out of fear from our own citizens, goaded by Fox/Clear Channel propagandists, and armed with dubious information and misapplied "patriotic" zeal, the kind of which I hope not to see again.
The most recent admittance to this club is West Virginia's Rockefeller, who also happens to be the ranking member of the Senate "Intelligence" Committee. But others such as John Kerry and Tom Daschle have also come out of the closet with post-war-debacle statements of regret.
The case these Democrats have been making, if I understand them correctly, is that they got fooled by the bad intelligence, or by the Administration's spin of that intelligence.
But I don't think the "intelligence" was really responsible for us invading Baghdad. It was conducive of the propaganda and hysteria that was circulating at the time. But it wasn't the main element.
The truth is our Senators authorized the war out of fear. Not a fear of Baghdad (after all, lots of countries have WMD and not all of them like us either) but a fear of a public that had been whipped into a frenzy by Fox News, Clear Channel, hate radio, and the neocon "cabal".
On tonight's Hardball, Chris Matthews alluded to this factor when he was challenging Tucker Carlson on the administration's "Iraq was involved in 911" claims. Tucker, I think correctly, pointed out that few officials or leading political figures made any direct connection between Iraq and 911 (links between Al Qaeda and Iraq, yes, but very few direct connections between Iraq and 911). But Matthews responded by citing as an example of the public mood and the state of public misinformation, the country music song written in the lead-up to the war that did make such a link between Iraq and 911 ("we will not forget") or words to that effect. And certainly the Administration's lumping of 911, Iraq, and the Global War on Terrorism together made the connection implicit, if not explicit.
So, while I'm thankful for whatever change of heart Democrats feel free to muster two and a half years after the fact, and am hopeful that the debacle in Iraq will serve to dissuade the country and its most militant members from launching any further like minded endeavors, the fact remains that the country was scared into attacking Iraq, not out of a fear of what that country could do, but out of fear from our own citizens, goaded by Fox/Clear Channel propagandists, and armed with dubious information and misapplied "patriotic" zeal, the kind of which I hope not to see again.
The Cheney Effect
I was one of the many who thought that George W. Bush's selection of Dick Cheney to be his running mate in 2000 was a bold, effective move. And by most all accounts, Cheney has been the strongest, most involved VP in history.
But therein lies the problem. He's been too involved, and too often wrong in his policy goals, and in his political prognostications (and this was even before the Iraq war was launched), as Josh Marshall documented almost three years ago.
Meanwhile, the Libby indictments have refocused attention on the Vice, and not in a flattering way.
There was this article in the Boston Globe that highlighted Cheney's proclivity to usurp authority. It also turns out that Cheney opposed detente with the Soviets, the War on Poverty programs (including the ones that worked), thought Gorbachev and his Glassnost/Perestroika a sham, and regretted the end of the Cold War. And naturally welcomed the military rejuvenation that 9-11 created.
Mahablog has a great summary and synthesis of the more recent material on Cheney that has come out in both the old and "new media". Atrios, the Washington Monthly, and Slate, among others have come forward with new interpretations of Cheney's influence and supposed competence. As Atrios wonders, what was it about Cheney that made us think he was bright and in charge?
The truth is it's not entirely clear where Dick Cheney's reputation for competence came from. I expect it came from being white, sounding serious, and talking the right talk.
But now we know.
Go read up on our Veep and all that he has wrought.
P.S. I was just thinking about the fact that at least one of the rumored candidates on Bush's VP list back in 2000 was John Danforth, the former Senator from Missouri, who has since come out a couple of times to warn about the dangers posed by the religious right in his party's and our country's politics. While I wouldn't have welcomed a Bush win under any circumstances, I can't help but think how much better off we would have been if Danforth, rather than Cheney, had had Bush's ear for the last five years.
But therein lies the problem. He's been too involved, and too often wrong in his policy goals, and in his political prognostications (and this was even before the Iraq war was launched), as Josh Marshall documented almost three years ago.
Meanwhile, the Libby indictments have refocused attention on the Vice, and not in a flattering way.
There was this article in the Boston Globe that highlighted Cheney's proclivity to usurp authority. It also turns out that Cheney opposed detente with the Soviets, the War on Poverty programs (including the ones that worked), thought Gorbachev and his Glassnost/Perestroika a sham, and regretted the end of the Cold War. And naturally welcomed the military rejuvenation that 9-11 created.
Mahablog has a great summary and synthesis of the more recent material on Cheney that has come out in both the old and "new media". Atrios, the Washington Monthly, and Slate, among others have come forward with new interpretations of Cheney's influence and supposed competence. As Atrios wonders, what was it about Cheney that made us think he was bright and in charge?
The truth is it's not entirely clear where Dick Cheney's reputation for competence came from. I expect it came from being white, sounding serious, and talking the right talk.
But now we know.
Go read up on our Veep and all that he has wrought.
P.S. I was just thinking about the fact that at least one of the rumored candidates on Bush's VP list back in 2000 was John Danforth, the former Senator from Missouri, who has since come out a couple of times to warn about the dangers posed by the religious right in his party's and our country's politics. While I wouldn't have welcomed a Bush win under any circumstances, I can't help but think how much better off we would have been if Danforth, rather than Cheney, had had Bush's ear for the last five years.
Kaine, Corzine Win
That Corzine appears to be winning handily in NJ, my home state, isn't surprising. And it appears that Corzine will be appointing acting NJ Governor Codey as his replacement in the U.S. Senate, so basically, in NJ, the Democratic governor and Senator are switching places.
Kaine had been leading, albeit only slightly, in most if not all of the polls leading up to election day. But with most of the polls within the margin of error, I wasn't comfortable he would be able to win a close race. As it turns out, it appears Kaine will win by 5 points. However, at this posting, Republicans are poised to win both the Lt. Gov and Attorney General positions in VA, although the AG race is still within 0.5 percentage points with about 95% of precincts reporting. So although Kaine wins, and with some margin to spare, it looks like he didn't have any coattails.
And it's probably worth saying that both of the big wins for Dems tonight were offices in states that were already Democratic.
Nevertheless, these are sweet victories for Democratics as the 2006 campaign approaches and the Bush Administration continues to reel.
Kaine had been leading, albeit only slightly, in most if not all of the polls leading up to election day. But with most of the polls within the margin of error, I wasn't comfortable he would be able to win a close race. As it turns out, it appears Kaine will win by 5 points. However, at this posting, Republicans are poised to win both the Lt. Gov and Attorney General positions in VA, although the AG race is still within 0.5 percentage points with about 95% of precincts reporting. So although Kaine wins, and with some margin to spare, it looks like he didn't have any coattails.
And it's probably worth saying that both of the big wins for Dems tonight were offices in states that were already Democratic.
Nevertheless, these are sweet victories for Democratics as the 2006 campaign approaches and the Bush Administration continues to reel.
Monday, November 07, 2005
1974, Not 1994
Mark Schmidt argues that for Democrats aiming to recapture Congress, 1974 makes a lot more sense as a model than 1994.
Theres a mundane reason that the 1994 model wont work for Democrats in 2006, and it can be summed up in the numbers 53 and 18. Going into the 1994 election, Gingrich could identify 53 congressional districts whose voters had backed the first President Bush in 1992, even as he carried only 37 percent of the nationwide vote, while sending a Democrat to Congress. Many of these districts had been voting reliably for Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, and even Barry Goldwater while never quite shedding their allegiance to a local Democratic representative. What Gingrich did in nationalizing the election was to encourage voters to look at their Democratic representative in the light of their already established presidential preferences. Even before the Contract with America or the verbal stylings of pollster Frank Luntz, once Gingrich had candidates and a tide of hostility to Bill Clinton in the South and rural districts elsewhere, he had all the ingredients he needed.
Going into 2006, however, there are only 18 districts that went for John Kerry and also sent a Republican, often a moderate, to Congress. Many of those districts are ripe targets, and perhaps enough of those Republicans will fall to make moderate Republicans eligible for protection under the Endangered Species Act (assuming their party hasnt succeeded in repealing it). But thats a very small window of transitional districts compared with Gingrichs opportunity.
Thats not to say Democrats cant win, but they wont do it solely by nationalizing the election in imitation of Gingrich. They will win as individuals in local races. It is not 1994 but 1974 that Democrats should be looking to as a model. That year brought 75 new Democrats to Washington. More than just a partisan shift, it brought a change in the style and approach of Democratic candidates and representatives. It is still easy to spot the politician who got his start in 1974 or shortly after, some were liberal, some less so, but most were very serious about policy. They had a national perspective but were diligent to a fault about constituent service, parades, local mayors, local problems. They understood that with a large and complicated federal government, a members role is not just to deliver pork but also to maneuver the system for peoples good. They were ready for C-SPAN, which arrived in the House four years after they did. They put out a press release a day. And they were generally reformist, although that impulse has waned over time. Above all, they got it, got that Congress was becoming a transparent institution, that reform was a core theme, that the executive branch was out of control.
(snip)
The Class of 74 Dems, by contrast (to 1994 and the Republicans), were not gate-crashers, rookies, or ideologues. Of the three Class of 74 Dems who remain in the House, George Miller of California, who last week forced the White House to back down on its plan to suspend the Davis-Bacon Act for Hurricane Katrina recovery, best exemplifies their pragmatic, intense, but liberal style, as do Tom Harkin and Chris Dodd in the Senate. Senator Chuck Schumer is the quintessential Class of 74 striver, but he won election to the New York state Senate that year, and needed to wait six more until a House seat opened. Bill Clinton, age 28, would have been in the Class of 74 had he won 6,000 more votes in his first race against a Republican who never faced a serious challenge before or since.
(snip)
The national issues of Watergate, reform, and Vietnam gave a common theme to the Class of 74 Dems, but they did not have a common slogan or a contract or get their talking points on 8-track tapes from Speaker Carl Albert. The national issues put some wind in their sails, but they were mostly skilled local candidates who learned their own constituencies better than their opponents or predecessors.
How did they develop those skills? For many it was the energetic but failed campaigns of the previous years, George McGovern, Bobby Kennedy, Eugene McCarthy. For some it was experience in movements, the civil-rights movement, the consumer movement. And for some, like Representative Toby Moffett of Connecticut, their experience came from statewide grass-roots progressive organizations, the kind of organizations that are built not just to win elections but also to change the agenda.
So what are the lessons of the Class of 74 for the Class of 06? First, that good candidates, independent, straight-talking, hardworking, are more valuable in current circumstances than finding a common message or contract for them. Like the Class of 74, they need to get it, that is, understand the culture of corruption they are up against, that Democrats are an opposition party today, and that the political culture created by George W. Bush and Tom DeLay is not business as usual. They need to be willing to talk about the three big issues, which I would define as reform, economic security, and Iraq, but they dont all have to say the same thing. They have to say what they think, in a way that works with their constituents.
And second, that good candidates may not come from obvious places. Like Paul Hackett in Ohios special election last August, they may not be the names that appear first when the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee looks for popular state legislators or local millionaires who can finance their own campaigns. Like Richard Morrison running against DeLay last year or like Clinton in 1974, they may appear in districts that would never be targeted by standard electoral math but where a great candidate can at the very least soften up the incumbent for the next fight. It is also a lesson to campaign contributors large and small: dont act like risk-minimizers, concentrating resources on a handful of targeted seats and discouraging challengers elsewhere, but taking the fight to as many districts as possible, an argument laid out in more detail by political scientists Jonathan Krasno and Donald Green recently.
Further, the Class of 74 offers an important lesson that candidate recruitment doesnt begin and end by creating organizations dedicated to candidate recruitment. Without movements like those of the late 60s and early 70s, and broad-based grass-roots groups in which individuals can find their way to leadership, such candidates will never appear. Building organizations that live beyond the election cycle will do far more in the long term to build back a congressional majority than even the most perfect slogan, frame, or contract.
I think Schmidt is on to something here. And read the article he links to at Ruy Teixeira's website. The only thing I'd add is that what this all points to is the need for Democrats to not only target every congressional race, but to contest every election at every level of government. What this does is help to ensure a steady supply of talent that can be recruited for higher offices, and it also serves to help show Democrats making government work. As the Democrats search for a unifying message and appeal for 2006, 1974, and our own party, seem a better fit than 1994's Contract on America.
Theres a mundane reason that the 1994 model wont work for Democrats in 2006, and it can be summed up in the numbers 53 and 18. Going into the 1994 election, Gingrich could identify 53 congressional districts whose voters had backed the first President Bush in 1992, even as he carried only 37 percent of the nationwide vote, while sending a Democrat to Congress. Many of these districts had been voting reliably for Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, and even Barry Goldwater while never quite shedding their allegiance to a local Democratic representative. What Gingrich did in nationalizing the election was to encourage voters to look at their Democratic representative in the light of their already established presidential preferences. Even before the Contract with America or the verbal stylings of pollster Frank Luntz, once Gingrich had candidates and a tide of hostility to Bill Clinton in the South and rural districts elsewhere, he had all the ingredients he needed.
Going into 2006, however, there are only 18 districts that went for John Kerry and also sent a Republican, often a moderate, to Congress. Many of those districts are ripe targets, and perhaps enough of those Republicans will fall to make moderate Republicans eligible for protection under the Endangered Species Act (assuming their party hasnt succeeded in repealing it). But thats a very small window of transitional districts compared with Gingrichs opportunity.
Thats not to say Democrats cant win, but they wont do it solely by nationalizing the election in imitation of Gingrich. They will win as individuals in local races. It is not 1994 but 1974 that Democrats should be looking to as a model. That year brought 75 new Democrats to Washington. More than just a partisan shift, it brought a change in the style and approach of Democratic candidates and representatives. It is still easy to spot the politician who got his start in 1974 or shortly after, some were liberal, some less so, but most were very serious about policy. They had a national perspective but were diligent to a fault about constituent service, parades, local mayors, local problems. They understood that with a large and complicated federal government, a members role is not just to deliver pork but also to maneuver the system for peoples good. They were ready for C-SPAN, which arrived in the House four years after they did. They put out a press release a day. And they were generally reformist, although that impulse has waned over time. Above all, they got it, got that Congress was becoming a transparent institution, that reform was a core theme, that the executive branch was out of control.
(snip)
The Class of 74 Dems, by contrast (to 1994 and the Republicans), were not gate-crashers, rookies, or ideologues. Of the three Class of 74 Dems who remain in the House, George Miller of California, who last week forced the White House to back down on its plan to suspend the Davis-Bacon Act for Hurricane Katrina recovery, best exemplifies their pragmatic, intense, but liberal style, as do Tom Harkin and Chris Dodd in the Senate. Senator Chuck Schumer is the quintessential Class of 74 striver, but he won election to the New York state Senate that year, and needed to wait six more until a House seat opened. Bill Clinton, age 28, would have been in the Class of 74 had he won 6,000 more votes in his first race against a Republican who never faced a serious challenge before or since.
(snip)
The national issues of Watergate, reform, and Vietnam gave a common theme to the Class of 74 Dems, but they did not have a common slogan or a contract or get their talking points on 8-track tapes from Speaker Carl Albert. The national issues put some wind in their sails, but they were mostly skilled local candidates who learned their own constituencies better than their opponents or predecessors.
How did they develop those skills? For many it was the energetic but failed campaigns of the previous years, George McGovern, Bobby Kennedy, Eugene McCarthy. For some it was experience in movements, the civil-rights movement, the consumer movement. And for some, like Representative Toby Moffett of Connecticut, their experience came from statewide grass-roots progressive organizations, the kind of organizations that are built not just to win elections but also to change the agenda.
So what are the lessons of the Class of 74 for the Class of 06? First, that good candidates, independent, straight-talking, hardworking, are more valuable in current circumstances than finding a common message or contract for them. Like the Class of 74, they need to get it, that is, understand the culture of corruption they are up against, that Democrats are an opposition party today, and that the political culture created by George W. Bush and Tom DeLay is not business as usual. They need to be willing to talk about the three big issues, which I would define as reform, economic security, and Iraq, but they dont all have to say the same thing. They have to say what they think, in a way that works with their constituents.
And second, that good candidates may not come from obvious places. Like Paul Hackett in Ohios special election last August, they may not be the names that appear first when the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee looks for popular state legislators or local millionaires who can finance their own campaigns. Like Richard Morrison running against DeLay last year or like Clinton in 1974, they may appear in districts that would never be targeted by standard electoral math but where a great candidate can at the very least soften up the incumbent for the next fight. It is also a lesson to campaign contributors large and small: dont act like risk-minimizers, concentrating resources on a handful of targeted seats and discouraging challengers elsewhere, but taking the fight to as many districts as possible, an argument laid out in more detail by political scientists Jonathan Krasno and Donald Green recently.
Further, the Class of 74 offers an important lesson that candidate recruitment doesnt begin and end by creating organizations dedicated to candidate recruitment. Without movements like those of the late 60s and early 70s, and broad-based grass-roots groups in which individuals can find their way to leadership, such candidates will never appear. Building organizations that live beyond the election cycle will do far more in the long term to build back a congressional majority than even the most perfect slogan, frame, or contract.
I think Schmidt is on to something here. And read the article he links to at Ruy Teixeira's website. The only thing I'd add is that what this all points to is the need for Democrats to not only target every congressional race, but to contest every election at every level of government. What this does is help to ensure a steady supply of talent that can be recruited for higher offices, and it also serves to help show Democrats making government work. As the Democrats search for a unifying message and appeal for 2006, 1974, and our own party, seem a better fit than 1994's Contract on America.
The Case Against Gay Marriage
Somebody posted this up on Craigslist, but I ripped it off from Approximately Perfect:
10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong
01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
Re-post this if you believe love makes a marriage.
10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong
01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
Re-post this if you believe love makes a marriage.
Is the Filibuster Good or Bad for Progressives?
I tend to agree with Scott at LGM that Scalito is filibuster-worthy, and I agree with the arguments of those who say that as long as the filibuster is available for Democrats to use, they shouldn't be intimidated by Republicans or the press from exercising their right to use it. Even if it results in Republicans unleashing the Nuclear Option to defeat it.
But I'm not so sure I agree with Big Media Matt that Democrats should feel free to invoke the filibuster in an effort to make Republicans do, what will in effect, put the end to filibustering any and all legislation or appointments.
The filibuster is bad. In the long run, the aspects of the U.S. Constitution that make it hard to enact legislation favor conservatism. On any given day, of course, either side may be helped. At the moment, the Democrats are in the minority so filibusters let them do useful things. But over the long haul, a more parliamentary system would advantage liberals.Breaking the rules is also bad. This, at the end of the day, is what the nuclear option comes down to: not changing the filibuster rule, but violating some other procedural rules in order to change the filibuster rule.
The seven Republican members of the gang are engaging in shameful acts of political blackmail. If they think the Senate rules shouldn't be violated, they should stand against efforts to violate them, not go around striking compromises.
Last, Judge Alito is bad. Since filibusters are, under the current rules, permitted, Democrats may as well use them to stop bad things from happening.
All that being said, the worst possible outcome here is one in which moderate Democrats allow Alito on to the bench in order to preserve the filibuster -- a re-run, in other words, of the original "Gang of 14" deal. If Alito winds up on the Supreme Court, the best possible way for that to happen would be a way that also eliminates the filibuster rule. If the filibuster rule is to be maintained, then the best possible way for that to happen would be one that keeps bad judges off the bench.
I'm not as comfortable as Matt is that the filibuster is a damn holding back the tide of progressive politics. Certainly it was used to obstruct civil rights for many years, a not insignificant outcome where people's lives in the south were concerned.
But consider this list of (proposed) Constitutional Amendments posted over at Washington Monthly.
Progressives are fortunate that the liberalization of the Supreme Court has ensured that the worst of these measures haven't been able to clear the normal legislative process. But a more conservative court (and obviously the Alito nomination is relevant here) might enable Congress to act outside of the Constitutional Amendment process on matters such as flag-burning, school prayer, the income tax, and gay marriage. Should that day come, and it's certainly not beyond the realm of comprehension, the filibuster would come in handy.
So while I'm not opposed to filibustering court nominees, and this nominee (Scalito) in particular, doing it as a means to end the filibuster outright I believe is short-sighted. But might it, as Matt suggests, nevertheless work for progressives in the long run to get rid of the filibuster? Perhaps. But in the short-run, if the tenor of our current political environment is any indication, the lack of the filibuster could be catastrophic for human rights and national progress.
But I'm not so sure I agree with Big Media Matt that Democrats should feel free to invoke the filibuster in an effort to make Republicans do, what will in effect, put the end to filibustering any and all legislation or appointments.
The filibuster is bad. In the long run, the aspects of the U.S. Constitution that make it hard to enact legislation favor conservatism. On any given day, of course, either side may be helped. At the moment, the Democrats are in the minority so filibusters let them do useful things. But over the long haul, a more parliamentary system would advantage liberals.Breaking the rules is also bad. This, at the end of the day, is what the nuclear option comes down to: not changing the filibuster rule, but violating some other procedural rules in order to change the filibuster rule.
The seven Republican members of the gang are engaging in shameful acts of political blackmail. If they think the Senate rules shouldn't be violated, they should stand against efforts to violate them, not go around striking compromises.
Last, Judge Alito is bad. Since filibusters are, under the current rules, permitted, Democrats may as well use them to stop bad things from happening.
All that being said, the worst possible outcome here is one in which moderate Democrats allow Alito on to the bench in order to preserve the filibuster -- a re-run, in other words, of the original "Gang of 14" deal. If Alito winds up on the Supreme Court, the best possible way for that to happen would be a way that also eliminates the filibuster rule. If the filibuster rule is to be maintained, then the best possible way for that to happen would be one that keeps bad judges off the bench.
I'm not as comfortable as Matt is that the filibuster is a damn holding back the tide of progressive politics. Certainly it was used to obstruct civil rights for many years, a not insignificant outcome where people's lives in the south were concerned.
But consider this list of (proposed) Constitutional Amendments posted over at Washington Monthly.
Progressives are fortunate that the liberalization of the Supreme Court has ensured that the worst of these measures haven't been able to clear the normal legislative process. But a more conservative court (and obviously the Alito nomination is relevant here) might enable Congress to act outside of the Constitutional Amendment process on matters such as flag-burning, school prayer, the income tax, and gay marriage. Should that day come, and it's certainly not beyond the realm of comprehension, the filibuster would come in handy.
So while I'm not opposed to filibustering court nominees, and this nominee (Scalito) in particular, doing it as a means to end the filibuster outright I believe is short-sighted. But might it, as Matt suggests, nevertheless work for progressives in the long run to get rid of the filibuster? Perhaps. But in the short-run, if the tenor of our current political environment is any indication, the lack of the filibuster could be catastrophic for human rights and national progress.
I Love It When She's Angry
Amanda from Pandagon layeth the smacketh down on uber-conservative columnist John Leo and "spousal notification". (Leo's comments are in italics).
Can I just one more time point out that I love the way that Townhall columnists always feel the need to modify the word "feminist" and/or use the word "feminist" as a modifier? It's a tacit acceptance that most people don't have women's rights nearly as much as they do, so they have to spook up the word some.
Alito stands accused of patriarchal overreach and making it possible for outraged and abusive husbands to attack their wives. Planned Parenthood called Alito’s vote “callous disregard of battered women.” Karen Pearl, interim president of Planned Parenthood, said much the same thing in a blog, and the criticism spread rapidly on the left. A woman writing in the Philadelphia Daily News said Alito’s vote in the case proved he is “dangerously radical.”
Silly feminists. Don't you know that it's not your job to determine when the patriarchy is overreaching? The patriarchy will tell you when it's overreaching and in this case, it's investigated itself and found itself innocent.
Yet this attack is all wrong on the facts. There was no callous disregard for women. Alito wrote in the 1991 decision that “the plight of any women, no matter how few, who may suffer physical abuse or other harm as a result of this provision is a matter of grave concern.”
Of course, that's not enough to satisfy those greedy bitches on the feminist left. What the hell do you women want? The man said he felt bad for women that he intends to send home to get beat by their husbands for daring to get pregnant--in the old days, they wouldn't have done abused women the favor of pretending to care but just laughed in their faces.
Oh, you want protection against male violence? Well, the patriarchy says that's just too fucking bad.
The law he was scrutinizing had an exception for the danger of abuse by the husband. The law did not require spousal notification if the abortion was a medical emergency, if the father couldn’t be located, if the spouse was not the father, if the pregnancy was caused by sexual assault, or if the woman believed bodily injury would result from telling her husband about the coming abortion.
Luckily, there's no judges sitting on benches that are unsympathetic to a woman's worries about being hurt--oh, I'm sorry. What's that you yipping hysterical feminists are saying? That women's concerns about violence are ignored all the fucking time and often with tragic results?
Well, no matter. A few dead or battered women is the price the patriarchy feels comfortable paying to make sure that men feel within their legal rights to lay claim to their wives' bodies.
The spousal notification provision passed the legislature with major support from both parties and was signed into law by a Democratic governor, Robert Casey.
And according to the rules written by Republicans for everyone else to follow, feminists are not allowed to criticize male dominance if any Democrat ever has supported it.
Can I just one more time point out that I love the way that Townhall columnists always feel the need to modify the word "feminist" and/or use the word "feminist" as a modifier? It's a tacit acceptance that most people don't have women's rights nearly as much as they do, so they have to spook up the word some.
Alito stands accused of patriarchal overreach and making it possible for outraged and abusive husbands to attack their wives. Planned Parenthood called Alito’s vote “callous disregard of battered women.” Karen Pearl, interim president of Planned Parenthood, said much the same thing in a blog, and the criticism spread rapidly on the left. A woman writing in the Philadelphia Daily News said Alito’s vote in the case proved he is “dangerously radical.”
Silly feminists. Don't you know that it's not your job to determine when the patriarchy is overreaching? The patriarchy will tell you when it's overreaching and in this case, it's investigated itself and found itself innocent.
Yet this attack is all wrong on the facts. There was no callous disregard for women. Alito wrote in the 1991 decision that “the plight of any women, no matter how few, who may suffer physical abuse or other harm as a result of this provision is a matter of grave concern.”
Of course, that's not enough to satisfy those greedy bitches on the feminist left. What the hell do you women want? The man said he felt bad for women that he intends to send home to get beat by their husbands for daring to get pregnant--in the old days, they wouldn't have done abused women the favor of pretending to care but just laughed in their faces.
Oh, you want protection against male violence? Well, the patriarchy says that's just too fucking bad.
The law he was scrutinizing had an exception for the danger of abuse by the husband. The law did not require spousal notification if the abortion was a medical emergency, if the father couldn’t be located, if the spouse was not the father, if the pregnancy was caused by sexual assault, or if the woman believed bodily injury would result from telling her husband about the coming abortion.
Luckily, there's no judges sitting on benches that are unsympathetic to a woman's worries about being hurt--oh, I'm sorry. What's that you yipping hysterical feminists are saying? That women's concerns about violence are ignored all the fucking time and often with tragic results?
Well, no matter. A few dead or battered women is the price the patriarchy feels comfortable paying to make sure that men feel within their legal rights to lay claim to their wives' bodies.
The spousal notification provision passed the legislature with major support from both parties and was signed into law by a Democratic governor, Robert Casey.
And according to the rules written by Republicans for everyone else to follow, feminists are not allowed to criticize male dominance if any Democrat ever has supported it.
MMQB
Yesterday was a great day for my pick selections. I got 9 out of 13. Of the 4 I missed, only the Bengals-Ravens game was way off. I picked SD to cover against the Jets (6.5), KC to cover against the Raiders (4.5), and the Bears to cover against the Saints (3).
Anyway, on the games.
Eagles 10
Skins 17
First win by the Skins over the Eagles in four years, but it shouldn't have been this close. Dallas and Denver have ripped the Phily defense. The Eagles can't run the ball, they don't run the ball, McNabb has been playing with something called a sports hernia, and oh yeah, no TO. And even at that, the Skins needed a couple of McNabb miscues to hold on.
Raiders 23
Chiefs 27
Great call by Vermeil at the end to run it in rather than kick the field goal and go for the tie. But not really a surprising one. The ball was at the one and a half inch line. Yet the CBS announcers were saying "it'll be a pass...it'll be a pass...look for a pass". Why?
Giants 24
SF 6
A closer game than anyone expected as the niner's kept it close for most of the game.
Panthers 34
Bucs 14
Carolina looking like the team to beat in the NFC.
Bengals 21
Ravens 6
I expected Baltimore to come out on fire in this game after last Monday night's performance against the Steelers, but they didn't. I thought the Bengals got a really bad officiating call on a pass from Palmer into the endzone that looked like a TD, but was overturned on review. So the outcome could have been even worse.
Steelers 20
Pack 10
The line on this game went from 6 to 3 when the news of Rothlesberger's not playing became known. But the Steelers are a running team, which they did a lot of yesterday. Duce Staley, playing for practically the first time all season, looks to be about as big as The Bus.
Chargers 31
Jets 26
Chargers had a big lead then let it slip away as the Jets put a scare into the them in the final seconds. Vinny was on the bench, Brook Bollinger played and appeared to do very well. LT had four touchdowns (after the ESPN radio crew spent the morning ripping Schottenheimer for not running him more).
Next Week: Skins at Tampa and Ravens at Jaguars. I was more confident of Washington's changes before last night. The Jaguars are probably a lot better than the Ravens, but because they don't score much, this game should be close.
Anyway, on the games.
Eagles 10
Skins 17
First win by the Skins over the Eagles in four years, but it shouldn't have been this close. Dallas and Denver have ripped the Phily defense. The Eagles can't run the ball, they don't run the ball, McNabb has been playing with something called a sports hernia, and oh yeah, no TO. And even at that, the Skins needed a couple of McNabb miscues to hold on.
Raiders 23
Chiefs 27
Great call by Vermeil at the end to run it in rather than kick the field goal and go for the tie. But not really a surprising one. The ball was at the one and a half inch line. Yet the CBS announcers were saying "it'll be a pass...it'll be a pass...look for a pass". Why?
Giants 24
SF 6
A closer game than anyone expected as the niner's kept it close for most of the game.
Panthers 34
Bucs 14
Carolina looking like the team to beat in the NFC.
Bengals 21
Ravens 6
I expected Baltimore to come out on fire in this game after last Monday night's performance against the Steelers, but they didn't. I thought the Bengals got a really bad officiating call on a pass from Palmer into the endzone that looked like a TD, but was overturned on review. So the outcome could have been even worse.
Steelers 20
Pack 10
The line on this game went from 6 to 3 when the news of Rothlesberger's not playing became known. But the Steelers are a running team, which they did a lot of yesterday. Duce Staley, playing for practically the first time all season, looks to be about as big as The Bus.
Chargers 31
Jets 26
Chargers had a big lead then let it slip away as the Jets put a scare into the them in the final seconds. Vinny was on the bench, Brook Bollinger played and appeared to do very well. LT had four touchdowns (after the ESPN radio crew spent the morning ripping Schottenheimer for not running him more).
Next Week: Skins at Tampa and Ravens at Jaguars. I was more confident of Washington's changes before last night. The Jaguars are probably a lot better than the Ravens, but because they don't score much, this game should be close.
Friday, November 04, 2005
Partisan Democrats?
The Yellow Dog Democrat has two very good pieces analyzing the partisanship of Republican voting in the U.S. Senate.
The first is here:
Today's follow-up is here:
The bottom line is that for all the Republicans' bellyaching this week about Harry Reid's shutdown maneuver, the Republican Senate--including its supposedly moderate wing--has given Democrats absolutely zilch in the way of bipartisan cooperation. 80% of Democratic sponsored bills--many of them amendments--have been swatted down by the Republican majority, and most with near unanimous Republican solidarity.
The YDD derives from this that Republicans don't have anything to bitch about when it comes to "bipartisanship" or "cooperation" or "courtesy".
What I draw from these statistics, in addition, is that the so-called "moderate" group of Republicans is a myth. They may talk a good game, occasionally, about wanting to hold the administration accountable or of wanting to do good by the American people, but their voting undermines their claims. You might want to remember the pattern of voting among "moderate" Republican senators when Chuck Hagel and John McCain come calling for independent and Democratic votes in 2008.
Thanks to MahaBlog for the link.
The first is here:
Today's follow-up is here:
The bottom line is that for all the Republicans' bellyaching this week about Harry Reid's shutdown maneuver, the Republican Senate--including its supposedly moderate wing--has given Democrats absolutely zilch in the way of bipartisan cooperation. 80% of Democratic sponsored bills--many of them amendments--have been swatted down by the Republican majority, and most with near unanimous Republican solidarity.
The YDD derives from this that Republicans don't have anything to bitch about when it comes to "bipartisanship" or "cooperation" or "courtesy".
What I draw from these statistics, in addition, is that the so-called "moderate" group of Republicans is a myth. They may talk a good game, occasionally, about wanting to hold the administration accountable or of wanting to do good by the American people, but their voting undermines their claims. You might want to remember the pattern of voting among "moderate" Republican senators when Chuck Hagel and John McCain come calling for independent and Democratic votes in 2008.
Thanks to MahaBlog for the link.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Don't Forget C-Span
Although Harry Reid got the attention earlier this week when he shut down the Senate in protest over Republican foot-dragging on the Intelligence Committee's WMD-White House investigation, House Democrats have also been keeping the heat on.
On the night of Rule 21, four House Democrats, Tim Ryan (OH), William Delahunt (MA) and two reps from Florida (Debbie Shultz Wasserman and Kendrick Meek) let it rip. Picking up where Reid left off, the four let loose on Rove, Scooter, Cheney and the cabal's lies and failures. Tim Ryan was the best.
Tonight the same tandem was at it again, this time reading from the Michael Brown's greatest hits email trail.
With the dominance of the right wing media it sometimes feels as if Democrats are nowhere to be seen or heard, and have been intimidated into silence. But at least some aren't afraid and haven't mailed it in.
So when you get a chance, tune into C-Span at night, after hours. And remember to show these reps some love, too. Harry Reid was great this week, but others are helping, too.
On the night of Rule 21, four House Democrats, Tim Ryan (OH), William Delahunt (MA) and two reps from Florida (Debbie Shultz Wasserman and Kendrick Meek) let it rip. Picking up where Reid left off, the four let loose on Rove, Scooter, Cheney and the cabal's lies and failures. Tim Ryan was the best.
Tonight the same tandem was at it again, this time reading from the Michael Brown's greatest hits email trail.
With the dominance of the right wing media it sometimes feels as if Democrats are nowhere to be seen or heard, and have been intimidated into silence. But at least some aren't afraid and haven't mailed it in.
So when you get a chance, tune into C-Span at night, after hours. And remember to show these reps some love, too. Harry Reid was great this week, but others are helping, too.
Could Evan Bayh Win Indiana's Electoral Votes?
LA Democrat at MyDD assumes he can.
I'm not so sure. Yes, he's won his gubernatorial and Senate races there handily. But having those same voters choose him for the presidency, where they could reasonably assume his views--if more liberal than their own--would have more importance, give me pause. And his Republican competition would be much steeper in a presidential race than the state level.
Nevertheless, his prospects in that state, and in other proximate or border states (Ohio, Missouri, Iowa, Kentucky) are probably better in those places than those any other candidate, at least on paper.
And while we're a million years from 2008, Bush's poll numbers are down everywhere, including these states, giving this Democrat at least a sliver of hope the Democratic candidate can pry one or more of those states away from the Republicans in 2008.
Bayh is also making himself seen. C-Span carried a speech he gave recently for New Hampshire's Democratic-sponsored, Jefferson-Jackson Day fundraiser, which was at least the second time he's been in the state, or at least the second time C-Span carried his presence there in the last couple of months.
At the same time, Joe Biden and John Edwards, appeared to appreciative crowds recently in Kentucky.
With beseiged and unpopular governors in Ohio and Kentucky, Republicans are on the defensive there.
Naturally, there's a lot of time left for Bush to regain his second-term footing, and even if he doesn't fully recapture his previous aura among the faithful, another Republican candidate in 08 may reignite conservatives. And Kentucky's Fletcher and Ohio's Taft will be gone by then.
But its better to have favorable indicators at even this early stage than to not have them.
I'm not so sure. Yes, he's won his gubernatorial and Senate races there handily. But having those same voters choose him for the presidency, where they could reasonably assume his views--if more liberal than their own--would have more importance, give me pause. And his Republican competition would be much steeper in a presidential race than the state level.
Nevertheless, his prospects in that state, and in other proximate or border states (Ohio, Missouri, Iowa, Kentucky) are probably better in those places than those any other candidate, at least on paper.
And while we're a million years from 2008, Bush's poll numbers are down everywhere, including these states, giving this Democrat at least a sliver of hope the Democratic candidate can pry one or more of those states away from the Republicans in 2008.
Bayh is also making himself seen. C-Span carried a speech he gave recently for New Hampshire's Democratic-sponsored, Jefferson-Jackson Day fundraiser, which was at least the second time he's been in the state, or at least the second time C-Span carried his presence there in the last couple of months.
At the same time, Joe Biden and John Edwards, appeared to appreciative crowds recently in Kentucky.
With beseiged and unpopular governors in Ohio and Kentucky, Republicans are on the defensive there.
Naturally, there's a lot of time left for Bush to regain his second-term footing, and even if he doesn't fully recapture his previous aura among the faithful, another Republican candidate in 08 may reignite conservatives. And Kentucky's Fletcher and Ohio's Taft will be gone by then.
But its better to have favorable indicators at even this early stage than to not have them.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Bombshell
Harry Reid has effectively shut down the Senate, using a procedure known as Rule 21, which requires only a seconding motion to summon all the Senators to a behind-close-doors session, to call Republicans to task over the Plame outing, the Scooter Libby indictment, and the war fiasco. In particular, Reid is calling the Republican leadership and Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts to task for not following through on their stated commitment to conduct a phase 2 investigation of the lead-up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.
And he's blistering the administration on just about everything, from the war to Katrina and the prison abuse scandal.
Republicans were just starting to bask in the idea, and the media's acceptance of their spin, that the Libby indictment meant the end of the CIA-leak investigation ("there was no crime...only one indictment...Libby just one bad apple...nothing to see hear, please disperse and move along") and that with the withdrawal of Harriet Miers and the subsequent nomination of radical conservative Sam Alito, the conservatives were back in charge again. Well, they may be in charge, but Harry Reid is turning up the heat.
Republican leaders, conditioned by past Democratic acquiescence, are shocked, SHOCKED by the sudden spine growth:
Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said Reid was making "some sort of stink about Scooter Libby and the CIA leak."
In addition, Lott said, Reid's move violated the Senate's tradition of courtesy and consent. But there was nothing in Senate rules enabling Republicans to thwart Reid's effort.
As Reid spoke, Frist met in the back of the chamber with a half-dozen senior GOP senators, including Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts of Kansas, who bore the brunt of Reid's criticism. Reid said Roberts reneged on a promise to fully investigate whether the administration exaggerated and manipulated intelligence leading up to the war.
The Republicans are upset. What happened to "courtesy and consent"? Boo hoo hoo. And the Media was caught without its Republican talking points.
"I never did give them hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell."
---Harry S. Truman (Reid)
And he's blistering the administration on just about everything, from the war to Katrina and the prison abuse scandal.
Republicans were just starting to bask in the idea, and the media's acceptance of their spin, that the Libby indictment meant the end of the CIA-leak investigation ("there was no crime...only one indictment...Libby just one bad apple...nothing to see hear, please disperse and move along") and that with the withdrawal of Harriet Miers and the subsequent nomination of radical conservative Sam Alito, the conservatives were back in charge again. Well, they may be in charge, but Harry Reid is turning up the heat.
Republican leaders, conditioned by past Democratic acquiescence, are shocked, SHOCKED by the sudden spine growth:
Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said Reid was making "some sort of stink about Scooter Libby and the CIA leak."
In addition, Lott said, Reid's move violated the Senate's tradition of courtesy and consent. But there was nothing in Senate rules enabling Republicans to thwart Reid's effort.
As Reid spoke, Frist met in the back of the chamber with a half-dozen senior GOP senators, including Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts of Kansas, who bore the brunt of Reid's criticism. Reid said Roberts reneged on a promise to fully investigate whether the administration exaggerated and manipulated intelligence leading up to the war.
The Republicans are upset. What happened to "courtesy and consent"? Boo hoo hoo. And the Media was caught without its Republican talking points.
"I never did give them hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell."
---Harry S. Truman (Reid)
Scalito: A Filibuster-Worth Pick?
Democrats will soon have to consider whether the nomination of Sam "Scalito" warrants a filibuster to stop.
What are the main factors that should influence such a decision?
I think the factors break down between the practical and the principled.
The practical factors, of course, are whether the filibuster would be successful, both in its immediate impact on defeating Scalito, and on its deterrent effect in persuading Bush to nominate a more moderate jurist. A secondary practical factor is that of whether the party risks opposition from the conservative press, and public opinion for Democratic Senators in red states, by filibustering.
Principled factors include the party's long term policy agenda and ideological beliefs. Other principled factors could include the historical application of the filibuster to supreme court picks by a minority party, the Democratic Party's past support for "Scalito" and other conservative nominees, both under the current administration, and in past decades--such as the well-trumpeted (by conservatives) unanimous support for Scalia in the 1980's.
From a practical standpoint, I think a filibuster would fail. The Republicans would initiate the nuclear option. The conservative press, which is already trying to force an easy confirmation, would be hostile (witness the early antics of Tweety).
But if "Scalito" warrants a filibuster, I believe Democrats should go to the mattresses, anyway.
This is because while it's immediate practical implications might be negative, it would help, if not force, Democrats to finally confront the Constitutional issues that underly its opposition, thus serving to help distinguish itself from the radical conservatives heading the Republican Party.
As for any rhetoric from conservatives in the media that "it's unprecedented to filibuster" judicial nominees, and that Democrats risk appearing unprincipled, if not inconsistent, in approving past conservative appointments but opposing this one, let me just say this about that: That was then, this is now. The rules have changed. And the Republicans have changed them. As Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson point out in their book, Off Center, the Republican Power Elite has spent the last 20 years skewing the rules of politics to the benefit of themselves and their privileged supporters. Democrats should not feel obligated to play by old rules that the media wants applied only to the Democratic Party. If the filibuster is a tool remaining in the political arsenal, Democrats should not hesitate to use it.
As for the risk a Democratic led filibuster could cause for the next Democratic Administration or Democratic Senate, do you think the next Republican Congress in an Evan Bayh or Joe Biden administration is going to play nicely regardless of how the Democrats treat Scalito?
It's time that Democrats recognized their status as the minority party. As Hacker and Pierson point out, Democrats are a congressional minority in part due to the biases inherent in a system that apportions Senate votes equally to all the states, minimizing the influence of larger states with big cities (in fact, as the authors point out, the Democratic share of the vote in both the House and the Senate is higher than its representation), and in part due to the influence of redistricting in the House. Neither institutional constraint is going away anytime soon. The Democrats face a long road ahead. One of the ways to start the path back to power is to set out for all to see, what the party stands for. The Scalito nomination seems as good a place as any to start.
What are the main factors that should influence such a decision?
I think the factors break down between the practical and the principled.
The practical factors, of course, are whether the filibuster would be successful, both in its immediate impact on defeating Scalito, and on its deterrent effect in persuading Bush to nominate a more moderate jurist. A secondary practical factor is that of whether the party risks opposition from the conservative press, and public opinion for Democratic Senators in red states, by filibustering.
Principled factors include the party's long term policy agenda and ideological beliefs. Other principled factors could include the historical application of the filibuster to supreme court picks by a minority party, the Democratic Party's past support for "Scalito" and other conservative nominees, both under the current administration, and in past decades--such as the well-trumpeted (by conservatives) unanimous support for Scalia in the 1980's.
From a practical standpoint, I think a filibuster would fail. The Republicans would initiate the nuclear option. The conservative press, which is already trying to force an easy confirmation, would be hostile (witness the early antics of Tweety).
But if "Scalito" warrants a filibuster, I believe Democrats should go to the mattresses, anyway.
This is because while it's immediate practical implications might be negative, it would help, if not force, Democrats to finally confront the Constitutional issues that underly its opposition, thus serving to help distinguish itself from the radical conservatives heading the Republican Party.
As for any rhetoric from conservatives in the media that "it's unprecedented to filibuster" judicial nominees, and that Democrats risk appearing unprincipled, if not inconsistent, in approving past conservative appointments but opposing this one, let me just say this about that: That was then, this is now. The rules have changed. And the Republicans have changed them. As Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson point out in their book, Off Center, the Republican Power Elite has spent the last 20 years skewing the rules of politics to the benefit of themselves and their privileged supporters. Democrats should not feel obligated to play by old rules that the media wants applied only to the Democratic Party. If the filibuster is a tool remaining in the political arsenal, Democrats should not hesitate to use it.
As for the risk a Democratic led filibuster could cause for the next Democratic Administration or Democratic Senate, do you think the next Republican Congress in an Evan Bayh or Joe Biden administration is going to play nicely regardless of how the Democrats treat Scalito?
It's time that Democrats recognized their status as the minority party. As Hacker and Pierson point out, Democrats are a congressional minority in part due to the biases inherent in a system that apportions Senate votes equally to all the states, minimizing the influence of larger states with big cities (in fact, as the authors point out, the Democratic share of the vote in both the House and the Senate is higher than its representation), and in part due to the influence of redistricting in the House. Neither institutional constraint is going away anytime soon. The Democrats face a long road ahead. One of the ways to start the path back to power is to set out for all to see, what the party stands for. The Scalito nomination seems as good a place as any to start.
Scalito: Anti-Worker
Nathan Newman at TPM Cafe has the rundown on "Scalito's" anti-worker opinions while on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
It says a lot about the state of our nation's politics that not only is this the type of judge that could be nominated to the highest court in the land, but that there is a not insignificant portion of the body politic that views such a nomination with gusto.
And that the Democratic Party has not put forth a clear and concerted effort in recent years to repudiate the type of policies and the underlying philosophy that's represented by this pick is of even greater worry.
It says a lot about the state of our nation's politics that not only is this the type of judge that could be nominated to the highest court in the land, but that there is a not insignificant portion of the body politic that views such a nomination with gusto.
And that the Democratic Party has not put forth a clear and concerted effort in recent years to repudiate the type of policies and the underlying philosophy that's represented by this pick is of even greater worry.
An Interesting Ad
I saw an interesting political campaign ad over the weekend. It was targeted against Robert McDonnell, the Republican candidate for Virginia Attorney General, whose own ads I had already seen (and which, like this one, didn't openly identify his partisan affiliation).
Anyway, the ad reported that McDonnell was a graduate of Pat Roberton's Regent University, that Robertson had donated to McDonnell's campaign, and that McDonnell was opposed to, among other things, stem cell research (he's also, apparently, and not surprisingly, quite the homophobe).
Anyway, the ad interested me because it was the first ad I can recall seeing in a long time that openly took on the Republicans' achiles heel: the radical religious right.
Now, granted, I suspect this ad was restricted to the northern VA suburbs, and not playing down south, where Robertson, and his buddy, Jerry Falwell, are more revered.
And I don't enough about the Democratic candidate for Attorney General, Creigh Deeds', to know whether this is an act of desperation, a throw-away tactic for northern VA and not part of a broader strategy, or something else.
Regardless, it's an important step for Democratic aspirants to make. Not all Republicans can be tied to Pat Robertson so directly, but Democrats can raise the issues this ad is raising, such as stem cell research, and turn the infamous problem of wedge issues against Republicans for a change.
I'd also like to see this tactic used to raise the profile of issues like the right to privacy, and the separation of church and state, which are not only critically important issues to our society as the politics of supreme court nominations make abundantly clear, but also from a practical standpoint in that I think the radically conservative position on these issues is not the popular one.
Anyway, the ad reported that McDonnell was a graduate of Pat Roberton's Regent University, that Robertson had donated to McDonnell's campaign, and that McDonnell was opposed to, among other things, stem cell research (he's also, apparently, and not surprisingly, quite the homophobe).
Anyway, the ad interested me because it was the first ad I can recall seeing in a long time that openly took on the Republicans' achiles heel: the radical religious right.
Now, granted, I suspect this ad was restricted to the northern VA suburbs, and not playing down south, where Robertson, and his buddy, Jerry Falwell, are more revered.
And I don't enough about the Democratic candidate for Attorney General, Creigh Deeds', to know whether this is an act of desperation, a throw-away tactic for northern VA and not part of a broader strategy, or something else.
Regardless, it's an important step for Democratic aspirants to make. Not all Republicans can be tied to Pat Robertson so directly, but Democrats can raise the issues this ad is raising, such as stem cell research, and turn the infamous problem of wedge issues against Republicans for a change.
I'd also like to see this tactic used to raise the profile of issues like the right to privacy, and the separation of church and state, which are not only critically important issues to our society as the politics of supreme court nominations make abundantly clear, but also from a practical standpoint in that I think the radically conservative position on these issues is not the popular one.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Hittin' the Books
In addition to working on my dissertation proposal, I've been hitting Borders/Amazon far too much lately.
But I think there are some real soon-to-be-destined classics out there begging to be read. Last week I got Off Center by Paul Pierson and Jacob Hacker as well as The Rise of American Democracy by Sean Wilentz.
Yesterday, I picked up Doris Kearns Goodwin's Lincoln biography, Team of Rivals, as well as The Third Reich in Power by Richard Evans. This last book is apparently the second of a planned trilogy on the rise and fall of the Nazi's.
All four seem to be well written. Off Center is the shortest by far of the four and I am the furthest along in it. I hope to be done with it soon, and to have a book report of it up here shortly.
For now, happy reading.
But I think there are some real soon-to-be-destined classics out there begging to be read. Last week I got Off Center by Paul Pierson and Jacob Hacker as well as The Rise of American Democracy by Sean Wilentz.
Yesterday, I picked up Doris Kearns Goodwin's Lincoln biography, Team of Rivals, as well as The Third Reich in Power by Richard Evans. This last book is apparently the second of a planned trilogy on the rise and fall of the Nazi's.
All four seem to be well written. Off Center is the shortest by far of the four and I am the furthest along in it. I hope to be done with it soon, and to have a book report of it up here shortly.
For now, happy reading.
MMQ
Skins 0
NYFootball Giants 36
A brutal, brutal loss for the Redskins. A terrible performance. Fortunately I was out running errands and didn't see any of the game. But here's the thing. The rest of the Skins schedule doesn't look too bad. This was destined to be one of the season's worst games. Next week the Skins HOST the Eagles, who were beaten badly in Dallas three weeks ago, and yesterday, at Denver, 49-21, and last week they barely survived on a blocked kick to beat SD (at home). From there, the Skins go to Tampa, which doesn't have a starting quarterback, host Oakland and San Diego, host the Giants, go to Arizona, go to the St. Louis Rams, and wind up the season at the Eagles. These are all winnable games for Washington, as long as the injuries that appear to be piling up don't deplete them too much.
Eagles 21
Broncos 49
Great game if you hate the Eagles (or any other NFC East team). Actually more interesting than the score might reflect. Broncos went ahead 28-0, rushing everything they had at Donovan McNabb and daring the Eagles to run, which they don't do much of. The Eagles came back with 21 straight points and we're threatening to tie the game up before Denver intercepted a pass in the end zone, triggering another Denver run. The Broncos got some big plays from RB Tatum Bell, the most recent of a long list of runners who have done well in Shanahan's offense. Jake the Snake played smart, too. Everyone's talking about Indy in the AFC given their perfect start, but Denver is creeping up, ready and waiting if Indy slips at New England next week.
Vikes 13
Panthers 38
Vikes get pounded again. And oh yeah, Daunte Culpepper is hurt, and might be out the rest of the year.
Dolphins 21
Saints 6
Jim Haslet will no doubt be joining Mike Tice on the coaches unemployment line this offseason.
Cardinals 13
Dallas 34
Dallas can put up some points. If the Skins don't rebound, I look for either the Cowboys or the Giants to win the NFC East.
Baltimore tonight
Pittsburgh
Ravens are without defensive superstars, Ed Reed and Ray Lewis. But they will have either Kyle Boller or Anthony Wright at quarterback. This could be ugly.
NYFootball Giants 36
A brutal, brutal loss for the Redskins. A terrible performance. Fortunately I was out running errands and didn't see any of the game. But here's the thing. The rest of the Skins schedule doesn't look too bad. This was destined to be one of the season's worst games. Next week the Skins HOST the Eagles, who were beaten badly in Dallas three weeks ago, and yesterday, at Denver, 49-21, and last week they barely survived on a blocked kick to beat SD (at home). From there, the Skins go to Tampa, which doesn't have a starting quarterback, host Oakland and San Diego, host the Giants, go to Arizona, go to the St. Louis Rams, and wind up the season at the Eagles. These are all winnable games for Washington, as long as the injuries that appear to be piling up don't deplete them too much.
Eagles 21
Broncos 49
Great game if you hate the Eagles (or any other NFC East team). Actually more interesting than the score might reflect. Broncos went ahead 28-0, rushing everything they had at Donovan McNabb and daring the Eagles to run, which they don't do much of. The Eagles came back with 21 straight points and we're threatening to tie the game up before Denver intercepted a pass in the end zone, triggering another Denver run. The Broncos got some big plays from RB Tatum Bell, the most recent of a long list of runners who have done well in Shanahan's offense. Jake the Snake played smart, too. Everyone's talking about Indy in the AFC given their perfect start, but Denver is creeping up, ready and waiting if Indy slips at New England next week.
Vikes 13
Panthers 38
Vikes get pounded again. And oh yeah, Daunte Culpepper is hurt, and might be out the rest of the year.
Dolphins 21
Saints 6
Jim Haslet will no doubt be joining Mike Tice on the coaches unemployment line this offseason.
Cardinals 13
Dallas 34
Dallas can put up some points. If the Skins don't rebound, I look for either the Cowboys or the Giants to win the NFC East.
Baltimore tonight
Pittsburgh
Ravens are without defensive superstars, Ed Reed and Ray Lewis. But they will have either Kyle Boller or Anthony Wright at quarterback. This could be ugly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)